Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
If I understand what Mike said, it was protested on the grounds of misinterpretation of the rule. In ASA, there is no rule that says no stamp = not allowed. In ASA, no stamp = umpire judgment.
Basically, if the umpire had said, "this bat has no stamp, and in my judgment, would not pass the test" he would have been fine, but since he apparently said, "this bat has no stamp and is therefore illegal" the protest was upheld.
But, I'm kinda just guessing... Mike was there, not me.
|
Not quite, but same premise. Umpire refused to allow a bat in the game that was legal based on his belief that ALL of that particular sort of bat was banned, not just a certain model. The protest was upheld because the umpire misinterpreted the list and how it is to be applied in 3.1.A.1
But what Tom says is true. The judgment is whether it is legal or not based on the age and whether it would pass the present test. Save a titanium, most (if not all) manufactured before 2000 would probably pass the present test.
However, if declared illegal for the sole reason that there was no stamp on the bat is a misapplication of 3.1.A.3.