S-B Bats

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Actually, rule 1-5-4 requires only that bats meet the 2004 standards; the 2004 stamp is not required. Approved bats can be found on the long (25+ pages?) ASA approved bat list at the ASA website. As a practical matter, if a 2000 bat is not on the short disapproved bat list that I can carry in my lineup holder, I assume that it meets the 2004 standard. Anyone got any problems with that?

Not me, but I have a feeling you may get another opinion, or two.

[scottk_61]

In Florida, the FHSAA took care of the list problem for us.
Coaches are required to have an current approved bat list with their bats highlighted.
No list and any question, out goes the bat.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by scottk_61

In Florida, the FHSAA took care of the list problem for us.
Coaches are required to have an current approved bat list with their bats highlighted.
No list and any question, out goes the bat.

I wish that TASO had done the same thing. May be a good recommendation for next year.

[Gmoore]

2007 NFHS SOFTBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

MARCH, 2007 SUPPLEMENT

SITUATION: A bat with the 2000 ASA mark is found on one of the visiting team’s bats during the inspection by the umpires. RULING: Provided the bat is on the list of approved bats and not found on the non-approved list, it is legal. COMMENT: The presence of the 2000 or 2004 certification mark is not the only way to determine if a bat is legal. The lists found on the ASA Website are the only definitive way to determine if a bat is legal. (1-5-4)

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Actually, rule 1-5-4 requires only that bats meet the 2004 standards; the 2004 stamp is not required. Approved bats can be found on the long (25+ pages?) ASA approved bat list at the ASA website. As a practical matter, if a 2000 bat is not on the short disapproved bat list that I can carry in my lineup holder, I assume that it meets the 2004 standard. Anyone got any problems with that?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not me, but I have a feeling you may get another opinion, or two.

The NFHS rule is quite simple, and it says nothing at all about stamps or stickers or lists. It says:

NFHS 1-5-4 ..All bats shall meet the 2004 ASA Bat Performance Standard (certified bats meeting this standard can be found at www.asasoftball.com).

OK, go to the referenced web site, and what do you find? You find an "approved" list and you find a "non-approved list". You also find this interesting statement,

Beginning January 1, 2004, all bats in ASA Championship Play must pass the ASA 2004 bat standard. All bats having the 2004 certification mark will be allowed in ASA Championship Play. Bats that have the 2000 certification mark will not be allowed in ASA Championship Play unless they are listed on an approved bat list on the ASA website. For convenience, the ASA website has a listing of bats that do not pass the ASA 2004 bat standard.

There ya go, in ASA's own words, 2000 stamped bats must be on the approved list to be legal. I don't know about you, but I am not searching through that long approved list just to allow a bat into a game. If the coach wants it in, he needs to have the list and have his bats highlighted on it.

No where does ASA state that if a bat has the 2000 stamp and is not on the non-approved list that it has passed the 2004 BPS. At least, no where that I have found.

Mike? Do you have your position anywhere in writing from the ASA? Note, I am talking about having passed the 2004 BPS, NOT merely being legal in ASA Championship Play.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

The NFHS rule is quite simple, and it says nothing at all about stamps or stickers or lists. It says: OK, go to the referenced web site, and what do you find? You find an "approved" list and you find a "non-approved list".

Do you have your position anywhere in writing from the ASA? Note, I am talking about having passed the 2004 BPS, NOT merely being legal in ASA Championship Play.

Reread your own quote taken from the ASA website.

Beginning January 1, 2004, all bats in ASA Championship Play must pass the ASA 2004 bat standard. All bats having the 2004 certification mark will be allowed in ASA Championship Play. Bats that have the 2000 certification mark will not be allowed in ASA Championship Play unless they are listed on an approved bat list on the ASA website. For convenience, the ASA website has a listing of bats that do not pass the ASA 2004 bat standard.

Go past the line you selectively bolded, and emphasize the last line that I bolded. That, to me, states exactly what you are doubting and saying isn't in writing. The listing of bats that do not pass the ASA 2004 bat standard is ...... the non-approved bat list!!

Maybe Mike and I are the only ones who takes that to mean what it states; that the nonapproved bat list includes ALL bats that haven't passed the 2004 bat standard. I know from the NFHS board that you and WMB do not.

