The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 17, 2005, 03:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Columbus, MS
Posts: 273
All the original Titanium bats that were produced before 2000 are not on the banned list but would rather full under the #3 in the official bat definition of Produced before 2000 and in the umpires judgement. Now the rule for using a non-approved bat is out/ejection. So if they try to use a Titanium bat that in anyones right judgement would not meet standards but it has not been explicitly stated then what do you do? I keep up with bats better than most of my comrades in our assn and basically they go strictly by the banned list. Anything not on the banned list is good to them and while noone has tried to being out one of the Titaniums I always wondered what would happen if they did. I think that they need to put them on the banned list or make a statement in the rules about Titanium construction bats.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 18, 2005, 12:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Woodstock, GA; Atlanta area
Posts: 2,822
This one has floated out here for a while without any response, so let me take a stab at it. ASA intentionally did not ban titanium or any other specified materials, and it is strictly a performance standard. With the current technology, I suspect that the titanium bats of yore WOULD meet the current performance standards; if not, there would be a lot more conversation and noting those older bats which would not meet standards.

The truth is, no one is out there talking about 5 year old bats that the balls zooms off; it is the RocketTech primarily, and, to a lesser degree, the composites (Synergy and Catalyst). I wouldn't toss one of those bats in a bat check. In fact, there were legal titanium bats approved by ASA (it was a Lisa Fernandez model, I believe).

Since the bats are not specifically banned, nor is titanium a banned bat substance, there would be no repurcussions for allowing a titanium bat to be used. Since it is, by definition, a judgment call, it cannot be protested, and any lawsuit arising from your judgment would be covered under your ASA issued insurance from Bollinger.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 18, 2005, 03:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally posted by AtlUmpSteve

The truth is, no one is out there talking about 5 year old bats that the balls zooms off; it is the RocketTech primarily, and, to a lesser degree, the composites (Synergy and Catalyst). I wouldn't toss one of those bats in a bat check. In fact, there were legal titanium bats approved by ASA (it was a Lisa Fernandez model, I believe).
Steve,

This is true, but also misleading. The bats you mention above (and I believe Lisa Fernandez's model was first) contained an insignificant amount of titanium for marketing purposes only. So, I don't think you can compare them to the original titanium bats that originally did cause bats constructed of titanium to become illegal.

The only reason they could get away with banning the substance was because at that time there was evidence that titanium did increase the speed of the ball. I don't believe the bats mentioned above came to the market until ASA began testing bats which would make the construction material irrelevant. I think that is when the restriction was removed from the book.

Not completely sure of my time-line, but that is what I was given from a member of the testing committee at the time.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 18, 2005, 09:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Columbus, MS
Posts: 273
These things do not even pass the USSSA 1.20 BPF Standard so there is no way they would pass the 98 MPH BBS. But with that said there is no where that specifically states it anymore. I think at this time 5 years after they started stamping bats they should follow the NFHS rules of no stamp/no go. That would solve this problrem and also make it to where the new NON-ASA bats would not have to be put on any more lists because they would not have a stmp anyway.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:34am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1