I hate to say I told you guys so...
 

...but the ASA's testing procedure for bats now mirrors experiments done by several universities and individuals (including myself) in that an accelerated break in process definitely helps the current generation of 98mph rated composite bats exceed the 98mph BBS barrier by a significant margin. Some bats actually had their effective BBS raised by as much as 9MPH during said testing. We're not talking about shaving and/or endloading bats here, but rather putting them through the process called "rolling".

This new testing procedure also shows that the more you legally hit/use a composite bat, the more likely it will be to also exceed said limit based on the effective swing speed of the bat (again, we're talking about the current generation composite bats).

In short, the bat manufacturers are going to have to get with the program so as to not have their bats either banned/grandfathered/whatever result the ASA comes to. The next generation of bats are either going to come straight out of the wrapper at the 96-98 BBS area and be limited on overall durability, or will come out at a much lower BBS rating in the hopes that the bat eventually achieves the desired BBS rating. Either way, there are going to be a whole bunch of new bats on the horizon...

Who told who what????? :D

The improvement in performance was pretty much common knowledge, wouldn't you think?

The problem was that contracts with the manufacturers did not permit ASA to test used bats, but only bats randomly purchased new. The only "shock" I experienced was that OKC seemed stunned at the results of testing used bats.

I think you are going to see more aluminum, multi-walled bats returning to the market.

One of the top 10 lies of all time... "I hate to say I told you so..." :D

Their bat list is already almost unmanageable.. the days of a cute little folded up piece of paper in your line up card holder are nearly gone.. we may soon need a 3 ring binder on the field to figure this bat thing out.

This is ASA's problem. I could care less about the specs of a used bat until ASA makes me care, which I hope is no time soon.

there are too many banned bats already - something needs done

So, how much less could you care?

Maybe you should check out the death of Greg Ferguson

http://www.houstonsportsplex.com/

Its of course terrible, as is the death of many others if we dug around.. I pretty much guarantee you a good shot off a new easton stealth or RT or any other bat will could put you down as well. I dont know which bat was used in his incident.

It's still ASA problem and the bat thing is still well out of hand, which is ASA's fault. They set their standards... Manufacturers like to make money so they comply, ASA is now chasing their tail because obviously ASA goofed up.

The ONLY banned bats SHOULD be: Hot bats (bats designed to intentionally be outside ASA specs) modified bats, and damaged bats.

Any thing else represents MAJOR failures on the part of the ASA bat cert program.

Reading up on Ferguson, the stat I saw was 4 people died in the last 10 years. I know there have been many injuries.. and I've seen my share as well. Not to be harsh, but more kids died just dropping dead for no reason while playing sports in the last 10 years. Sports are dangerous.

The bat list is not manageable and we are liable. Most umpires used to pretty much have the list memorized and you could spot a hot bat pretty quickly.

Add to that, so many bats that are now illegal, have virtually the same name as a legal bat. Youre going to see synergies and rocket techs and on and on.. is it the legal one? the illegal one?

Do you REALLY know? Could you for SURE spot a shaved or modified bat? Could you spot the Synergy 2 in a group of 20 legal synergies?

I would imagine that at the top level in terms of legal risk to an umpire is bats. Are we really trained? We look at some little picture and Regional and National staff talk about them for 5 mins, then off we go.. wandering around dugout pregame scratching our heads wondering WTF.

I dont know the answer and ASA is in a tough spot. Obviously manufacturers know and hold a big part of the blame in the overall picture.. but there is only one dude in blue out there on the field saying its cool to play.. and thats the umpire. The scientists and engineers and ASA cert guys are no where to be found on game day.. only us schmucks.

I now yield the floor to my esteemed colleague from the fine state of Delaware, Irishmafia.:D

The bat manufacturers KNOWINGLY created bats that would eventually exceed the existing standards of the ASA. At the time the ASA did not or was not able to test the bat over the entire lifespan. Now they can.

How is it that the fault of the bat manufacturers gets laid onto the ASA? That's what I want to know...

Thats the biggest steaming pile of horse**** Ive seen in a long time.....

