OK, the ASA needs to clarify this...

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The standards are based on the bat at hits "peak" or "hottest" for a lack of better term.



Yea...if they've been shaved, weight distribution changed or the manufacturer cheated and lied. But then again, nothing I say to you is going to sell you. And I would probably be cynical too, if I didn't have the opportunity to hear and talk to Dr. Smith and the Worth rep over the past two years.

I'm not cynical due to inexperience with the subject. I've done plenty of my own informal scientific testing using batted ball speed (using local upper level players) as well as reading some extensive research done by Kettering University, and have also been in contact with the good folks from Anderson Bat Company about their facts, figures, and research. I love physics and physical science, and this is just a hobby of mine! You should see my R/C aircraft, boats, and vehicle collection which I use to test various scientific instruments. I figured I would just apply one hobby to my new hobby of umpiring as well (pertaining to bats and balls, what happens when they're hit, etc etc).

I do truly enjoy umpiring, and enjoy the brotherhood/sisterhood of my fellow blues...
Anyway, I don't mean to sound cynical, Mr. Rowe. I just have some other information which has been compiled from other sources

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JPRempe

I'm not cynical due to inexperience with the subject. I've done plenty of my own informal scientific testing using batted ball speed (using local upper level players) as well as reading some extensive research done by Kettering University, and have also been in contact with the good folks from Anderson Bat Company about their facts, figures, and research.

Yes, I'm familiar with Dan Russell, also.

I love physics and physical science, and this is just a hobby of mine! You should see my R/C aircraft, boats, and vehicle collection which I use to test various scientific instruments. I figured I would just apply one hobby to my new hobby of umpiring as well (pertaining to bats and balls, what happens when they're hit, etc etc).

The biggest problem to make it as close to perfect as possible is that the "on field" action cannot be consistantly duplicated. However, just watching the slow-motion film of a pitched ball hitting the swinging bat is unbelievable. The extent to which the ball "collapses" around the bat and then rebounds is pretty amazing.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound cynical, Mr. Rowe. I just have some other information which has been compiled from other sources

But the issue is that we have the best information we can presently get and the rules are based upon it. Whether one believes it or not is actually irrelevant as we are bound to enforce the rules as umpires. In turn, such an umpire could be held liable if they choose to ignore the rules that some believe could save a player, coach or fan their life.

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Yes, I'm familiar with Dan Russell, also.



The biggest problem to make it as close to perfect as possible is that the "on field" action cannot be consistantly duplicated. However, just watching the slow-motion film of a pitched ball hitting the swinging bat is unbelievable. The extent to which the ball "collapses" around the bat and then rebounds is pretty amazing.



But the issue is that we have the best information we can presently get and the rules are based upon it. Whether one believes it or not is actually irrelevant as we are bound to enforce the rules as umpires. In turn, such an umpire could be held liable if they choose to ignore the rules that some believe could save a player, coach or fan their life.

There's never been a question of me enforcing the rules. I think a rolled bat = an altered bat, and I will act accordingly. Unfortunately I'm involved in a dialog with an ASA ump who sides with those that alter the bats...

And yes, watching a softball pancake like it does when it hits the bat (and the way the bat reacts) is completely crazy to watch in slow motion!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JPRempe

There's never been a question of me enforcing the rules. I think a rolled bat = an altered bat, and I will act accordingly. Unfortunately I'm involved in a dialog with an ASA ump who sides with those that alter the bats...

And yes, watching a softball pancake like it does when it hits the bat (and the way the bat reacts) is completely crazy to watch in slow motion!

The rule as written is probably as well written as you could hope. I think that if you started trying to define specific illegal acts, you'd actually make the rule HARDER to enforce. For instance ... if Rolling was illegal, how would you prove that the specific marks on a specific bat came from rolling? No ... I think we're better off just using the terms currently in the rules and asking our umpires to enforce them. I'm sorry you are having to deal with an umpire who refuses to deal with the situation because of a personal opinion of his. I'd treat this as any other situation with an umpire who refused to enforce a rule because of a personal opinion (in my case, meaning ... he doesn't get to work any more games for me if he refuses to enforce this rule).

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The rule as written is probably as well written as you could hope. I think that if you started trying to define specific illegal acts, you'd actually make the rule HARDER to enforce. For instance ... if Rolling was illegal, how would you prove that the specific marks on a specific bat came from rolling? No ... I think we're better off just using the terms currently in the rules and asking our umpires to enforce them. I'm sorry you are having to deal with an umpire who refuses to deal with the situation because of a personal opinion of his. I'd treat this as any other situation with an umpire who refused to enforce a rule because of a personal opinion (in my case, meaning ... he doesn't get to work any more games for me if he refuses to enforce this rule).

If he was in my particular association that might very well be the route we'd be going...

[AtlUmpSteve]

As you may know, I have a lot of influence in who does what in your particular area (to you from a distance, Dacula is in Gwinnett County, GA). Send me a private message with more specific info, and I suspect I can get him a message/lesson without you being left in the middle.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

The rule as written is probably as well written as you could hope. I think that if you started trying to define specific illegal acts, you'd actually make the rule HARDER to enforce. For instance ... if Rolling was illegal, how would you prove that the specific marks on a specific bat came from rolling? No ... I think we're better off just using the terms currently in the rules and asking our umpires to enforce them.

As much crap as people give ASA for not saying this or doing that in a specific manner, I believe rule wording often allows a larger scope to be taken into consideration for the purpose of trying to stay ahead of technological advances.

For example, I don't know how many times I've had to tell folks about rosin vs. resin. Yes, the product on the field is basically a rosin. However, rosin is in the resin family and using the broader term allows for someone coming up with another product that may not exactly be rosin, but still is in the resin family. Same with heating the bats. It is acknowledged that the bat warmers now on the market do not have a long term affect on the bats and would probably only be advantageous if removed from the warmer and hits the ball within seconds. However, that's not to say there could be an advancement in the product which could do a "better" job in the near future. So, since the warming of bats does technically alter the characteristics of the bat even for a short period of time, it is still illegal.

[NCASAUmp]

I frankly fail to see why there's even a debate about rolling versus natural bat usage. It's like abusing the daylights out of your car's transmission until it breaks, then taking it into a shop, saying, "hey, fix this, because it's covered." Should you be surprised when your mechanic tells you, "this isn't going to be covered, because YOU did it, not the car"? Not at all.

There's a difference between natural progression and being covered and deliberately going out of your way to "speed it up a bit."

I don't care if it's a Ford Taurus or not.