Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve
This is all according to NFHS; it is on their website. NFCA simply picked up the press release.
2008 Major Editorial Changes
1-5-4
Clarifies that a legal bat must meet the 2004 ASA Bat Performance Standard, bear either the 2000 or 2004 certification mark and not be on the ASA non-approved list.
Tom, you are free to consider it an "I told you so"; but, I did. An editorial change that clarifies is not a rule that has changed; it is restated because it was being misapplied, and the rules committee wanted it applied correctly.
Regardless, this isn't the NFCA wishlist that they publish after their convention. It is the list of official changes for 2008.
http://www.nfhs.org/web/2006/08/softball.aspx |
I was just needling you and there you get all defensive!
Besides, the previous "clarification" from the NFHS was 2000 stamp didn't matter. If it did not have the 2004 stamp, it needed to be on the approved list. The controversy was whether there WERE any bats that had the 2000 stamp and were NOT on the approved list. Turns out there weren't - ASA's "approved list" is a glorified "grandfathered" list for all bats that were not specifically banned prior to 2004.
When I posted the NFCA link, I couldn't find the press release posted yet on the NFHS site. Doesn't mean it wasn't there... but that's why I linked to the NFCA. Since you had to point this out is more evidence of your "I told you so..." approach to life...
