![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
This is one of the main reasons the ASA created the pre-1995 caveat. It seems one manufacturer (H&B/Louisville Slugger) intentionally witheld some of their more popular bats from testing, hoping that the players would pony up to purchase newer, but similar models. Instead, the players did what they did best, *****ed and moaned that ASA was forcing them to spend money. Remember, the manufacturers had 2 1/2 to 3 years notice that changes were coming. That should have been ample enough time to turn around their stock. When it became apparent what was going on, the ASA backed off on it's rule. I am hoping to see them drop the older bats clause in the near future. On the other hand, if the players are going to be dumb enough to spend the big bucks on the bats, the manufacturers will never relent. And please don't give me the, "I have to have that bat if I want to be competitive" crap. If you can hit, a $40 bat will work just as well as a $240 bat. Last year, Carl Rose suggested that a return to wooden bats would not be as far fetched as many believe. I agree.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|