OK, the ASA needs to clarify this...

[JPRempe]

...on the approved equipment and altered equipment/bats fronts.

There needs to be specific verbiage in the rules/regs which states the following points in some form or fashion;

*Viced/vicing bats needs to be added to the altered bats sections

*Rolled/rolling bats needs to be added to the altered bats sections

*A specifically written approved way for the proper break in of bats (not hitting them against a pole, vicing them, rolling them, shaving them, endloading them...etc etc etc).

That way we can avoid all of this grey area BS which continually plagues our SP play. Of course, we need some way to be able to test for these things as well...

What do you folks think?

[Dakota]

I think all of those things are already covered in the "altered" rule. The problem is with detecting them, isn't it?

[JPRempe]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I think all of those things are already covered in the "altered" rule. The problem is with detecting them, isn't it?

They are not covered in the altered rule per se. The way the rules are currently written, it's just a catch all phrase(s). People are going to work in the grey area until you make it black and white.


3-1J

J. ALTERED BAT. The official bat shall not be an Altered Bat 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, except as otherwise specifically provided for in Rule 3,
Section 1, or as specifically approved by the ASA. A “flare” or “cone” grip attached
to the bat handle, inserting material inside the bat, applying excessive
tape (more than two layers) to the bat grip or painting a bat other than at the top
or bottom for identification purposes are examples of altering a bat. Replacing
the grip with another legal grip is not considered altering the bat. Laser marking
for “ID” purposes is not considered altered. Engraved “ID” marking on the
knob end only of a metal bat is not considered altered. Engraved “ID” marking
on the barrel end of a metal bat is considered an altered bat.

3-7

Section 7. ALL EQUIPMENT.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ASA reserves the right to withhold or withdraw
approval of any equipment which, in the ASA’s sole determination, significantly
changes the character of the game, affects the safety of participants or spectators,
or renders a player’s performance more a product of the player’s equipment rather
than the player’s individual skill.

The term "altered" and the phrase/wording "all other characteristics of the bat must be permanently fixed at the time of manufacture and may not be altered in any way thereafter, except as otherwise specifically provided for in Rule 3, Section 1, or as specifically approved by the ASA." need to be exactly specific.

Rolling a bat or vicing a bat does not actually physically alter (meaning take away material, add material, etc) the characteristics of the bat any more than hitting a lot of batting practice does (referring to composite bats here)...so the claimants say. The sad part is that I agree with them from a physics and physical science standpoint. Changing the temperature is an alteration, and shaving material off is an alteration, but using a machine to roll the bat to get it into a state of being broken in/loose is not an alteration. Sure, it's not an approved ASA method, but neither is BP!

That's why I say it needs to be blatantly specific and clearly black and white as to what is altered and what is not altered. As the rules are currently written, altered is completely left open to individual interpretation...and that does us no good. Hell, the rule wouldn't even stand up as is in a court of law. You and I know it's meaning and application, but that doesn't mean everyone else does...

[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.

[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.

[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.