Demarini Vendetta Bat
 

Rule 1-3-2: The bat which may be wood or non-wood product shall be a smooth cylinder implement....

Demarini's new bat has an 8-sided flat handle with four sides being wider than the other four sides. I know the bat has already passed NFHS's inspection process since it is BESR certified, but it seems like it contradicts their own rules.

On a side note, Reebok's new Vector-O bat has holes in the handle. It is supposed to reduce drag and increase bat speed by allowing air to pass through the handle.

If you've not seen either one, a google search will find them for you.

Now that is just silly. And if the wind was from behind the hitter, the holes would slow the bat down (equally silly).

All I care about regarding bats is the BESR certification screenprint and a quick look to see if it has any dents or modifications after manufacture which garner extra attention if warranted. I don't care what it is made of or whether or not it can walk to the batter's box by itself.

The ONLY thing BESR certifies is that the exit speed meets the standard. Has no bearing on any other aspect of bat.

I suspect we will need rulings from NFHS & NCAA as to legality of the bat for play.

Until such a time IMO the Demarini is NOT legal, as it is flat sided in areas that could strike the ball.

The Dimarini bas was specifically brought up in our state NFHS rules clinic last year and I believe they mentioned it was legal.

True.

All NFHS legal bats are required to be BESR certified, however, not all BESR certified bats are required to be NFHS legal.

Mattingly has this thing called the V-grip, which has also revolutionized the shape of the grip. http://www.mattinglybaseball.com/ima...nstration1.jpg

It only matters what shape the barrel is. If a batter hits it off the handle, it doesn't much matter what shape it is.

http://www.beapro.com/images/product...wi09-dxvtb.jpg

I'm not sure I see the problem with this thing. Look where the irregularity is>

I like any bat that gets swung often.

Ah - thanks for the clarification! I was thinking much more slab sided than the picture. I don't see this as a problem, though I would like to see NCAA / NFS send out a ruling to prevent issues at game time.

THAT is absolutely the problem. There will be an uninformed umpire and a coach will take advantage and the dispute will take place after a guy gets a key hit with it and ...

If it has the Fed stamp on it, you don't need a ruiling from the Fed as they have already ruled by placing their stamp on it.

FED doesn't stamp bats. FED requires a BESR mark, but the bat can be illegal in other respects.

Once again, I'm with Dash.

I'm a dumb arse, I was thinking like footballs and basketballs. They need Fed stamps...

Dash:

It is obvious that you are not learned in Fluid Mechanics. It really does not have anything to do with wind but with the movement of the bat through the air.

The bat has as given cross-section (for a given cross-section there is a drag coefficient; the larger the cross-section the high the drag coefficient, and the idea is to reduce the drag coeffecient) that creates drag as the bat moves through the air. As the bat moves through the air, the air is separated and flows over the bat as the air gets to the back of the bat it comes together. The faster the bat moves through the air, the greater the chance of turbulence being created behind the bat which causes as differential in air pressure between the front of the bat and the rear of the bat; the air pressure is less in the rear of the bat than in the front of the bat thereby decreasing bat speed through the air.

The idea is to make the flow over the bat as laminar (less turbulent) as possible. By making it possible for air to flow throw the cross-section of the bat decreases the turbulence behind the bat there by increasing bat speed through the air. The greater the velocity of the bat at the moment it contacts the ball the great the momentum of the ball as it leaves the bat (conservation of momentum is one of the factors how far a ball travels).

The mass of the bat is much greater that the mass of the ball and it only takes a small increase in a bat's velocity to greatly effect the amount of momentum transfered from the bat to the ball.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. Thanks to Google I found this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj4SUUn8kVs
The important part is 20 seconds into the video.

I was being tongue-in-cheek Mark. As an aerobatic pilot I have come to know a little bit about drag and laminar airflow. It seems to me that the drag on the (relatively) slow-moving bat handle would be very small, as would be the corresponding benefit of laminar flow over that 6-8" span. So I believe it is more of a sales gimmick than a revolution in bat technology. But you obviously know more about the fluid dynamics than I do, so maybe you could calculate an estimated increase in bat speed. I'd be interested in your findings.

