S-B Bats

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

Semantics! ASTM F1890 bat testing standard (2000) is no longer valid. It has been replaced by AST F2219 (2004). The new standard utilizes several different testing techniques to more accurately emulate game conditions than did F1890.

See previous statement

Does 2004 measure bat speed differently than 2000? Yes - the fail point for the 2000 standard was 125 fps; the fail point for 2004 is 98 mph. I'll do the conversion: 125 fps = 85 mph, or 98 mph = 144 fps

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

It is not a liability issue. It is a fact. The 2000 standard allowed some bats to be legal that were "too hot" for the game. The 2004 standard would eliminate them. So, yes - at one time there were legal bats with a 2000 mark that would not meet the 2004 standard.

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.

Strange for someone who is so liability consious. You would allow any 2000 bat in the game on a "leap of faith?"

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.

NFHS follows the ASA bat standard, but not the ASA rule book. The ASA rulebook states that 2000 bats are legal, the NFHS does not have that statement. The ASA rule book allows umpires to validate a bat; NFHS does not.

This entire argument is all about whether 2000 bat are automatically approved for play. ASA rulebook says yes; NFHS says no. What is interesting is the statement on the ASA website that did not make it into the ASA rule book.

"Beginning January 1, 2004, all bats in ASA Championship Play must pass the ASA 2004 bat standard.

Replace "ASA Championship" with NFHS and you have the exact NFHS rule. Both organizations say the same thing, but only one has it in their rule book.

The ASA statement goes on to say: "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."

That is the assumption we take for NFHS play because the rule does not specifically authorize 2000 bats. No assumption required for ASA games; it is printed on the website. So why is that not your guideline for approving or rejecting bats in an ASA game?

NFHS obviously does not believe that all 2000 bats are automatically legal so they suggest that coaches or school provide an ASA Approved Bat List to umpires with their inventory of bats highlighted. It is obviously easier for coaches to make that line one time to be used in all games, then for an umpire to hunt through the entire list at each game.

Anyway, that is the way I interpret the NFHS position as stated by Mary Struckhoff a couple weeks ago and that is the way I instruct our umpires.

From M.S.: "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)

WMB