Letter From ASA concerning bats
 

All,

The ASA recently changed the non approved bat listings located at asasoftball.com. This was a recommendation by the ASA Equipment Testing and Certification Committee. The reasoning behind this was an attempt to make it easier for ASA leagues, tournament directors and umpires to clarify questions surrounding legal and/or illegal bats.

The original master list has been removed and replaced with two lists that separate bats that have been declared illegal that bear the 2000 mark and bats that bear both the 2000 and 2004 mark. This master list contained bats that were never intended to be certified by ASA that were made by bat manufacturers. The committee felt like this was confusing the issue and making it more complex than needed out in the field.

Bat manufacturers, against ASA’s guidance, will continue making bats intended for HR derby’s, outlaw leagues and other associations thus making it nearly impossible to continue listing every non-certified bat along with a photo. All of these new non ASA certified bats do not contain the ASA certification mark so the easy answer for umpires and league/tournament directors is as follows:

- If a bat does not contain the ASA certification mark (either the 2000 or 2004 mark) it should not be allowed in ASA Championship Play unless in the sole discretion of the umpire was made prior to 2000.

As always, the complete list of certified bats can be found in the certified equipment section of asasoftball.com.

If you have any questions please let me know.

Thanks.

Kelly


<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_7_b30dfacb-cc8e-4942-871c-345ece7071c3 --><!-- end of AOLMsgPart_4_b30dfacb-cc8e-4942-871c-345ece7071c3 --><STYLE>.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}</STYLE><LINK href="http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/41009/css/microformat.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet>

This is a very good move by the ASA. Many umpires, including this one, will be grateful for the simplified approach.

I wonder if they'll release a text-only version of the list, similar to what they used in the past. It'll make it easier to search through the list when going through a line of bats.

I must say, the bat lists are nice and short now.

Do you really check all bats to see if they are on or off the list? We are told to look for the asa 2000 or 2004 inscription.Plus for cracks,dents, and tape.The last list I got was 9 pages long with multiple bats per page. And im cant find it now so im not sure if this was the legal or illegal list. (From what I know bat makers make new bats and new models every year) They also tell us unless the opposing teams coach has a issue about a bat he better have the list with him and up to date before we declare it illegal.

Yes, I check bats, but not against the approved list. That would be ridiculous.

All that has been done is that the bats which do not have the certification stamp on them since that is now required unless you, as the umpire, deem the bat to have been manufactured prior to 2000 and meets the specs.

Uh, yeah. Pretty much, pal. That's my job. :)

Last year, I kept up with the list updates as best I could - what got added, and when did it get added. However, the list eventually grew to over 100 bats (101, last I recall), which made this job tedious.

There are certain bats I recognize instantly as being banned (Synergy II, Freak, etc.), and those are no-brainers. There are also others that I recognize as being approved: Freak98, Cyclone, etc. However, if I encounter a bat that I haven't seen before (or one where I'm not 110% certain of its status), yeah, I check it against the non-approved list. And believe you me, I catch bats left and right, followed by the usual, "but we've been playing with this all season..."

And I know my list is up-to-date within 24 hours because, well... I'm a geek, and y'all know the rest. ;)

I still wish ASA would only allow bats that have the 2000 or 2004 stamp on them. Get rid of those old 10+ year old bats and end this debate. Umpire's discretion does not always create consistency.

Unless it is the old iron-bat red Louisville, IMJ, the bat was made after 2000. There are still bottom-feeding teams (speaking financially... use hand-me-downs, etc.) that have those old red standbys on their bat racks.

And I agree that these teams have it tough. If they're truly that hard-up for cash that they can't go out and buy a $30 to get with the safety program, then they should print out the list of approved bats to show us that the bat is okay.

The concept that is central to this whole bat issue is safety. If ASA takes steps to increase the safety factors of the game, teams will need to adjust. For example, if ASA previously allowed kids to wear metal cleats, then decided to restrict them to adults-only, you won't hear anyone complain too much about that. Why should the bats be any different?

What is the purpose of having a bat certified? Safety, right?

And are the pre-2000 aluminum bats not safer than the composites to which the rule applies?

Most likely, yeah - They're 10+ years old, so whatever pop they had is most likely gone.

However, how is a brand new umpire to tell what came out before the 2000 cert? Require the stamps and be done with it.