ASA knew. Everyone new. The big reason for composite bats was because their performance increased with use with the downside being not as much durability.

To say ASA didnt know is absurd... because 14U daddy coach sure as heck knew as he plopped down his 300 bucks. Men have been rolling their bats since jump for this EXACT reason.

Unless someone is going to make the argument everyone BUT ASA knew. If thats the case.. well thats even sadder.

The way I see it .. there were a couple of options..

1- let em play.. Does it really matter? Are there any stats that show an increase in injury? Is there any science at all involved in this? Are they dropping dead in Utrip because there is a synergy 2 in play?
2- in 04, ASA could have banned em all when they did their big shake up.

Ever see that black wicked that is banned?

Its a piece of garbage. But its banned.

I would like to see some real stats on this issue.

Playing a sport is dangerous. After all, can you imagine all the cuts those poker players get on their fingers constantly handling those cards? ;)

Certain sports do have certain levels of danger involved for the participants.And why is the non-approved bat list not manageable? Is it because ASA is overzealous or that, as previously stated, the bat companies want to make money? Well, I don't know of anyone who doesn't want to make money. The question is, at what cost.

It has become obvious that the manufacturers' have no conscience in this matter. These same companies freely admitted making balls hotter than permitted by the specs for one reason, because they could! That is why you saw ASA add a zero to the end of any specs.

So, the players and parents demand ASA take the responsibility for insuring safe equipment in the game of softball and now they are the bad guys. Why is that?

That is why a model number is included on the list. Is it harder to identify? Sure is, but doesn't that give you one more piece of evidence that the manufacturers couldn't give a damn about the welfare of the players and the game, as long as there is money in their pocket after the sale.

Absolutely sure? No, but I am aware of the signs that could be an indication that a bat has been altered.

Yeah. Just pick them up and find the difference. An umpire should handle every bat prior to a game, not just walk through the dugout and take a quick scan.

There is a presentation on the ASA umpire's page under the 2007 UIC clinic on bats. Unfortunately, it is better with narration, but your UIC should be able to handle that. If not, you commissioner should

Well, maybe you're a schmuck, I wouldn't know. However, you check the bats, you get rid of the ones that are on the non-approved list and any others that IN YOUR JUDGMENT may have been altered or do not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 3.1 It is the umpires that don't want to upset the players and coaches and don't perform due dillegence on equipment that are the schmucks.

Do I like how long the list has become? Hell, no. But if I'm going to take the money for umpiring a game, I'm going to do everything I can to keep my *** out of the soup.

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. The person with liability is the owner, and the user, of the bat. They can try until the cows come home to pass the responsibility to the umpires, but, we are not liable, we didn't knowingly try to sneak in altered, illegal, or banned bats. We have no added liability for doing bat checks; that is a courtesy to the players, not an added liability. Do you really think Bollinger would keep saying we should check bats if the lawyers were saying that made us liable? Don't be a fool. We do it to get the most unsafe bats out that we can. Period. We are not responsible.

Second point is Wade is all wet regarding the bat list. As far as I am concerned, they can add another 200 bats to the list without it taking one more second of my time, as long as those bats keep hitting the same category the vast majority of banned bats are in. What is that category? Bats that have NEVER been approved and have no ASA certification!! Add all of them you want, I just don't care. My bat review process is simple. 1) Does it have an ASA 2004 stamp? If so, just 3 bats I need to look for; • Louisville Slugger FPC305 Catalyst (-8) • Nokona Tomahawk • Combat VIRSP3 Lady Virus are the only three bats with an ASA 2004 seal that are on the Non Approved Bat List. 2) Does it have an ASA 2000 seal? That is a relatively short list of bats that were subsequently banned; add now the "grandfathered" bats. 3) Does it have no seal? Unless I recognize it as an old, dead, pre-2000 bat that should have been tossed 8 years ago, it won't get in my game. This is where the vast majority of non-approved bats exist, and it's the EASIEST category to remember and address!! 4) All bats that pass the first 3 simple tests I run my hand, I check for excessive wear or cracking, I look for evidence of tampering. If none, play ball with it.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.