S-B Bats

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

NFHS doesn't give a rats behind about legal for ASA Championship Play. They require proof of passing the 2004 BPS. Stop refuting that by saying "legal for championship play". It doesn't matter.

Your logic escapes me. Let's try this. I am visiting you in a different state, and bring my dog.

1) Your area requires dogs to be licensed and to have had a current rabies shot.
2) My dog has a tag showing his license in my home county, which states that it can't be issued without proof of a current rabies shot.
3) My conclusion is that this is proof my dog has a current rabies shot.
4) Your conclusion, based on this statement, is that I still must show you a copy of the vet's certificate?

Originally Posted by Dakota

All ASA needs to do is make a simple declarative statement: "All bats with the 2000 mark have passed the 2004 BPS unless they are on the non-approved list." ASA has made no such claim.

Agreed that they have not used precisely that language. But, it sure seems to follow the statements that have been made, following the logical progression that 1) bats must pass the 2004 standard to be legal (leaving out the words for championship play for you), 2) if a bat has a 2000 cert and is not on the non-approved list it is legal, then, 3) how in the he!! can you conclude anything else but??

Originally Posted by Dakota

And your challenge is a ridiculous one to make to umpires. We, by and large, do not purchase bats. You might as well make a statement that nowhere on earth does it ever get above 90 degrees, and then challange all Eskimos to produce proof otherwise by naming a day where it did where they live.

I have exactly one bat that my DD used years ago. It has a 2000 stamp. It is a Louisville Slugger c555. Look it up if you want to.

I'm sorry. Did I ask you about bats that you, or any other umpire, owns? Or did I ask you about the multitude of bats that you pulled from NFHS games in the past months, following your policy of initially declining bats with 2000 certs? All of you who follow that policy have now cumulatively pulled how many thousands of bats by now? What about the past three years, since that July 2003 directive? Why can't even one of you name one bat which, when compared to the approved bat list, wasn't there (but also wasn't on the non-approved list)?

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Finally, I repeat and renew my challenge from the NFHS website. I challenge any one umpire, from anywhere in the USA, to name even one bat model that has the 2000 cert, yet does not appear on either the approved bat list nor the non-approved bat list. WMB "assumes" they exist; I challenge anyone to name one.

Until that challenge is met, I "assume" that the process is as complete as is stated, and do not subject NFHS teams to redundant means of proving it. Nor will I continue to repost my position with the same responses to the same assumptions. Name me one bat that supports your position.

Your position is that 100% of all bats carrying a 2000 mark are either on the approved or non-appproved list. To prove your position you state that no one ever gave you a bat model that is not on one of those lists. Of course that does not prove a fact, it only reinforces your personal opinion.

Twice in writing you have set forth your challenge. I assume that if a single bat meets your challenge, that your 100% position will be destroyed.

OK - Dakota did just that. Provided a bat model with 2000 mark not on either list. Now what? Recant? or wiggle?

Question:

Is Dakota's bat legal for ASA Championship play according to the ASA rule book?
Is it legal according to the ASA website?
Is it legal for NFHS play?

WMB

[AtlUmpSteve]

Let me add something that may not be clear about my position/opinion on this topic. In every state, you must follow the guidelines issued in your state. I understand completely that Dakota is supporting his state's guidelines in high school play; as is WMB.

I am disputing the dogmatic statement/belief that this is the only correct way to determine if a bat should be approved under NFHS Softball Rules. Rather than assuming that there must be, or even may be a bat that has a 2000 cert, and is on neither ASA bat list, I am asking any umpire on any message board to shoot a hole in the logical progression, and name one such bat.

Several of us are in a position to influence policy in our respective states. It strikes me that we should be working to address issues like this in the simplest manner, whatever manner that makes our job easier, follows the rules, protects our liability, but also allows the players to play the game without placing an unneeded burden of secondary proof. And, if the bat check procedure can be identical to that used by 40,000 ASA umpires already, that would be the simplest manner, IMO. If I am wrong, I want to work to change the current procedure in my state. Don't you?

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

Your position is that 100% of all bats carrying a 2000 mark are either on the approved or non-appproved list. To prove your position you state that no one ever gave you a bat model that is not on one of those lists. Of course that does not prove a fact, it only reinforces your personal opinion.

Twice in writing you have set forth your challenge. I assume that if a single bat meets your challenge, that your 100% position will be destroyed.

OK - Dakota did just that. Provided a bat model with 2000 mark not on either list. Now what? Recant? or wiggle?

Question:

Is Dakota's bat legal for ASA Championship play according to the ASA rule book?
Is it legal according to the ASA website?
Is it legal for NFHS play?

WMB

The C555 is not the model number; it was a Louisville Slugger marketing name/number, such as many other bats provide, part of a series which also included baseball bats. The proper model number is SB20, according to my research, and it is on the ASA Approved bat list.

Louisville Slugger SB20 approved 5/29/2001

So, yes, legal for ASA championship play.
Yes, legal according to the ASA website.
Yes, legal for NFHS play.

Yes, even a single bat would blow a hole into the process, but it has to be a legitimate bat model number. Not suggesting Dakota intentionally mislead, but that wasn't the model number. If such a bat does exist, then is no wiggle room; I would admit my mistake, and recant my position.

