I hate to say I told you guys so...

[AtlUmpSteve]

I just want to add one thought; Mike, you might take it up the chain. If ASA really wanted to make it easier for umpires, they would rework the list to show the categories I referenced. 1) Bats with 2004 seals that are banned. 2) Bats with 2000 seals that are banned. 3) Bats without seals that are banned.

They could make Category 3 very short and sweet. Ban all of them. If it didn't get manufactured or approved since 2000, why are we still playing with it in 2008?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I just want to add one thought; Mike, you might take it up the chain. If ASA really wanted to make it easier for umpires, they would rework the list to show the categories I referenced. 1) Bats with 2004 seals that are banned. 2) Bats with 2000 seals that are banned. 3) Bats without seals that are banned.

It is not a bad idea, but category 3 is actually the bear here. I see this more as a management of the list as I don't see it really reduce the number of possibilities.

They could make Category 3 very short and sweet. Ban all of them. If it didn't get manufactured or approved since 2000, why are we still playing with it in 2008?

Actually, I just covered this in a clinic. You must have been in a different meeting when the change to require all bats have the certification stamp was raised. The WI at-large player rep raised a good point. Doing so would outlaw all the older, pre-composite, less lively models in favor of hotter bats and that sort of defeats the purpose of the rules used to control the hot bats.

Hey, even a blind squirrel, ya' know?

[wadeintothem]

One thing that would be nice is taking a page from NFHS.. this goes straight on the coaches, by written rule

"Coach are your players/equipment legal?"

Thus ends my equipment check other than a TRUE courtesy check and being watchful during the game.

Pre game equipment checks fall virtually by the way side after the first few games of any tourney I've ever worked, especially once the mad 10 mins between games rotation begins... and of course, very few are dumb enough to set their modified/illegal bats out for the pregame stuff in any case.

I think it would be much wiser to place this squarely on the coaches. They DO know who has illegal bats on their team.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

This is a whole lot of to-do over nothing. The job of umpires did not get harder, and the liability of umpires is not extended if players intentionally play with an altered, illegal, or otherwise banned bat.

Thats not true at all.

If I had to guess the #1 reason we would face serious liability if an incident happened.. it is our great insurance. That is a deep pocket that any lawyer would try to reach into. They dont care about your 88 Plymouth voyager with clothes rack in the back with 28 different shirts and wadded up mcdonalds bags all over the place.. but millions in insurance.. yummy.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

One thing that would be nice is taking a page from NFHS.. this goes straight on the coaches, by written rule

"Coach are your players/equipment legal?"

Is as useless as the piece of paper on which it is written and a total waste of time and effort.

Thus ends my equipment check other than a TRUE courtesy check and being watchful during the game.

Actually, it ends nothing. One coach making a useless claim does not absolve an umpire from due dilligence. At least when you check, when you go to court, you can confirm that you did your job and any illegal equipment must have been brought out after the equipment check.

Pre game equipment checks fall virtually by the way side after the first few games of any tourney I've ever worked, especially once the mad 10 mins between games rotation begins... and of course, very few are dumb enough to set their modified/illegal bats out for the pregame stuff in any case.

At the state level, maybe the detail inspection, but not to the point of ignoring the equipment. Above that, every piece of equipment is checked every game

I think it would be much wiser to place this squarely on the coaches. They DO know who has illegal bats on their team.

But it doesn't. You are confusing a game sanctioned by an organization of members required by law to act in loco parentis with a game that is not. This does not apply to ASA or any other organization.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Is as useless as the piece of paper on which it is written and a total waste of time and effort.



Actually, it ends nothing. One coach making a useless claim does not absolve an umpire from due dilligence. At least when you check, when you go to court, you can confirm that you did your job and any illegal equipment must have been brought out after the equipment check.



At the state level, maybe the detail inspection, but not to the point of ignoring the equipment. Above that, every piece of equipment is checked every game



But it doesn't. You are confusing a game sanctioned by an organization of members required by law to act in loco parentis with a game that is not. This does not apply to ASA or any other organization.

Let us all give IrishMafia a great big AMEN BROTHER!!

MTD, Sr.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Is as useless as the piece of paper on which it is written and a total waste of time and effort.

