It's only a good change from the perspective that it protects coaches from failing to do their due diligence in ensuring all bats are legal. We've gone from umpires doing pre-game checks, to expecting coaches to take responsibility and relieving us from those pre-game checks, to now this.

I'm guessing enough coaches pissed and moaned about the fact that their teams were getting penalized when they themselves failed to ensure bats weren't damaged. So NFHS caved and changed the rule yet again. Now coaches have even less incentive to check their players' bats.

^As above^ This is a pathetic change.

Does no responses mean there is no answer?

If memory serves (don't have a rule book handy), an illegal bat is one of three categories: damaged, altered, or non-approved. So a bat going from "approved" to "illegal" can do so under any of the three categories.

1. If an approved bat is altered, it becomes illegal.

2. If an approved bat suddenly becomes non-approved by USA Softball (that hasn't been done in a while), it, too, becomes illegal.

3. If an approved bat becomes damaged, it is now illegal.

Not sure if this answers your questions.

All of these cover not allowed in different ways. I was addressing the technical use of "illegal"; as in the batter is out, but not ejected/disqualified.

#1 is altered not "illegal".
#2 is non-approved, not "illegal"

#3 is then "illegal"; but my question was whether a bat can be "illegal" any other way. In this question, "damaged" includes defaced, painted, etc.; any non-legal change that is not "altered'.

Again, is there such a thing as illegal beyond that or do we actually have only these 3:
1 Non-approved
2 Altered
3 Damaged
?

Ahh, I understand, I think. You want to treat "illegal" as its own singular category that doesn't include altered or non-approved. I look at it the other way, where all three categories--damaged, altered and non-approved--fall under the umbrella of "illegal", with separate penalties for each.

I suppose a fourth category of "illegal" would be a bat that simply doesn't meet the rules requirements of an official bat. For example, in NFHS play, an illegal bat would include:
- a bat with plastic tape on the handle
- a bat with a grip that extends more than 15 inches from the knob
- a bat with rosin beyond the grip
- a bat with a choke-up device
- a bat with one of those electronic bat-speed sensors that I think NFHS still treats as illegal since it is not permanently fastened

So any bat that has been modified (but not altered to improve its ability through structural change) so that it is no longer in compliance with NFHS 1-5-1 or 1-5-2 is one that goes from "approved" to "illegal".

Now that I think about it, the new NFHS rule for next year treats damaged bats separate from any other illegal bat that isn't altered or non-approved. So now when a batter uses a bat that's illegal because it has slippery tape, a choke-up device, an electronic sensor, etc., it's still an out on the batter but not an ejection. But for a damaged bat, there is no out; we just remove that bat from the game with no penalty.

Not that I want to have a singular category, but that the rules treat non-altered approved illegals with a separate penalty. And yes, the definitions and the illegal bat rule agree with your breakdown, but I was not trying to redefine, just identify.

I think you have answered my original question. :cool: :)

A bit of a tangent:
NFHS case 1.5.3 sit A says or implies a donut is only illegal if it is worn or damaged.
The rule book in 1-5-3 says devices must be "commercially manufactured specifically for a softball bat"; which means donuts are illegal.
We usually say the rule supersedes the case book; so are donuts always illegal? I have thought so.

The USA book is easier, only specifically listed devices are ever legal, so never donuts.