Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
I think all of those things are already covered in the "altered" rule. The problem is with detecting them, isn't it?
|
They are not covered in the altered rule per se. The way the rules are currently written, it's just a catch all phrase(s). People are going to work in the grey area until you make it black and white.
3-1J
J. ALTERED BAT. The official bat shall not be an Altered Bat The weight, distribution
of weight, and length of the bat as well as all other characteristics of the bat
must be permanently fixed at the time of manufacture and may not be altered
in any way thereafter, except as otherwise specifically provided for in Rule 3,
Section 1, or as specifically approved by the ASA. A “flare” or “cone” grip attached
to the bat handle, inserting material inside the bat, applying excessive
tape (more than two layers) to the bat grip or painting a bat other than at the top
or bottom for identification purposes are examples of altering a bat. Replacing
the grip with another legal grip is not considered altering the bat. Laser marking
for “ID” purposes is not considered altered. Engraved “ID” marking on the
knob end only of a metal bat is not considered altered. Engraved “ID” marking
on the barrel end of a metal bat is considered an altered bat.
3-7
Section 7. ALL EQUIPMENT.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ASA reserves the right to withhold or withdraw
approval of any equipment which, in the ASA’s sole determination, significantly
changes the character of the game, affects the safety of participants or spectators,
or renders a player’s performance more a product of the player’s equipment rather
than the player’s individual skill.
The term "altered" and the phrase/wording "all other characteristics of the bat must be permanently fixed at the time of manufacture and may not be altered in any way thereafter, except as otherwise specifically provided for in Rule 3, Section 1, or as specifically approved by the ASA." need to be exactly specific.
Rolling a bat or vicing a bat does not actually physically alter (meaning take away material, add material, etc) the characteristics of the bat any more than hitting a lot of batting practice does (referring to composite bats here)...so the claimants say. The sad part is that I agree with them from a physics and physical science standpoint. Changing the temperature is an alteration, and shaving material off is an alteration, but using a machine to roll the bat to get it into a state of being broken in/loose is not an alteration. Sure, it's not an approved ASA method, but neither is BP!
That's why I say it needs to be blatantly specific and clearly black and white as to what is altered and what is not altered. As the rules are currently written, altered is completely left open to individual interpretation...and that does us no good. Hell, the rule wouldn't even stand up as is in a court of law. You and I know it's meaning and application, but that doesn't mean everyone else does...