And since when is "It makes life easier on the official" a valid reason to change any rule in any sport?

Yepper, we are going to make sure this game and all them thar bats are as safe as we can possibly make it, and to prove our commitment to this, the first thing we are going to do is eliminate the safest bats in the game.

It happens all the time, Mike. Remember the "about to receive a thrown ball" phrase in the OBS rule? Taken out to make things easier. Remember the word "intentionally" appearing in the rulebook? Oh crap, wait... never mind that example.

It doesn't happen to just rules, but mechanics, too. Putting the BU in B in SP is one such example.

Making it easier for the officials doesn't just help the officials - it helps the game overall. When the officials can't consistently agree on what is a legal bat, we've got a problem.

Different animal. The NUS controls the mechanics and ASA General Council controls the rules.

Not necessarily so. You are suggesting a contradiction is reasons for the change by outlawing equipment the meets the safety standards by a wide margin.

No, I'm stating that umpire consistency on this subject will vary greatly, even among veteran umpires. Some umpires have eliminated all bats without a stamp, regardless of age. I, on the other hand, do not eliminate the bat if it's one that I recognize from before 2000. If I don't recognize it, then it doesn't stay in the game.

And that is how consistency is going out the window. Bats that I allow in game 1 may get tossed in game 2 by other umpires. This makes us look like uncoordinated fools, and will only serve to piss off coaches and players. The only feasible remedy that I can foresee is to only allow stamped bats, nothing else. ASA developed the stamp for a reason: to easily identify bats that definitely meet the ASA standards for safety.

Well, at least before they got sent off to the doctor's office. ;)

I think you are making a lot out of something that just isn't there at most levels. Remember, Championship Play. How many of these older bats do you think you are going to see in Championship Play? If you see a couple, big deal, make a decision or have the UIC rule on it. Keep the other umpires in the tournament informed.

Now, you are actually going to have to open your mouth and say something stupid or trip in the field before they think you are an uncoordinated fool. ;)

This basically provides guidelines to allow bats that are obviously much safer and will be much more applicable at the lower levels. If you believe it to be that much of a problem, approach the local leagues about a possible ammendment to the ASA rules to eliminate the option of using the pre-2000 bats.

I remember the rules clinic the year after the 2004 stamp was first used. About bat inspections in league games, we were actually told by the clinician: "If it looks like a bat, it is legal." :cool:

Did he give you his address for the subpoena if you may need him to testify at your trial? :eek:

No (I knew it anyway...), but he didn't repeat that statement at the following year's clinic, either... :rolleyes:

I would like to see bats with only the 2004 seal be legal, Like the NCAA. Then the banned list could be real short. 4 bats.

Let me stir this up a little more.

Apparently, ASA is experimenting around the country with a COR .52, and extremely low compression (225-275). Supposedly the exit speed is slower than when the ball reaches the outfield.

I cannot wait to see a ball accelerate with distance.

Here's the troublesome part. Some believe that if this ball proves good, many of the previously banned bats will be "unbanned". :eek:

I'd like to hear the physics of that explained. Maybe the ball has a cold fusion reactor inside.

God, I would like to see the elimination of metal bats so we could go back to all wood. Let's get back to the way the game was meant to be played.

I think they have minute jet engines that pop out of the side when the ball detects it is over grass :D

Apparently, you haven't seen us dance. ;)

Anyway, I've said my piece, and I'm sticking to it.

I miss my old Bombat. 33 inches, 34 ounces of pure hurt! What's with these 6'3", 260 pound linebacker-lookin' guys saying that those bats are too heavy? I used that bat when I was 13 and weighed only 150, ya pansy.

Matter of fact, here's a picture of that bat. Yep, that's me. Many years ago.

NCASAUmp:

Gosh, I didn't know they had color photography back then, :D.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. H.S. baseball and fastpitch softball seasons are just around the corner and I thought I should get back into the habit of checking the other forums. go over the Basketball Forum and read the posts about me officiating with Dr. Naismith, :D.

Pffft... I'm only 31, man! :P

Is that a red headed mullet ?

Nope, blonde.

that explains it all..............................:D

Doesn't count if you don't have hair anymore. :D

You have hair, it just completely transparent. ;)

Just 'cuz it's a little different in color now and a whole lot shorter........ it's still there.

Damn it...