Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
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...  |
Easy there, big boy. If you consider it an "I told you so" point, that would be fine by me. Steve and I tried to explain this issue as it pertained to the ASA standard and the NFHS rule. We ran into some folks that seemed to have no interest in the correct application, but were more in debunking how to apply the ASA standard to the rule book.
Well,
. So there!