[Dakota]

I take it to mean it is a convenience listing of the bats ASA has tested that flunked, not a listing of all bats ever produced with the 2000 stamp that would not pass. No where that I can find does ASA claim to have tested all bats.

[IRISHMAFIA]

You only need to go to page 64 of the 2007 ASA rule book.

3.1.A CERTIFIED/APPROVED. The official bat for ASA Championship Play must meet all the ASA specifications and the requirements of Rule 3, Section 1, and:

1. must bear either the ASA 2000 certificiation mark or the ASA 2004 certificiation mark as shown below, and must not be listed on an ASA Non-Approved Bat List.

This rule alone demonstrates that bats with the ASA certification mark and are not on the Non-approved list meet the 2004 certification standards. And since the bats do meet the 2004 standards, they should be legal for NFHS play without going to the approved list.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You only need to go to page 64 of the 2007 ASA rule book.
3.1.A CERTIFIED/APPROVED. The official bat for ASA Championship Play must meet all the ASA specifications and the requirements of Rule 3, Section 1, and:

1. must bear either the ASA 2000 certificiation mark or the ASA 2004 certificiation mark as shown below, and must not be listed on an ASA Non-Approved Bat List.


This rule alone demonstrates that bats with the ASA certification mark and are not on the Non-approved list meet the 2004 certification standards. And since the bats do meet the 2004 standards, they should be legal for NFHS play without going to the approved list.

NFHS has said "The lists found on the ASA Website are the only definitive way to determine if a bat is legal. (1-5-4)".
Also, if a bat has a 2000 seal or none at all, but was never tested for 2004 standards, it is not clear whether that bat is ok for NFHS or for ASA.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You only need to go to page 64 of the 2007 ASA rule book. This rule alone demonstrates that bats with the ASA certification mark and are not on the Non-approved list meet the 2004 certification standards. And since the bats do meet the 2004 standards, they should be legal for NFHS play without going to the approved list.

Faulty logic, Mike. You reached an invalid conclusion because you did not provide all the information.

First: ASA rules do not require bats to meet the 2004 standard. For ASA, a legal bat can have the 2000 Cert Mark, AND must not be on the Non-Approved list, OR must be on the approved list, OR be approved by the umpire. What you can deduct from this is (1) any 2000 bat not on the non-approved list is legal; there are no other conditions. ASA does not say it meets the 2004 specifications. You cannot assume that all (or any) 2000 bats are on the Approved List.

Now hopefully all of us know that the 2004 standard is not simply a new year standard, but is a tougher standard. It was developed because ASA did not feel the 2000 standard was restrictive enough. Therefore you can safely assume that there are 2000 bats that would not meet the newer and higher 2004 standard.

NFHS has a more stringent standard. They specifically state that all bats must meet the 2004 standard, and not be on the non-approved list. That's it - that is the entire rule.

How do umpires know if a bat meets a testing standard that most of us don't have a clue what the standard is or how it is tested?

1. If it has been manufactured since late 2003 and was certified, then the manufacturer is authorized to print the 2004 Cert Mark on the bat. It is a legal bat for NFHS play.

2. If it is one of thousands of bats manufactured prior to 2004, and if its specifications have been submitted to ASA to prove that it meets the 2004 standard, then it has been added to the Approved list.

Can you assume there there are bats with no cert marks that have made it to the approved list? Yes, and you can prove your assumption just by checking some old bats to the list.

Can you assume that all un-marked bats are on the list? No. No one that I know of has physically checked all the old bats to the list.

Can you assume that there are bats with 2000 cert mark that have made it to the approved list? Yes, and you can prove your assumption just be checking some 2000 bats to the list.

Can you assume that all 2000 bats are on the list? No. No one from ASA has officially made that statement, and no one that I know of has physically checked all the 2000 bats to the list.

So if you are calling high school ball - follow this proceedure:

1 - A bat with the 2004 mark (not on the non-approved list) is OK to use.
2 - A bat with the 2000 mark is temporarily rejected.
3 - A bat with no mark is temporarily rejected.
4 - If the coach provides pages from the ASA Approved List with his bats highlighted, then accept the bat for play. If not, take them out of the dugout.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Without going through all the BS you are spreading around, let me ask this one simple question:

Are you stating that the 2000 mark is no good because your contention is that these bats do not meet the 2004 standards which are required for the 2004 mark, unless they are on the approved bat list thus making them legal for NHFS ball?