LS doesn't use the length/weight as part of their model number. Are you sure you are not missing some of the necessary information?

"LS doesn't use the length/weight as part of their model number"

True. But the bat is printed "Model TPSFP3427" That can be interpreted as Tournament Player Series, Fast Pitch, 34", 27 oz.

The TPSFP was manufactured through 2001, and I can assume that those bats built in 2000/2001 carried the ASA 2000 Cert Mark. The TPSFP is on the 2003 ASA approved list, and on other lists (USSSA, NSA). But it is NOT on the ASA 2004 list. (Why not? Error?) My bat was built before 2000, but later models were legal, so this one also should be.

Believe me, it is not a hi-tech bat. Put it in the spring garage sale and be lucky to get ten bucks. Using the ASA guideline, the bat should could be legal using "sole opinion and discretion of the umpire."

Now I am trying to discover why I do not have that same authority in a NFHS game.

WMB

"Now I am trying to discover why I do not have that same authority in a NFHS game."

Now here's the magic question. The answer is actually pretty simple. This time/situation - ASA does not appear to have the balls to set a standard and require that it be met - no seal=illegal. In this case, Fed is ruling exactly how ASA should have ruled. (Usually, it's the Fed who have strange ideas on rules when they differ with ASA.)

If no stamp, or not on the approved list, the bat is not allowed in an NFHS game.

The reason is NFHS adopted the ASA bat performance standard (which results in a bat being on the approved list / stamped), but did not adopt the ASA bat rule, which includes the umpire judgment paragraph.

There is no umpire judgment on approved bats in an NFHS game. They are either explicitly approved, or they are not allowed in the game.

Certification mark is not neccessary
 

The certification mark is not neccessary in Fed ball, as of this year.
See the FAQ at http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va...on&head=SB.cfm

Again, in Indiana, for NFHS, it's pretty simple. If the bat is not on the APPROVED BAT LIST, then it isn't a good bat...we're not using it. In ASA, then we have that third qualification: if it looks like a bat, and it feels like a bat, and in your opinion it was manufactured before 1995, then you can use it. Personally, if it isn't on that approved list, then I'm not using it.

Scott,
I'll agree that at the Fed level, with no state sanctioning/ruling body input, an ASA stamp may not be present on a legal bat. However, in Pennsylvania, if a bat does not have the permenent stamp/seal - I am not to search the list of legal bats, I do not allow the bat to be used, period.

Even in ASA, I do not want to have the option that I have for older bats - I manufactured prior to 2000, this bat would have passed the standards test. I am not qualified to determine whether a bat would or would not have passed the standards test. That's a lousy position for ASA to have put their umpires in. I kinda resent that - they should have the balls to state their standard and the balls to stick to their standard. Apparently, the powers that be, don't.

We seem to have covered that each state has their own procedure.
The NFHS does not require a seal if the bat is on the 2004 approved list, but does NOT give umpires the authority to accept an "old" bat because it was manufactured prior to testing. That is not a State option and certainly not an umpire option. To be used legally, a bat must be on the approved list and bats with a seal are either on the approved or the banned list.

In my little corner of the world, our state interpreter (Fed) said that the rule of thumb is if it's not on the banned bat list then it's a good bat ( barring ,of course, any alterations or defects).

That is true C1 and that is the way it is written on the NFHS
website....NFHS does offer a suggestion, but only that. Otherwise
it is left up to the indidivual state associations the way I am
reading the article.