When I first saw this bat and the Mattingly bat I wondered how they would hold up. My concern is that to hold them correctly and take advantage of the unique designs you would always be hitting the same spot on the bat. At least with a traditional round handle the bat does get rotated. Any thoughts?

The act of a bat striking a bat is an example of a collision; actually it is an example of an elastic collision. A collision occurs when a relatively large force acts on colliding particles for a relatively short time. The basic idea of a collision is that the motion of at least one of the colliding particles changes rather abruptly and there is a relatively clean seperation of times that are "before the collision" and those that are "after the collision," in other words an elastic collision.

A force that acts for a period of time that is short compared to the time of observation of the system is called an impulsive force. Momentum is mass X velocity. When momentum is integrated with respect to time over a very very small amount of time one get impulse.

Both the kinetic energy and momentum of the system is conserved and since this is an elastic collision, without going through the deriviation of the equation: The sum of the initial and final velocities of the bat equals the sum of the intitial and final velocities of the ball. Assuming that the collision is an elastic one-dimentional collision the final velocity of the ball equals the sum of the initial and final velocities of the bat minus the initial velocity of the ball.

We know that baseball is a game of inches (or cm, :D; I prefer the metric system) and it only takes a small increase the final velocity of the ball to mean the difference between an infielder making an each catch to start a double plan the the batted ball being out of the reach of the infielder.

MTD, Sr.

Look how elastic this ball is compared to a wood bat on this swing by Paul Konerko:

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...erkoONit-1.jpg

"What's a chick doing in the dugout?" Keith Hernandez

Timber!
 

Legalization of this metal bat may legalize older "ax handles" which have not been a traditional part of the baseball handle mix. I have yet to see a wooden bat model adopt an ax handle design. There are many types of ax handles on the market. These handles are designed to ergonomically fit within the hand and provide much better performance in cold weather. Do current rules allow an ax handle design to be used prior to any required "legal approval" in winter baseball meetings?

Signed,
Lumber Jack

Nice catch Dash!! but i'm thinkin' media tank?

Could be. Or maybe it's not a game - home run derby or something like that. In any event, get her out of there.

Just kidding - she can stay.

NCAA is pretty specific about it. pg 21 2009 rule book rule 1 sec 12 b

b. non wood bat
1. the entire bat must be round with a constant radius at any point and the finish of the hitting area must be smooth.

Looks like it illegal in NCAA..........

Always tough to concentrate when hot mom's, girlfriends, wives are close.

Probably a field-level suite.

I LOLd. :)

The following message was posted on 1-23-09 on the IHSA (Illinois) website:

"Boys Baseball

Coaches,

It is very important that you notify your baseball players that two bats have the BESR certification but are illegal by rule since they are not round on the handle. The Vendeta bat has a square spot in the handle and the Vector has holes in the handle that created a flat spot and both bats have been identified by the NFHS as Illegal bats."

Let us know how the first protest goes as NFHS rules say nothing about handles being round. It has already been established that the term "round" refers to the surface that strikes the ball, not the handle.

You sure? The Mattingly bat was declared legal by FED and NCAA.

I'm just copying and pasting directly from the Illinois High School Association's website.

Something from the CA site...

http://www.cifstate.org/sports/rules...0grip%2008.pdf
===

April 3, 2008
DON MATTINGLY "V" GRIP BAT
There have been questions about the legality of the Don Mattingly V-Grip baseball bat. The National Federation has ruled that this bat is legal and may be used in all levels of high school competition.

1) There are no protests in IL (IHSA) baseball.

2) A state is allowed to change this type of rule.

3) Even if protests were allowed, one on this issue would be denied.

Both of those bats were discussed during our Fed. meeting this weekend and they are illegal for high school play.

