OK, the ASA needs to clarify this...

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I think that once you start attempting to list ways a bat could be altered, you will miss, or they will come up with a new, one you haven't listed. IMO, the generic definitions in Rule 1 "Altered bat" and 3.1, and 3.7 NOTE are sufficient. Fixed physical characteristics at the time of manufacture seems to pretty much make clear that vicing, rolling, shaving, changing balance, etc., is changing the manufacturer's fixed specs; therefore, altered. If icing, cooling, and heating equipment changes the characteristics (are specified as illegal, and are, at best, temporary changes), even the most dense "Bubba" has to grasp that the other permanent changes are altering the bat.

That isn't gray to me. It is only gray if you allow it to be gray. If you see one that you suspect has been altered, throw it out of the game. Period. "In your judgment", the bat has been altered, and is, therefore, not to be used in today's game. Period.

Vicing and rolling do not physically alter the bat (specifically rolling) any differently than hitting BP does. That's the problem. If there is no difference in the end results, then there is no difference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by JPRempe

Vicing and rolling do not physically alter the bat (specifically rolling) any differently than hitting BP does. That's the problem. If there is no difference in the end results, then there is no difference.

Yes, they do. The bat is manufactured and intended to hit a softball; that is a finite force of a finite size applied in individual instances. That is part of the manufacturer's characteristics, design, and specifications for use. The actions you describe, same as hitting a fence post, do not meet that design characteristis, therefore have altered the bat.

This is your judgment call; you need to listen to their viewpoint of what clearly is intended to be illegal as much as you need to allow them to dispute a fair/foul call.

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Yes, they do. The bat is manufactured and intended to hit a softball; that is a finite force of a finite size applied in individual instances. That is part of the manufacturer's characteristics, design, and specifications for use. The actions you describe, same as hitting a fence post, do not meet that design characteristis, therefore have altered the bat.

This is your judgment call; you need to listen to their viewpoint of what clearly is intended to be illegal as much as you need to allow them to dispute a fair/foul call.

First off, this isn't some during the game incident we're talking about here, but rather a philosophical debate between players and even other umpires on both a message board and in real life face to face conversations. Don't think for a moment that I wouldn't hesitate to toss out a bat or player if I knew for a fact that a bat had been rolled/viced and was being used in a game. I know the intent of the rules and regs, and know how to enforce it. Of course the only way for me to know if something was done to the bat would be for the player who owns the bat to tell me what he/she did with it.

The lawyer in me says the ASA regs/rules is full of holes. I told the gentlemen (plural) I'm debating this with that I personally see the rolling/vicing/whatever of bats as altering, but I also see that the ASA regs absolutely do not state what 'altered' is well enough to fully cover this issue. A simple addition to the wording of the rules/regs would completely solve this issue. Either that, or in plain and simple words put into the regs/rules the only approved method for breaking in and using an ASA approved bat is to hit a ball (whether from a person tossing it to you as the batter, from a pitching machine of some type, or from hitting off a tee). If we leave the regs/rules wording as is, hitting a .47/525 ball using an ASA bat thereby makes it "altered" and no longer allowed for use. How do I enforce that? Hell, hitting .44/375 balls with an ASA bat would then make the bat 'altered' if I were to use your line of thinking then. Bats like the Miken Freak98 take many a hit to finally open up, but when they do finally get to that point, and up until the point where they are no longer usable (when they break, basically), they easily could exceed the 98mph testing standards if they were to be resubmitted for official testing! These are scientific facts which can be backed up with further testing.

Anyway, the point isn't to start some kind of debate/argument with my fellow umps here. The point is to better protect the ASA as an organization from a liability standpoint. If or when a lawsuit came up about this very issue, a decent attorney could easily defeat the verbiage of the ASA rules/regs and cause us to have a setback. None of us want that to happen, I guarantee it...

[Skahtboi]

The weight, distribution of weight, and length of the bat as well as all other characteristics of the bat must be permanently fixed at the time of manufacture and may not be altered in any way thereafter...

This statement seems to say it all.

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

The weight, distribution of weight, and length of the bat as well as all other characteristics of the bat must be permanently fixed at the time of manufacture and may not be altered in any way thereafter...

This statement seems to say it all.

