ASA Bat Lists
 

The ASA has updated their bat lists today:


ASA Bat Lists

They went a whole month without updating it. Impressive! :eek:

Can someone give us the short version? What is added, subtracted or otherwise changed (besides the date)??

Well, 2 bats were added to the "banned with a 2004 stamp" list.

And the one page list is now two. :(

the list is getting too long to be useful .....

No kidding... They added at least 6 or 7 bats since the last list. Haven't had time to parse through to find the additions.

If you look at the list with pictures there are red letters "NEW" beside the new bats that were added, looks like there were 9 added this time.

9! 9 bats! Ah... Ah... Ahhhhhh...

But seriously, it's getting out of hand.

Do the majority of these bats have a 2000 stamp on them? Or is this an all-inclusive list?

If so, require a 2000 or 2004 stamp, get rid of 3-1-A-3, and just print the ones that have the 2000 or 2004 stamps. The bats from 2000 are practically dead (and rare to find these days, even in so-called "beer league"), so just ditch them all.

We have two shorter lists available to us: 1) The banned bats with the 2004 stamp list, and 2) The no-longer grandfathered bats list.

My way of handling this is:

1) No stamp of any kind - out (with the exception of some old bats I recognize - occastionally still used as a "team" bat, such as the old burgandy Lousiville TPS)
2) 2004 stamp and one of the 6 - out
3) 2000 stamp and one of the grandfathered bats - out
4) otherwise, in

Eight of the nine bats added were Worth. I wouldn't doubt if some of these were never meant to be ASA approved.

And I agree with that, but there's one problem - consistency. That's my biggest problem with 3-1-A-3. Some umpires say, "no stamp, no good." Others use their discretion on a bat-by-bat basis. This gets us into trouble when we hear, "but I was able to play with it last night. Why not tonight?" While "umpire's discretion" is the correct answer, it's not a very convincing one.

We're not bat experts or metallurgists (well, maybe some of us, but not all). We can't tell if the bat "would have passed" the 2004 test, nor should we be expected to pass/fail a bat just by guessing as to whether it would've passed today's standards.

I say get rid of 3-1-A-3. Require the 2000 and/or 2004 stamps and be done with it. Let's get this list down to something manageable.

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.

HS ball is simpler - no stamp, no play for my step 1. The rest is the same.

I think that constitutes the majority of the list - bats that were manufactured for non-ASA play.

Given that we are now nearing 10 years from the first approval stamp, I believe it is time for ASA to dispense with the umpire judgment part of the rule and go with a simple "no stamp, not legal" approach. That would reduce the list to a current list of 16 bats (the 2004 stamped non-approved, and the no-longer-grandfathered list). It would also mean ASA would no longer have to keep a list of 16,293 U-trip bats (with pictures) on their non-approved list.

If it is approved, put a stamp on it. If it isn't, don't. If a previously stamped bat fails subsequent rolling or break-in or spot testing, add it to the (much shorter) "banned with a stamp" list.

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?

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.

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

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.

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)...

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.

NCASAUmp:

When were these bats added to the list I posted?

MTD, Sr.

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 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.

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.

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.