I think Michael and I were at the same meeting. The DeMarini and Reebok bats were discussed by name, with both being characterized as illegal for FED ball in Virginia.

I exchanged emails with Jim Paronto and Ty Halpin this morning. Both bats, the Reebok and the DeMarini are legal in the NCAA. Given the reason "rule 1-12-b-1 is intended to address the barrel of the bat (hitting area)," I would conclude the Mattingly bat is also legal.

Per the NJSIAA, neither bat is legal in New Jersey for high school ball.

First local association meeting was last night. Our local rules interpreter told us that at the present time we are to consider the two bats in question as illegal for NFHS play.

He mentioned the possibility of a pending review and approval by our state rule interpreter and promised to keep us posted.

It was interesting that, after seeing this subject kicked around on multiple internet discussion boards during the past couple of months, our interpreter's Power Point presentation included a segment on these bats, complete with photos. So, they are definitely "on the radar" and being actively discussed, which might ultimately lead to a reversal of any current ban.

I had the rules clinic last week and this bat, the Mattingly and the Reebok were brought up.

The Dimariani is illegal
The Reebok is illegal
The Mattingly is legal

Come on, Bob, you and I both know that this is a BS issue! I think those bats are ridiculous but they are not illegal by any of the 3 codes.

I understand that the State may address certain issues; hell - here in CT, the State does not allow the mercy rule in FED ball! You should see some of the blow-outs we have here!

Interesting. Isn't Connecticut the same state that has an automatic suspension of a football coach if his team wins by a 50-point margin?

I have taught batting for many years to players at many levels. One of the very first points of emphasis when you begin instructing any hitter is the grip, and what to look for. When you grip a bat properly, you place the handle down on the pads of your fingers and gently surround it. You see a V shape where the base of your thumb meets your hand. You don't want an O shape like you see in so many hitters who wrap their hands around the bat.

So now, in order to ensure a proper grip in young, developing hitters, Donny Baseball and his development team have come up with this magnificent idea for the handle, and there are those who want to rule it illegal! Why? It's almost beyond belief.

I heard from the National Office the Vendetta is legal for 2009

Interesting that several posters have claimed that these bats have been banned by the NFHS at the national level (individual states can accept or reject any ruling as they see fit), now one says they have been approved at the national level, yet neither side has offered any specific, printed or published ruling to support their claims.

Should I say, "Show me the money", or, "Where's the beef"? :D

Can anyone offer anything concrete- something from their website, an issued interpretation or clarification, a news release, a memo- that directly addresses these bats?

Dunno - don't do football!
Ozzy just pawn in game of life! :eek:

This is what I received from TASO.


Dear Allan
TASO Baseball members that attended the 2009 State Meeting in Houston were told about two illegal bats that were on the market.

As of today, January 29, 2009, if a bat meets the length, diameter, weight to length ratio criteria, and is BESR certified, it is LEGAL for high school play.

Jay Evans, Rules Interpreter TASO Baseball

Well, this should be fun this season. From the IHSA (Illinois) website:

JM

In Ohio we are lucky to have Kyle McNeely (chair of NF Baseball Rles Committee) to go to for answers. I talked with him last week at our state rules interpreters meeting.

Mattingly bat: Legal

Reebok Vector O: Illegal. Only because Reebok failed to present the bat to BESR certification committee. Reebok was notified on Thursday January 22 by NF rules committee the bat was illegal.

DeMarini Vendetta: Illegal. The handle is not smooth, nor cylindical. It has raised rails.

Additionally, those of you who have said the "smooth, cylider" part of bat definition only applies to the barrel are dead wrong.

The only reason for all of this horse$&it is to make sure that us officials don't ever run out of anything to argue about among ourselves.

Is the NFHS going to issue this to the states? I talked with my State Director yesterday and he said we were going to wait on something from NFHS. He is not going to declare them legal or illegal until/unless NFHS does.

I just saw a memo written on NFHS letterhead dated today (February 5) that was sent to Member State Association Executive Directors. It states that both the DeMarini Vendetta and the Reebok Vector "...have been found rule-compliant by the NFHS for use in high school baseball..."

