Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
So, because they left the original approval date on the approved bat list, rather than change all entries, that is your "fact"? Even though it now contradicts not only ASA but NFHS, which state if the the bat has the 2000 cert and is on the approved bat list, that it has passed the 2004 standard?
Quite a leap of faith, given the inherent contradictions in your own point. But, hardly a "fact".
|
Hardly a leap of faith. ASA claims all bats must pass the 2004 BPS, but apparently not all have been tested. Just going by what they publish on the list - approval dates prior to 2004. If the bat was approved to the 2004 BPS in 2001, they have technology that they better guard carefully, or the Vulcans will be soon paying them a visit.
ASA has historically talked out of the side of their mouth on this kind of thing; they publish a rule and then back off under pressure from the manufacturers; past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior.
Therefore, a statement on a web site is hardly credible when the rest of their rules and lists to not back that up. Look at rule 3 carefully. It does not mention the 2004 BPS at all. It talks about stickers and lists. If they really were firm on this 2004 BPS thing, there would not be "other" ways of getting a bat into ASA Championship Play - umpire judgment for one. Grandfathering for another.
My mistake in all of this was also taking NFHS at their word that they meant it when they said the bat must meet the 2004 BPS. Apparently not. It just has to be "approved" by ASA.