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.

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

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?

Pennsylvania has made it easy for us in a different way than Florida. In Pa, if there is no 2004 imprint/stamp, the bat is not allowed. If the 2004 mark is on the bat, check it against the non-approved list.

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?

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

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?

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

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

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.

Quote:

If that last statement is true

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.

2004 Bat Rule Information

NFHS 2004 Softball Bat Rule Information

NFHS BAT RULE

2004 NFHS Softball Rules Book, Rule 1-5-4 states: "Effective January 1, 2004, the bat shall meet the Amateur Softball Association (ASA) 2004 Bat Performance Standard."

ASA 2004 PERFORMANCE STANDARD

ASA has adopted a new bat performance standard, effective January 1, 2004. This change has been made in light of recent scientific developments. Much of the research leading to the new bat standard and the new ASTM test method has been funded by ASA. ASA has determined that this change is necessary because some of the highest performing bats on the market are adversely affecting the character and integrity of the game and rendering a player's performance more a product of his/her bat than his/her individual skill.

The ASTM F1890 test method is no longer the industry standard, even though some softball associations continue to rely on this test method. ASTM has just recently developed the ASTM

F2219 test method. The most recent version of F2219 is available at www.astm.org - click on "standards." This test method provides a number of improvements over the old ASTM F1890 test method. For example, F2219 allows bats to be tested in the lab at a much higher speed, including speeds actually found in the field of play. It also places tighter tolerances on testing procedures, such as the softballs that are used in conducting the bat test. ASTM F2219 allows the testing to be done at the "sweet spot" of the bat - regardless of where that point is along the barrel of the bat.

The ASA 2004 bat standard relies on the swing speed of the batter. ASA has learned and now takes into account that a batter's swing speed is more dependent on the distribution of the weight across the length of the bat than just the total weight of the bat alone. This weight distribution feature is often referred to as the bat's moment of inertia, and is incorporated into the new 2004 standard. The 2004 standard is also based on more accurate information about the speeds involved in the "bat-ball collision," which are swing speed of the bat and the pitch speed of the ball.

The 2004 bat standard has a maximum batted ball speed (BBS) limit of 98 mph when tested according to the ASTM F2219 test method (as approved for balloting). Even though this limit is numerically higher than the ASA 2000 bat performance standard, in science and in practice the 2004 bat standard is actually a reduction compared to the 2000 bat standard. The F2219 testing is done at higher speeds than under the old F1890 standard. As a result, some bats that satisfied the old ASA standard of 125 fps will not pass the new 98 mph standard. Bats that do not satisfy the ASA 2004 Bat Performance Standard will not be permitted in NFHS play, effective January 1, 2004. Bats that satisfy the ASA 2004 Bat Performance Standard will be authorized to display a new 2004 ASA certification mark. Older bats that pass the new standard will be added to the list of approved bats and will be permitted for NFHS play.

PERMANENT 2004 CERTIFICATION MARK

To indicate that a bat meets the new 2004 standard, the permanent mark, as shown below, is placed only on those bats that have been recently manufactured and meet the 2004 performance standard.



ENFORCEMENT

Each state association shall determine appropriate enforcement procedures within their own state. Below are a few suggestions:

1. Have each participating team provide the umpires a current printed copy of the approved bat list from the ASA Web site. Each bat in their possession and intended for use should be highlighted, so that the umpire can quickly inspect and verify the bat's legality. A new list need only be printed off when new bats are added to the team's inventory.

2. Have the host school provide the umpires upon arrival, a current printed copy of the approved bat list, from the ASA Web site. The list should be printed off at least once per week.

3. Have umpires carry with them a current printed copy of the approved bat list from the ASA Web site to utilize when inspecting bats. The list should be printed off at least once per week.

4. Have both the schools and the umpires be responsible for being in possession of a current approved bat list from the ASA Web site.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Holy Complication batman!

If you werent confused before, I highly recommend this thread.

I agree that is what it means to you, but that is not what it means.

NFHS has been following the 2004 ASA bat performance standard, not the ASA definition of what is legal for Championship Play. ASA provides several wiggle loop holes around the 2004 BPS that NFHS does not allow.

Without all the longwinded efforts at re-explaining, I simply do not agree.

1) ASA requires all bats in championship play to meet the ASA 2004 bat standard.
2) ASA tells you that if a bat has the 2000 cert and is NOT on the nonapproved list it is legal for championship play.
3) That tells me that if (2) is true, that bat meets the ASA 2004 bat standard.
4) NFHS requires all bats to meet the ASA 2004 bat standard.
5) That tells me that (3) is still true.

The simple difference between NFHS and ASA is that ASA does still allow judgment of bats that pre-exist any bat standard; NFHS does not.

The MS ruling does not serve to clarify your position; it simply restates the same wording that has been used since July, 2003. No change in wording, and no change in process, since she certainly would not wish to announce to all the states that have adopted an alternate method that their method is superfluous and redundant. So, restate the same old same old.

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. You have been checking and pulling these bats in NFHS games for months, so surely someone can name one, right? The reason I say you won't find one? Because the manufacturers all signed a contract with ASA that requires them to either submit ALL bats for testing, or to state which models would not be submitted for testing (and, therefore, added immediately to the non-approved bat list). In fact, several of the bats which were non-approved prior to the 2004 bat standard were then moved to the approved bat list; they were resubmitted (as required by the contract), and passed the newer testing standard.

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.

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.

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.

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.

My pi$$ing into the wind detector has detected much pi$$ing into the wind.

Do I care? Damn right.
Do I care THAT much. No. At least probably not enough to suit someone.
Will I toss a bat that ain't legal? Hell yes. I've tossed three bats in a slow pitch league this year that had the 2004 mark. (They were not legal for other means, including flat spots, etc.) (Second thought: Maybe THAT is why I didn't get any more slow pitch assignments!)

In an independent random survey of high school coaches I have dealt with this year, I have found exactly two carrying the approved list with their bats marked.

One coach who told me he didn't have a list had a novel explanation: "We don't have any team bats. All the girls have their own bats, so it's not up to me to have a list on hand." I kid you not, those were his exact words. Unfortunately, all of his girls' bats were approved with 2004 stamps.

They don't need to make any such claim just to satisfy an outside concern. It is NFHS which adopted the ASA standard, not the other way around.

Those with the 2000 mark haven't passed anything because they were not tested at the 2004 level. No one hear as stated they were tested, but that, they do meet the standard which ASA set for 2004.

If NFHS folks don't care for the way ASA handles it, maybe they need to get off the free ride and determine their own standards. Of course, that is not going to happen and it is probably better for the players that it doesn't.

Then again, if NFHS was so damned worried about the 2004 standards being met, they would just permit those bats with that certification mark. But, no, they are allowing bats that are on the list REGARDLESS of what standard they meet.

This brings me back to the reason. If they are permitting ALL bats on the list regardless of certification mark, why even bother with noting any requirement for either mark? This obviously indicates it is not a safety issue relating to the 2004 BPS. The only thing I can think of is to make the umpire's life easier. :D

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?


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??

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)?

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Except for all the new bats...and updated models...etc.etc.

What do the dates in the last column of the ASA list mean? The heading just says "Last Updated", but it doesn't say whether it is the list/test result that was updated, or the design of the bat model itself that was updated.

It is the date the bat was approved and officially added to the list.