$ound$ like they've been approved for use by the NFH$

Came from our high school Interscholastic Athletic Association State Director by way of my association president. Sure looked official to me.

Okay...the chair of the FED rules committee rules the bats illegal and a piece of FED letterhead states that the bats are legal.

I hope y'all don't mind some of us waiting until FED speaks with one voice,

You mi$$ed one. I gue$$ the NFH$ didn't get a$ much a$ they wanted.

What I saw came from Elliot Hopkins. I believe he is the NFHS director of educational services and liaison to the Baseball Rules Committee.

Legal?
 

I also posted this on NFHS forum: Can you please show some documentation that this is correct? I cannot find anything on the FED website or anywhere else that this is correct.

I can't wait to let a kid use one.

Response
 

The New York State Baseball Umpires Assn has posted a notice on their web site saying the message is from FED.

Kevin, the bat is so expensive, some schools and parents may buy it and then not let anyone use it at that price.

Well, it's a little slow here on a Friday night, so.....

A couple of pages back, dash_riprock suggested that adding holes to the Reebok bat was silly. MTD. Sr. took him to task, asserting that dash hadn't learned fluid mechanics. dash invited MTD to provide a calculation of drag, but instead got a (wrong) explanation of ball-bat collisions.

Dash was right-- there is little benefit to adding holes to the bat handle. The drag on a cylinder is proportional to the area times the velocity squared. Since the handle moves roughly at 1/3 the speed of the barrel, and the area is perhaps 1/10 that of the barrel, in rough terms the air resistance of the handle is about 1% that of the barrel. Reducing that 1% to perhaps 0.8% is a very small effect.

And the ball-bat collision stuff? MTD starts with the assertion that the collision is elastic. But it isn't. A baseball has a coefficient of restitution of around 0.45 at typical collision velocities, and is limited by rule to 0.565 at 60 mph (less than bunting speed). All the subsequent discussion of conservation of energy and momentum, and sums of velocities is inappropriate for inelastic ball-bat collisions.

Finally, this assertion: "The mass of the bat is much greater that the mass of the ball and it only takes a small increase in a bat's velocity to greatly effect the amount of momentum transfered from the bat to the ball." is way wrong.

If the collision were elastic, a 1 mph increase in bat speed would give a 2 mph increase in ball exit speed. But since the COR is about 1/2, the actual effect is 1 mph in bat speed gives about 1 mph in ball exit speed.

Oddly, I think I actually understood (sorta' ) what Dave Reed said here, and found his argument compelling.

Nicely done.

JM

We got this in an email from our state high school association dated 2/6:

So in a week and a half they have changed their minds from the state clinic where they spent a few minutes talking about the bats and even brought in the Vendetta so we all knew what it looked like.

Give it a few weeks and it will change again.

Ok,
 

I received the following e-mail from Eliot Hopkins of the NFHS today. The NFHS sent this e-mail to all SRIs in all FED states baseball programs.

The following bats are deemed LEGAL for use by the NFHS:

1) DeMarini Vendetta
2) Reebok Vector O
3) NIKE Aero Fuse

This pretty much closes the book in Oregon.

Regards,

so basically we're still looking for the BESR stamp right?

So does anyone really know if the state reps were acting on their own in the initial assessment or did FED really cross them up?

Good gracious Marie! You want to talk about "crossed up"...

Last week our local rules interpreter told us that these two bats had been declared illegal...BUT...that there was a review pending and the possibility remained that the bats would be allowed. He promised to update us as soon as he had more info.

During the course of this past week, several discussion boards have posted memos from various FED sources telling us that the bats have been deemed legal. Good enough- that clears that up.

At tonight's meeting, our interperter starts off by saying he has an update on the two bats. "Great!", I think- now everybody in our association will be on the same page and we won't have any issues with these bats once the season starts.