[Dakota]

I didn't go dig the bat out from under whatever it is buried under in the basement. That is the bat model that I recall she had. It had in big letters "C555" on the side. I made no claim as to what list it was or was not on, I was only pointing out my limited sample of bats. As I said, look it up. I doubt it was an "SB" bat, though... aren't those slow pitch bats? Or do I have my LS model numbers confused. Her bat was a -10 or -11... no self respecting slow pitch hitter would use it.

[Dakota]

If it is a fact that the "approved list" contains bats that have NOT been tested to the ASA 2004 BPS, only bats that ASA has approved for championship play, that does two things.

1) It confirms my point about ASA and what is legal for championship play, their broad statements notwithstanding, and,

2) It makes me question how NFHS can square that list with their rule, which simply states that the bat has to have passed the 2004 BPS. IOW, the rule from NFHS says one thing and the guidelines say another.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If it is a fact that the "approved list" contains bats that have NOT been tested to the ASA 2004 BPS, only bats that ASA has approved for championship play, that does two things.

1) It confirms my point about ASA and what is legal for championship play, their broad statements notwithstanding, and,

2) It makes me question how NFHS can square that list with their rule, which simply states that the bat has to have passed the 2004 BPS. IOW, the rule from NFHS says one thing and the guidelines say another.

So, where do you come up with this "fact"? Do you have this "fact" in writing from ASA, or NFHS, or a bat manufacturer? Because, that would contradict and violate the ASA statement that bats must pass the ASA 2004 bat standard to be legal in championship play, as well as the contract between ASA and the manufacturers that all bats be presented for testing.

This whole "fact" that confirms your point is total speculation on your part; and you wouldn't have said "if", if you knew otherwise. How can you speculate about a "fact" that is the premise of your point?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, where do you come up with this "fact"? Do you have this "fact" in writing from ASA, or NFHS, or a bat manufacturer? Because, that would contradict and violate the ASA statement that bats must pass the ASA 2004 bat standard to be legal in championship play, as well as the contract between ASA and the manufacturers that all bats be presented for testing.

This whole "fact" that confirms your point is total speculation on your part; and you wouldn't have said "if", if you knew otherwise. How can you speculate about a "fact" that is the premise of your point?

Simple. It is not possible for a bat to have passed in 2001 a test that did not exist until 2004. Obviously, all those bats with "approval" dates before 2004 were NOT submitted to the 2004 test. They were merely grandfathered.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Simple. It is not possible for a bat to have passed in 2001 a test that did not exist until 2004. Obviously, all those bats with "approval" dates before 2004 were NOT submitted to the 2004 test. They were merely grandfathered.

So, because they left the original approval date on the approved bat list, rather than change all entries, that is your "fact"? Even though it now contradicts not only ASA but NFHS, which state if the the bat has the 2000 cert and is on the approved bat list, that it has passed the 2004 standard?

Quite a leap of faith, given the inherent contradictions in your own point. But, hardly a "fact".

[AtlUmpSteve]

Added from further review. C555 is the name of an aluminum alloy used several bat manufacturers in the 2000-2002 era. It was on several Louisville Slugger bats, as well as Worth, Steele's, and others.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So, because they left the original approval date on the approved bat list, rather than change all entries, that is your "fact"? Even though it now contradicts not only ASA but NFHS, which state if the the bat has the 2000 cert and is on the approved bat list, that it has passed the 2004 standard?

Quite a leap of faith, given the inherent contradictions in your own point. But, hardly a "fact".

Hardly a leap of faith. ASA claims all bats must pass the 2004 BPS, but apparently not all have been tested. Just going by what they publish on the list - approval dates prior to 2004. If the bat was approved to the 2004 BPS in 2001, they have technology that they better guard carefully, or the Vulcans will be soon paying them a visit.

ASA has historically talked out of the side of their mouth on this kind of thing; they publish a rule and then back off under pressure from the manufacturers; past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior.

Therefore, a statement on a web site is hardly credible when the rest of their rules and lists to not back that up. Look at rule 3 carefully. It does not mention the 2004 BPS at all. It talks about stickers and lists. If they really were firm on this 2004 BPS thing, there would not be "other" ways of getting a bat into ASA Championship Play - umpire judgment for one. Grandfathering for another.

My mistake in all of this was also taking NFHS at their word that they meant it when they said the bat must meet the 2004 BPS. Apparently not. It just has to be "approved" by ASA.

[justmom]

Louisville Slugger SB103 Genesis without a recertification mark? The other bats on this press release seem to have made it back onto the approved list, but the Genesis only is listed with the recertification mark. http://www.asasoftball.com/communica...ry.asp?nid=182

[IRISHMAFIA]

In this world of technology and space-age mathematics, why is it so difficult to believe that comparative studies between the 2000 & 2004 test results could not determine whether a bat tested under the earlier test would have qualified under the latter?

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

In this world of technology and space-age mathematics, why is it so difficult to believe that comparative studies between the 2000 & 2004 test results could not determine whether a bat tested under the earlier test would have qualified under the latter?

Damn. Just what I was going to say, Mike. That's why you make the big bucks. Thank you.

If x + y = xy in 2000, x + y probably still equals xy in 2004, 2007, and 2695.

[Dakota]

As I understand it, the test setup and test specifications both differ between the two tests. I seriously doubt that the test results for the 2000 test could be mathematically converted to how that bat would have tested under the 2004 test. It that were possible, there would have been no need for the 2004 test. All they'd have to do is continue to use the 2000 test and convert the math.