Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
I never really paid much attention to the mongo approved list from ASA, taking them at their word that to be included on the list, a bat had to be tested and found to conform to the 2004 BPS. A careful reading of the list, however, shows that is not true. The majority of the bats on that list carry "approval" dates prior to 2004. Either the bat testing lab is contained in a souped up De Lorean or many of the bats on the "approved" list are approved based on the 2000 BPS.  |
Is it possible that the ASA scientists could interpret a given bat's 2000 test results and ascertain to a reasonable certainty that said bat would meet the 2004 standards if retested?
I read and re-read once Gmoore's post (#23) in the S-B Bats thread (but without following the link to testing standards). Even given all the variables about ball speed and weight distribution, a bat's 2000 test results might be such that it would doubtless not violate the stricter 2004 standards. It would be a certified popless bat. It thus could be kept on the approved list, but without changing the approved date. Maybe it's just an example of a scientific/bureaucratic fubar.
Also, one could argue that by certifiying that their team was legally equipped that the coach was in essence warranting that his 2000-stamped bats met the 2004 standards, just as if he had shown me a list purportedly taken from the ASA website. How hard would it be for a coach to insert a fraudulent entry into his list showing his illegal bat is approved? How easy is it to take the illegal bat out of its bag after the inspection and put it in the bat rack? And what rule says that an ump can delegate his inspection duties to a coach by requiring him to prove his 2000-stamped bats are on the ASA approved list?
Lastly, how much are we discouraging softball players by making them trash perfectly good bats and making them spend $100 for a 2004 stamp? Softball and baseball are having a hard enough time recruiting players.