He then proceeds to tell us that he received a memo from Kyle McNeely of the NFHS Rules Committee that stated the Rebok bat had been reviewed and approved...BUT (another BUT)...THE DIMARINI BAT AT THIS TIME IS STILL ILLEGAL!

In the course of one week, I have heard rulings that both bats were illegal, that both bats are legal and that one bat is legal, the other isn't!

I don't think that you can get any more "crossed up" than that...man, you just gotta love a good cluster..ummm...cross up.

Don't forget about the Mattingly bat. It is also legal for use in FED.

Last I heard the new version DeMarini bat had not yet received a BESR rating, though it was diue shortly. From What Tim C posted looks like it was all worked out.

IMO if Fed & NCAA both say OK no reason why other non-pro leagues should have an issue.

FED has posted the official answer on their web site. The memo is dated Feb 5.

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2009/02/revi...ball_bats.aspx

It might be dated Feb 5, but it wasn't posted on the web-site until some time yesterday (I don't recall at what time I checked the site, looking for such a memo).

Tim C said he got the e-mail the 9th.

Still doesn't answer ny question as to whether the state guys were acting on their own or whether there was a prior advisory from FED that they were illegal.

As other posters have written...we should simply wait for our state rulings to come out right? The states organizations under the Nat'l Federation can set their own rules w/ respect to this type of stuff right?

They can provided they have their own bat regulations. What they may not do is rule the bats illegal and cite FED regulations as their authority since FED, the publisher and owner of said regulations, has said that under their regulations the bats are legal.

Which is what I stated in my original post. What I do not understand, Tim, is how can a State change this rule?

FED baseball rule book, page one:

"Member associations of the NFHS independently make decisions regarding compliance with or modification of these playing rules for the student-athletes in their respective states."

States are free to modify, adopt or ignore any rule as they see fit. So, yes, they can do it. That doesn't always mean it's clear why they do it, or that doing it is the best solution.

What gives?
 

When I check the NFHS site, #3 is not listed. Did you get a different memo that what is posted on the NFHS site? Is NFHS deliberately trying to muddy the waters?

Hmmm,
 

The memo I was sent had an added paragraph that spoke directly to the NIKE bat.

My post kind of truncated that process.

Sorry.

TC

Here is exactly what I was sent:

Peter Weber of the OSAS sent Eliot an e-mail that was in association with my question concerning bats.

From Peter Weber Associatied Director of The Oregon School Activities Assocaiton (Baseball Coordinator). The memo was adressed to him and copied to me.

Please share this information with your staff, schools and baseball officials. The following baseball bats have been found rule-compliant by the NFHS for use in high school baseball:

1. DeMarini Vendetta

2. Reebok Vector O

"I also asked him about the Nike Aero Fuse and he said that was a legal bat." Weber quote.

BESR stamp is there, kid gets to use it in my game. I won't ask any questions and the unit president or instructors hasn't covered in the meetings. BESR stamp=good enough for me. Let the hitter think it's helping him hit. It isn't.

Vendettas are LEGAL in IL
 

(no pun intended - I'm referring to the bat)

The DeMarini Vendetta bat, as of today, is now LEGAL in Illinois. This is a change from the original Illinois High School Association ruling. The online rules interp meeting will now also reflect this change.

The Reebok Vector O is still ILLEGAL in Illinois.

JJ

I saw a Reebok Vector 0 yesterday. It doesn't look as if it should be made illegal. it was properly stamped BESR.

Why is the Vector ILLEGAL if the FED has said it's legal? (I know -- the handle isn't a cylinder. I guess the question is why has IL chosen to "override" the FED in this case? You can respond off-line if you'd like.)

BESR is only one criterion that a bat must have to be legal.

