ASA Bat Lists

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Didn't ASA attempt to keep out non-stamped bats a few years ago? Maybe I've taken too many tipped fouls to the head...

Again, I agree with Tom. Require the stamp. Mike, can you jot this down for the next rule change committee? That's my primo suggestion this year.

Don't think it would get through as the change is counterproductive to the rule.

The purpose of the rule is to keep the equipment safe for the players and what is more safe than an old bat that was legal prior to the testing?

[SRW]

Originally Posted by Dakota

In my judgment, "would have passed" the 2004 test means it is too old to have a stamp of any kind. It has to look old, and it has to be an old bat I recognize.

That may work good for you, but for the new (or young) umpire, that proves difficult. They will look at the bat and tell the teams "no stamp no play", only because they don't have the history or experience with the older bats.

Personally, I'd like to see the "no stamp no play," but I understand the intent of the rule with old bats as well.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't think it would get through as the change is counterproductive to the rule.

The purpose of the rule is to keep the equipment safe for the players and what is more safe than an old bat that was legal prior to the testing?

Easy... A bat that was tested and approved.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Don't think it would get through as the change is counterproductive to the rule.

The purpose of the rule is to keep the equipment safe for the players and what is more safe than an old bat that was legal prior to the testing?

No argument, but that position seems to necessitate umpires being familiar with a list of 95 (and growing), non-approved bats, thereby rendering the entire process unenforceable by anyone without eidetic memory. There is a large market for "banned in OKC" bats, and that market is not going away. IMO, ASA needs to move to plan B.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No argument, but that position seems to necessitate umpires being familiar with a list of 95 (and growing), non-approved bats, thereby rendering the entire process unenforceable by anyone without eidetic memory. There is a large market for "banned in OKC" bats, and that market is not going away. IMO, ASA needs to move to plan B.

And it also requires umpires to have built up a personal history of softball bats that have "been around" since before ASA started testing. Sure, most of us can recognize a bat from the 1980s, but what about bats from '98 or '99?

I've been in softball long enough to know most of the old bats (and I certainly miss my trusty Bombat - 33", 34 oz.!), even the triangular ones (god, remember those?). But a younger blue may not be able to tell the difference between a bat from '98 and a bat that the manufacturer never intended to get approved by ASA. At that point, it's not only a consistency issue, but the precise safety issue that was raised earlier.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

There is any easy way to worry about ASA bats for 2008 with out having to carry the entire list:

1) If the bat does not have the appropriate ASA stamp, the bat is not legal.

2) If the bat does have the appropriate ASA stamp, the bat is legal except for the following three bats: Combat VIRSP3 Lady Virus, Louisville Slugger FPC305 Catalyst (-8), and Nokona Tomahawk.

MTD, Sr.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There is any easy way to worry about ASA bats for 2008 with out having to carry the entire list:

1) If the bat does not have the appropriate ASA stamp, the bat is not legal.

2) If the bat does have the appropriate ASA stamp, the bat is legal except for the following three bats: Combat VIRSP3 Lady Virus, Louisville Slugger FPC305 Catalyst (-8), and Nokona Tomahawk.

MTD, Sr.

And the Miken Freak (2000 stamp), Worth XGOLD (2000 stamp), Schutt Red/Silver Schutt Bat (2004 stamp), the Easton SCX22 Synergy 2 (2000 stamp)...

[NCASAUmp]

So it looks like the following bats were added to the list since 03/31/08:

Rip-It Elite: REAP1 Rip It Reaper 120 BPF
Worth: SBM75U Mayhem Comp 120
Worth: SBMJH1 Mayhem 120 Reload
Worth: SBMRES Resmondo Mutant 120
Worth: SBMTJ Mutant JH120
Worth: SBMTU Mutant HD120
Worth: SBTRES Resmondo Mutant 120
Worth: SBTTJH Titan JH120
Worth: WSRRH LAUNCH 510


Judging from this list alone, I think Mike's probably right - some manufacturers are designing bats that were never intended to be ASA-approved, and Worth is in the lead (as usual). Almost half the list comes from Worth.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

And the Miken Freak (2000 stamp), Worth XGOLD (2000 stamp), Schutt Red/Silver Schutt Bat (2004 stamp), the Easton SCX22 Synergy 2 (2000 stamp)...

NCASAUmp:

When were these bats added to the list I posted?

MTD, Sr.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There is any easy way to worry about ASA bats for 2008 with out having to carry the entire list:

1) If the bat does not have the appropriate ASA stamp, the bat is not legal.

Nope, that does not work and the equipment committee was quite clear about it as is the book. A stamp is not required for the bat to be legal.

And, BTW, ignoring that is a protestable situation. I know, already been there. It took less than 45 minutes from the initial phone call from Dover, DE to OKC to Easton, MD to New Castle, DE to Dover, DE to tell them the protest was upheld. And all before 8:30 AM EDT!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NCASAUmp:

When were these bats added to the list I posted?

MTD, Sr.

I can't recall when the Schutt was added, but... The others were added on Jan. 1, 2008.

My point was that such a blanket statement wouldn't work.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Nope, that does not work and the equipment committee was quite clear about it as is the book. A stamp is not required for the bat to be legal.

And, BTW, ignoring that is a protestable situation. I know, already been there. It took less than 45 minutes from the initial phone call from Dover, DE to OKC to Easton, MD to New Castle, DE to Dover, DE to tell them the protest was upheld. And all before 8:30 AM EDT!

I'm surprised that the protest was allowed, as it's the umpire's judgment as to whether or not the bat would have passed the test.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I'm surprised that the protest was allowed, as it's the umpire's judgment as to whether or not the bat would have passed the test.

If I understand what Mike said, it was protested on the grounds of misinterpretation of the rule. In ASA, there is no rule that says no stamp = not allowed. In ASA, no stamp = umpire judgment.

Basically, if the umpire had said, "this bat has no stamp, and in my judgment, would not pass the test" he would have been fine, but since he apparently said, "this bat has no stamp and is therefore illegal" the protest was upheld.

But, I'm kinda just guessing... Mike was there, not me.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

If I understand what Mike said, it was protested on the grounds of misinterpretation of the rule. In ASA, there is no rule that says no stamp = not allowed. In ASA, no stamp = umpire judgment.

Basically, if the umpire had said, "this bat has no stamp, and in my judgment, would not pass the test" he would have been fine, but since he apparently said, "this bat has no stamp and is therefore illegal" the protest was upheld.

But, I'm kinda just guessing... Mike was there, not me.

Not quite, but same premise. Umpire refused to allow a bat in the game that was legal based on his belief that ALL of that particular sort of bat was banned, not just a certain model. The protest was upheld because the umpire misinterpreted the list and how it is to be applied in 3.1.A.1

But what Tom says is true. The judgment is whether it is legal or not based on the age and whether it would pass the present test. Save a titanium, most (if not all) manufactured before 2000 would probably pass the present test.

However, if declared illegal for the sole reason that there was no stamp on the bat is a misapplication of 3.1.A.3.