Quote:
Originally posted by Dakota
Quote:
Originally posted by Larks
Why cant the ASA set the standard for the entire season and stick with it instead of another mid season ban?
It's not right to change the rules and standards mid season. Players, teams and manufacturers have made financial commitments based on published standards from the ASA that each bat had to meet prior to 2003.
I'm not saying some bats dont need to go....lets just manage this one season at a time.
If you want to ban composites, double walls, bombats and 50% of the single walls for next year fine.
Just one ASA managers opinion.
|
Mike is much closer to this than I, but ASA has NOT, so far as I know, changed their standards one iota leading up to these bans. As an outside observer, what appears to me happened was the bat manufacturers submitted "cooked" bats or specially selected "prototypes" of bats that they knew would pass for testing by ASA. Then, their production bats were "hotter" than those submitted for testing and did not pass. Therefore, ASA banned them.
Your real beef is with the bat manufacturers for making bats that exceed the ASA performance standards and placing a (fradulent, IMO) ASA stamp on them.
Again... ASA has not changed the standard. Bat manufacturers are (IMO) intentionally making bats that are hotter than those submitted for the original testing. Some of the composite bats (according to what I have read) get "hotter" with use, and after a short time in the user's hands then exceed the standards. This, again, is (IMO) an intentional dodge by the manufacturers around the standard, and again, (IMO) they are to blame for selling you a bat that they certify meets ASA specifications when they know it does not.
|
Good points Dakota. If MFGs are intentionally mislabeling bats, those should be banned. I'm not sure I buy in to the composite argument but if true, I still think the right thing to do is wait and roll out the adjusted wording in the standard to account for bats that are known to break in and get beyond testing OR I would even have no problem banning composites for next year if that is the material that is best known for improved performance.
The fact remains, the players AKA the Customers made the decisions on what bats to buy based purely on what the ASA said was legal. The ASA has to take some responsibility in this regard. In my opinion, the ASA can afford to wait until next season for radical changes such as banning composites. I also stand by my position that parks allowing 44 / 525s and higher are contributiong to the problem. The 44 / 375 balls here in Cincinnati have really changed the game for the good.
I believe the ASA is playing with fire. It's important to keep the sport safe and the technology in check but the financial impact on the players should be carefully considered too. Players will not keep coming back if they feel that the ASA doesnt care about the financial impact on them. You cant honestly say you dont get that part can you?