Altered or Illegal
 

I am fairly confident I know the answer to this, but I wanted to get the self-proclaimed expert's opinions. ;)

Bat check prior to Mens SP game, ASA Rules. All bats apaprently legal at that time.

B2 hits a single, and the ODB gets the bat. ODB brings the bat to the PU and tells him that the bat is rattling. PU inspects the bat, sees that it is one of the bats he inspected prior to the game. He shakes it, and it indeed has audible rattles.

Illegal bat, or altered bat?

If the characteristics of the bat have changed since it was manufactured, what have you got? ;)

I'd not penalize the ODB or B2. Just tell him to get another bat and to put that bat away. If it didn't rattle when you inspected it before the game, the rattle could have been the result of the hit.

Oh... But if you see that same bat again in the batter's box, ring 'em and boot 'em.

Unless you have evidence of tampering, it is now an illegal bat.

Like someone - Dave, I think - already said, unless you have evidence of altering, it's just a bat that has reached the end of it's life cycle. It has with this last hit deteriorated so much that the innards are breaking down - that's why you can hear the rattle when you shake it.

Last weekend I was in a tournament where the Rocket tech bats with the rivets were being used by almost every team.

In almost every case when we found the bats the rivets were sticking out slightly. In every case where the rivets were sticking out my partner told the coach, "Get a hammer and knock the rivets in and I'll let you use this bat."

I feel that this is telling a coach to alter the bat and then allowing it in.

What is the feeling in here on this?

I agree with you. No umpire should ever tell a coach that he should take a hammer to a bat. If anything, send it back to the manufacturer.

The older model RTs had this issue - the rivets on the end of the bat would work their way out. The newer models don't seem to have this issue.

I have done the same thing as your partner, just not told them to use a hammer. Usually, knocking the bat against the dugout pole worked just fine.

Our local UICs never had a problem with it.

I don't see this any different than a bat needing some tape added or removed to make the grip legal. If a bat with a minor (but fixable) defect can be made legal, why not?

If the rivets can be tapped back in, why not? Not sure I want to see the hammer, but I have watched them tapped back in by a dugout pole, fence pole, or equivalent.

Anything that has worked its way out once can work its way out again. Only thing is, the next time it does so, it will be even easier.

If I encountered a bat like that during my bat check, I'd make sure they didn't use it for that game. I don't care if they tap the rivets back in or not.

Would you consider a bat like this to have "excessive wear?" These are obviously older bats that have seen much use, and the exposure of the rivets may be considered a symptom of the bat being used past its limit.

Not necessarily. The Anderson bats of a couple of years ago exhibited this problem with relatively little use.

Well, if the manufacturing of the bat only allowed for that little use, then it's obviously past its limit. I say that only half-jokingly, but with an element of truth. :)

But seriously, let's look at the bigger picture: safety. If those rivets can come out once, they can come out again. In this condition, the bat is obviously not fit for play, so I'll toss it if I find exposed rivets.

It is nothing more than telling a coach to tighten a screw holding the face mask securely to the helmet.

This is a common problem, known to ASA, in the older Anderson models. At ASA's request, Anderson reworked their bats to eliminate the rivets holding the cap into place.

Rejected Anderson prototype design:

http://www.swordsandarmor.com/images...iked_small.jpg

That's how I feel some days.