I'm curious as to why, in your perspective, putting at least an onus of responsibility on the coaches (especially in JO), in writing and by rule, is a waste of time and effort? It takes 1 second to ask them.

Doubtless its been brought up in OKC before.. what are the real arguments against it?

Due diligence in a pregame check plus a coach affirming his equipment is legal.. that seems about as solid as you can get.

The additional bonus would be they would know they are responsible.

That said, its not JO where you run into the problems, its the mens games.

I've heard rumor that the mens FP in our area have left ASA and gone to AFA, so it may be a non issue anyway.. can't say I'm really sorry to see them go either.

[AtlUmpSteve]

The ASA reasoning is quite simple; asking or even telling coach he is legally liable has no legal standing. That statement cannot waive the legal rights, remedies, nor responsibilities of anyone else. Not the youths, the parents of the youths, nor even the adults in the adult games.

The lawyers have further stated that a signed waiver would also serve no legal purpose. So, there is no point in attempting to say the coach is liable, and that saying it, knowing it has no legal standing, might even be used against the umpires and ASA by a jury.

It only has a legal standing in NFHS, where the SCHOOL assumes responsibility for the students in a school function. We say the coach is liable; the coach is acting as an employee, and would be defended and indemnified by the school.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

I'm curious as to why, in your perspective, putting at least an onus of responsibility on the coaches (especially in JO), in writing and by rule, is a waste of time and effort? It takes 1 second to ask them.

Doubtless its been brought up in OKC before.. what are the real arguments against it?

It is all about insurance.

As Steve noted, this is a school function and the coach is their agent. Like an accident in a science class, an injury in a gym class (if they still have these) or an accident in the cafeteria, whatever happens during a HS game is the responsibility of the child's school. By law, the school whether self-insured, covered by a district or statewide policy, is responsible for any issues involving the student.

This is not true outside of that realm. The coach can say a player is properly equiped and all is safe and legal, but has no legal standing in making such a statement as in this case, the insurance is held by either the league, team, parents or all of the above. The coach cannot speak for anyone, but himself.

It is much like an umpire working a non-sanctioned game and being told that they will not be held liable. Problem is, these folks do NOT have the authority to waive the rights of their insurance company. If a player is hurt during a situation like this, the moment they present an insurance card or other type of coverage to anyone, that insurance company has every right to attempt to recoup their monies should they find someone else may be responsible for the injury. As you know, being a figure of authority on that field, the umpire will be the first scrutinized.

Due diligence in a pregame check plus a coach affirming his equipment is legal.. that seems about as solid as you can get.

Due dililgence in a pregame check is the plus, however, the coach's affirmation is useless which is why the due diligence cannot be discarded.

The additional bonus would be they would know they are responsible.

Well, you may get them to believe they are responsible, but that doesn't make it so

That said, its not JO where you run into the problems, its the mens games.

Not necesssarily true. While you may not have as many bat issues in JO, there are still issues with helmets and facemasks. With the advent of territorial Nationals in ASA, more teams that previously would not attempt to play to this level are attending these tournaments.

As we all know, many play the game under other sanctioning bodies or at the local ASA level where some of the "due diligence" on equipment is not performed in a close manner or is overlooked. The teams still show up with a catcher's helmet with no ear flaps, batter's helmets with no chin straps or face masks that do not have a NOCSAE stamp/sticker on it or is not securely fastened to the helmet. These issues are just as important as the illegal/altered bats. Luckily, it is getting better every year.

I've heard rumor that the mens FP in our area have left ASA and gone to AFA, so it may be a non issue anyway.. can't say I'm really sorry to see them go either.

Maybe, but the issue will be the same with AFA as it would be with any other sanctioning body.

[Dakota]

It is not the speech that "makes" the coach responsible, it is in the stated rules for NFHS as to who is responsible for ensuring the players are using legal equipment... coach, player, and parents. It is stated directly in NFHS Rule 5-1.

However, this rule also states that the umpire has "the duty and the right to inspect equipment", so the umpire's pre-game equipment inspection is not just a courtesy. It is a duty.

[wadeintothem]

Fair enough steve and mike, if the lawyers have said it don't mean squat, then that pretty much sums it up and would make sense as to why ASA does not do it.

Thanks.