Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbcrowder
The rule as written is probably as well written as you could hope. I think that if you started trying to define specific illegal acts, you'd actually make the rule HARDER to enforce. For instance ... if Rolling was illegal, how would you prove that the specific marks on a specific bat came from rolling? No ... I think we're better off just using the terms currently in the rules and asking our umpires to enforce them.
|
As much crap as people give ASA for not saying this or doing that in a specific manner, I believe rule wording often allows a larger scope to be taken into consideration for the purpose of trying to stay ahead of technological advances.
For example, I don't know how many times I've had to tell folks about rosin vs. resin. Yes, the product on the field is basically a rosin. However, rosin is in the resin family and using the broader term allows for someone coming up with another product that may not exactly be rosin, but still is in the resin family. Same with heating the bats. It is acknowledged that the bat warmers now on the market do not have a long term affect on the bats and would probably only be advantageous if removed from the warmer and hits the ball within seconds. However, that's not to say there could be an advancement in the product which could do a "better" job in the near future. So, since the warming of bats does technically alter the characteristics of the bat even for a short period of time, it is still illegal.