S-B Bats

[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?

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

You made a very crude and arrogant remark to hide the fact that you are unwilling to respond to statements I made. Now where is the BS?

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?

I don't like you speaking for me. My words: A bat with a 2000 Cert Mark is not automatically legal for NFHS play. It must appear on the ASA Approved Bat List.

WMB

[Dakota]

Without turning this into a religious war, two facts are clear:

1) NFHS requires definitive proof that the bat has passed the 2004 BPS, and
2) ASA allows bats into Championship Play that have NOT passed the 2004 BPS. Note, I didn't say they failed the test. Only that they did not pass it, presumably because they were not tested.

Since #2 is true, unless ASA is willing to state clearly that the 2000 stamp and absence from the non-approved list IS definitive proof that the bat DID pass the 2004 BPS, such bats will not be legal for NFHS play.

NFHS does not allow umpire judgment or any other assurance that a bat WOULD pass the 2004 BPS. It requires definitive proof that it DID.

So, other than having the 2004 stamp and not being on the non-approved list OR having the 2000 stamp and being on the approved list, is there any other definitive proof provided by ASA that a bat DID pass the 2004 BPS?

[WestMichBlue]

Irish

You made a crude remark, and I responded with the same. Now can we shake hands and continue?


Can we agree that ASA created a new bat performance standard to supercede the 2000 standard? Thus the 2000 standard is no longer valid?

Can we agree the the 2004 testing method to measure bat exit speed is different from the old (2000) way?

Can we agree that the reason for the change was that some bats that met the 2000 standard were too hot for ASA requirements, thus ASA had a new standard developed?

Can any reasonable person assume that there exists some bats that met the 2000 standard, and thus carry the 2000 cert mark, but will not pass the 2004 standard?

Can we then assume that not every bat with a 2000 mark is legal?

Do you have specific knowledge that every 2000 bat that would not meet the 2004 standard was identified by ASA and added to the Non-Approved list? Thus - every single bat made since 2000 is on one list or the other?

If that last statement is true, then we can safely assume that every 2000 bat is legal unless it is on the Non-Approved list. Even so, everytime we find a 2000 bat we need to research the 50 bat non-approved list. I still find it better to simply reject the bat and let the coach prove it is on the approved list.

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Irish

You made a crude remark, and I responded with the same. Now can we shake hands and continue?

I don't believe I made a crude remark, but an observation of what I believe I was reading. Then again, I don't see an answer to the question I asked.

Can we agree that ASA created a new bat performance standard to supercede the 2000 standard? Thus the 2000 standard is no longer valid?

I don't think it was as much a change in the standard than adjusting the target due to a change in the method the bats were tested.

Can we agree the the 2004 testing method to measure bat exit speed is different from the old (2000) way?

See previous statement

Can we agree that the reason for the change was that some bats that met the 2000 standard were too hot for ASA requirements, thus ASA had a new standard developed?

Not necessarily. As stated, I believe it was an adjustment in the specifications of the testing method that produced what is considered a more accurate number to judge a bat against the preconceived baseline (how's that for BS?). IOW, the previous testing method didn't even come close to demonstrating the actual results of contact between a bat and ball in game conditions. I'm not stating that the present method does give you an exact replication of game performance, but it the best that can be conducted in a controled environment.

Can any reasonable person assume that there exists some bats that met the 2000 standard, and thus carry the 2000 cert mark, but will not pass the 2004 standard?

Considering the legal ramifications and liability assumed, I wouldn't be so quick to agree to that statement.

Can we then assume that not every bat with a 2000 mark is legal?

Do you have specific knowledge that every 2000 bat that would not meet the 2004 standard was identified by ASA and added to the Non-Approved list? Thus - every single bat made since 2000 is on one list or the other?

Absolute? No, no one knows that including ASA. However, given the number of bats on the approved list, I would not doubt it and, if you prefer, I have no problem with a leap of faith that they are.

If that last statement is true

, then we can safely assume that every 2000 bat is legal unless it is on the Non-Approved list. Even so, everytime we find a 2000 bat we need to research the 50 bat non-approved list. I still find it better to simply reject the bat and let the coach prove it is on the approved list.

NFHS has been following the ASA bat standards for the past few years. To me, that basically means that if ASA states the bat is legal, then so should it be in NFHS.

Everyone seems to have a hair up their tail about the "lists" and personally, it seems like it is just a matter of someone endorsing a lazy way out of dealing with the bats. I don't like dealing with these things any more than the next umpire, but it is part of our job. And considering that in some areas working HS games is like stealing free money, I don't see any reason to short-cut the players because someone doesn't want to deal with a list.

Are you aware that out of the 765 bats on the approved list, 54.4% were added to the list prior to 2004? That is an awful lot of bats to have out there that don't meet the 2004 standard based solely on certification marks.

Considering the knowledge put into this process, I have little to no doubt that by comparing the results of the 2000 & 2004 testing methods and results, they are well aware of what bats meet the present standard and which don't. Given the time spent in court in the past, and ASA's heartless demonstration of the 2000(?) massacre of bats just prior to the nationals, I doubt ASA would intentionally place themselves in jeopardy for some older model bats.