At the Illinois High School Interpreter's meeting we were told the Vendetta bat AND the Reebok were both ILLEGAL. Last week we got an email from Dave Gannaway, the IHSA Baseball guru, that the Vendetta was now LEGAL but the Reebok was still ILLEGAL. He gave no reasoning.
My bet is we wait a bit longer until the FED decides what IT wants to do, and then the IHSA will fall in line. Rule changes "on the fly"... I find it interesting that the rule book says "smooth cylinder", so there is support in black and white that would EASILY disallow these "gimmick" bats. By starting to make exceptions the FED has opened a can of worms and will necessitate individual rulings on many more such items in the years to come.

JJ

FED could use a back bone transplant.

Both are now LEGAL in IL
 

I just received an email from the IHSA's Baseball guy, and both the Demarini Vendetta bat and the Reebok Vector O bat are now LEGAL in Illinois. As I suspected, the IHSA is going with the NFHS ruling.

JJ

it really makes minimal difference to us as officials...we're not shelling out hundreds of dollars for a bat. this will be one slide in the rules meeting...game, set, match.

The following message is now posted in the "Case Plays" portion of the IHSA (Illinois) Officials' Center and Schools' Center:

"2/14 Illegal Bat

Boys Baseball

Coaches,

It is very important that you notify your baseball players that one bat meets the BESR certification but is illegal by rule since it is not round on the handle. The Reebock Vector O has been identified by the NFHS an Illegal bat.


THE NFHS HAS JUST NOTIFIED ALL STATE ASSOCIATIONS THIS BAT WILL BE LEGAL.

DAVE GANNAWAY
IHSA"

Wow. If we changed our mind this much in a game, we'd never see a field again.

Shipments Have Sailed
 

The NCAA or NFHS were not in a legal position to issue alternate rulings on any of the other bats right away. Approval of the first change in metal bat handle design opened the door for bat manufacturers to follow. Time will tell if these new bats offer significant advantages over BESR certification requirements. The NCAA and NFHS would then have to address the entire bat making industry.

Wow! I had no idea a post I made a month and a half ago had generated so much discussion!

No, this is what happens when States don't contact the National before making dumb decisions. The National ruled that these bats were legal for HS play a long time ago but ISHA thought that they were better at making this decision. I guess ISHA learned their lesson.

Actually, there are several states that don't adhere strictly to the national FED rules, and interps are made now and then in individual states that make sense. Several years ago, when the FED recommended helmets for ball shaggers, the IHSA made them mandatory. Smart move in these litigious times. When the IHSA made their interp on the bats, they had rule support (that "smooth cylindar" part) and the FED had no idea how big this issue would be. Once the FED jumped into the fray, the IHSA had a leader in this issue they could fall in line behind. Another smart move on the part of the IHSA.
I don't think there really was any "lesson to be learned" here by the IHSA.

JJ

Please stop with the whining about "once illegal - now illegal". The bottom line is the manufacturers were at fault for not presenting the bats to NF for their approval. The declaration at many state interpreter clinics that the bats were illegal was the right decision at that time. Because of the amount of talk this issue generated the manufacturers got on their horse, presented the bats for approval; in essense appealing the previous NF ruling.

Upon inspection the bats in question were deemed legal. The NF is letting the states know and the states are relaying that info to their interpreters.

Underlying proof for legality:

"In essence, if a bat meets the length, diameter, weight to length ratio criteria, and is BESR certified, it is legal for high school play. Bats that have been altered, had a foreign substance inserted into the bat, broken, cracked or dented would still be removed from the game in individual situations that arise in a game."

I'm surprised to read a discussion about a bat on an umpiring forum going on and on and on...wonder how many pages Carl added to his BRD around the blockbuster news?

The Mattingly bat was declared legal in a prior year. That should have been a STRONG hint that the Demarini should be considered legal.

I watch high school and even college hitters come to the plate with a 2004 Omaha with no logo left and absolutely rake. I watch high school kids, whose parents drive up in $150,000 cars, carry a high-tech $400-plus composite Space Shuttle plastic-coated super-bat to the plate, and they can't get a smudge on it. It's bizarre how rare it is that the guy with the latest high-tech bat is a great hitter.

They are both legal in Utah, supposedly through FED offices.......