S-B Bats
 

We have not-approved bat lists for all of our HS/Fed unpires. Two questions have come up reguarding fast pitch bats.
1. Are bats with older approval dates (less than 2004 & not on the non-approved list) leagal?
2. Are slow pitch bats (these bats have print on them "approved for slow pitch") approved for fast pitch HS/Fed games.

1. As long as they meet the 2004 ASA Bat Performance Standard and are not on the non-approved bat list, they are legal.

2. As long as they meet the qualifications listed in #1 and meet all other specifications set forth in the NFHS rule book, I would say yes.

let me repeat what you said?
 

Any bats that has 2000 ASA approval are not approved.
Slow pitch bats, as long as they do not:confused: appear on the non-approved ASA bat list. and have a 2004 stamp. are good to use.

Bats with a 2000 stamp need to be on the "approved" list to be legal in NFHS.

Since the "approved" list is very long, here is the process I use when inspecting HS bats:

1) Does the bat have a 2004 stamp? No - toss it out.

2) If 1) is 'yes', is the bat on the disapproved list? Yes - toss it out.

3) If 2) is 'no', inspect the bat for physical damage, etc.

A bat tossed in 1) will be let back in the game if the coach produces the "approved list" marked up showing where this bat is legal.

There have been several long threads on other boards on whether merely looking for a stamp, any stamp (2000 and/or 2004) and using the non-approved list is sufficient. It boils down to the question for the ASA, "Are ALL bats that historically had the 2000 stamp applied and would NOT pass the 2004 test on the non-approved list." So far, nothing from ASA officially. A few people with very vocal opinions on the matter.

BTW, you are unlikely to see a slow pitch bat in a HS game due to the weight and balance of the bat - MOST HS girls would not be able to swing the bat effectively against HS varsity pitching. But, if you do, it is legal / illegal according to the same process as a fast pitch bat. A bat is a bat.

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.:rolleyes:

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.

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". You also find this interesting statement, 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.

Technically, Tom's way of doing things is the correct way. Put the onus on the coach to show that their bat is approved.

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

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)

Reread your own quote taken from the ASA website. 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.

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.

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.

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.