Again, this does not even come close to a perfect solution. The more you take 'legal' at bats and BP with a composite ASA bat, the more the "fixed at the time of manufacture and may not be altered in any way thereafter" characteristics of the bat change! Do you guys really mean to tell me you don't know what happens to composite bats the longer you hit with them?

The walls become thinner due to loss of material from repeated impacts with 'legal' BP and game usage. You can hear the material rattling around inside the bat (this is resin/glue and composite material from the bat itself)! The bat hits the ball harder and harder with the same swing speed and same incoming pitched ball speed, resulting in a higher true batted ball speed. This batted ball speed increases as the overall life of the composite bat decrease (sometimes proportinally, sometimes not) The bat is altered physically by exactly following the ASA guidelines!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by JPRempe

Again, this does not even come close to a perfect solution. The more you take 'legal' at bats and BP with a composite ASA bat, the more the "fixed at the time of manufacture and may not be altered in any way thereafter" characteristics of the bat change! Do you guys really mean to tell me you don't know what happens to composite bats the longer you hit with them?

The walls become thinner due to loss of material from repeated impacts with 'legal' BP and game usage. You can hear the material rattling around inside the bat (this is resin/glue and composite material from the bat itself)! The bat hits the ball harder and harder with the same swing speed and same incoming pitched ball speed, resulting in a higher true batted ball speed. This batted ball speed increases as the overall life of the composite bat decrease (sometimes proportinally, sometimes not) The bat is altered physically by exactly following the ASA guidelines!

ASA and the bat manufacturers know this. ASA has still approved these bats, therefore they have approved of the ongoing changing characteristics. When the bat is manufactured, the manufacturer is well aware of the changing characteristics. They are a factor in the design of the bat. And as such, are permanently fixed at the time of manufacture.

So if rolling and vicing produce exactly the same characteristics as the manufacturer designed into the bat, and ASA approved, what is the issue?

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

ASA and the bat manufacturers know this. ASA has still approved these bats, therefore they have approved of the ongoing changing characteristics. When the bat is manufactured, the manufacturer is well aware of the changing characteristics. They are a factor in the design of the bat. And as such, are permanently fixed at the time of manufacture.

So if rolling and vicing produce exactly the same characteristics as the manufacturer designed into the bat, and ASA approved, what is the issue?

That's the exact point of the folks who roll/vice their bats. What's the difference?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

ASA and the bat manufacturers know this. ASA has still approved these bats, therefore they have approved of the ongoing changing characteristics. When the bat is manufactured, the manufacturer is well aware of the changing characteristics. They are a factor in the design of the bat. And as such, are permanently fixed at the time of manufacture.

So if rolling and vicing produce exactly the same characteristics as the manufacturer designed into the bat, and ASA approved, what is the issue?

Most on this board have not had the opportunities Steve and I have on this point.

We have been through sessions conducted by a bat manufacture's rep who formerly worked in the dept at Washington State that developed the standards and testing.

Rolling or vicing a bat are referred to as Accelerated Break In (ABI) methods that do alter the characteristics of the bat. A bat is manufactured to meet specific standard and restrictions that should not be exceeded at the bat's peak performance period.

Bats are meant to wear and break down in a certain fashion. Using an ABI weakens the integrity of the bat and causes the bat to peak in 1/4 of the time it was manufactured to last. Remember, we are talking about composites which will break down and literally fall apart in some cases.

More often we are beginning to hear a rattle in some bats. We are being told that this is part of the shell starting to bread down or evidence that someone has tampered with the inside of the bat's shell. I have also seen a bat which has been rolled have it's paint/seal break down and create a crack in the barrel.

Additional thoughts on rolling a bat, and vicing in certain areas, also causes parts of the barrel not often used to contact the ball, thus not manufactured to wear the same as the "sweet spot" of the barrel which also weakens the integrity of the bat.

While not the sole reason some of these bats shatter, it certainly can be factor in the cause. Now you have a safety issue possibly aided by the ABI method.

Probably not the response you wanted, but that is pretty much how ASA and the bat manufacturer's see it. Also, whether you agree or not, ASA's testing and standards efforts are the most comprehensive of any sanctioning body, so I would pretty much give Dr. Lloyd Smith's lab work and findings the benefit of any doubt there may be.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JPRempe

The lawyer in me says the ASA regs/rules is full of holes.

Maybe, for a court of law perspective. But that doesn't matter, since the rule is enforced by umpire judgment.