I think ASA needs to provide ruling re Clarity Stealth

[wadeintothem]

ASA 18G qualifier - Today we were blessed with the presence of super umpire - on his way to OKC.. calling many IPs (that apparently no one else was able to see the violation-not to mention stating "I could have called 15 more" at the end of that night mare), at least one ejection, and Yes - pulling the Easton Clarity (at least 5) - swearing by the paper trick and because of a line that runs down the bat indicating its rolled. I asked him what gave him his authority in the rules to pull a bat based on that line and he told me tat was taught in OKC and it was umpire judgment that the bat was rolled. I asked him specifically if ASA said they wanted it pulled based on that line and he said yes.

Whats the scoop - does ASA want us pulling the clarity based on that line? If so, why hasnt it been put in writing? Could we anticipate that this would be put in writing at some point?

IMO, our *** is flapping in the wind if only 1 umpire is running around doing it. Either we all should be or he should chillax.

[RKBUmp]

Cant remember where I saw it, but read somewhere about one of these umps that claimed he could pick out a rolled bat with the paper trick. Someone handed him a brand new bat that had just been taken out of the wrapper without telling him and he insisted it had been rolled.

Dents, wiggles, visible cracks, bat rattles, sure I will pull them. I am not however going to claim that I can take a piece of paper and feel a bat and be 100% correct that it has been rolled. Besides, I thought ASA developed a tester for rolled bats that was used at gold nationals last year.

[NCASAUmp]

Wade, could you provide a little clarity regarding this "paper" trick? This line? This is the first I've heard about it...

[ronald]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

ASA 18G qualifier - Today we were blessed with the presence of super umpire - on his way to OKC.. calling many IPs (that apparently no one else was able to see the violation-not to mention stating "I could have called 15 more" at the end of that night mare), at least one ejection, and Yes - pulling the Easton Clarity (at least 5) - swearing by the paper trick and because of a line that runs down the bat indicating its rolled. I asked him what gave him his authority in the rules to pull a bat based on that line and he told me tat was taught in OKC and it was umpire judgment that the bat was rolled. I asked him specifically if ASA said they wanted it pulled based on that line and he said yes.

Whats the scoop - does ASA want us pulling the clarity based on that line? If so, why hasnt it been put in writing? Could we anticipate that this would be put in writing at some point?

IMO, our *** is flapping in the wind if only 1 umpire is running around doing it. Either we all should be or he should chillax.

Wade,

1) Do you mean this year's camp? They mentioned the paper trick but I do not recall them instructing umpires to use it in checking bats prior to the start of a game. I took notes and I can guarantee if that was specifically stated, I would have written that down. Me thinks a little misunderstanding of how a rolled bat can be determined and what means to use to determine it.

2) As a group, IP and how to determine them or nuances never came up. It seems no one else saw this from that pitcher. Care to share what the UIC thought of this pitcher.

Thanks, Ron

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by ronald

Wade,

1) Do you mean this year's camp? They mentioned the paper trick but I do not recall them instructing umpires to use it in checking bats prior to the start of a game. I took notes and I can guarantee if that was specifically stated, I would have written that down. Me thinks a little misunderstanding of how a rolled bat can be determined and what means to use to determine it.

How many times do I have to explain this?

This was demonstrated by Kelly McKeown of the ASA office. He had two identical bats (and I think it was the Clarity). One had been rolled, the other had not.

The skin of the hand is too soft to feel the particulars of a bat (decals, graphics, whatever) under the coating. If you take a flexible, but rigid material (paper) and use that to feel the barrel, you can feel every bit of the design on the bat (other than that lasered). If you perform the same process on a portion of the barrel not cluttered with any designs or graphics and turn the bat in your hand with the paper, it should be smooth. When you have a very "busy" bat, one of the better places to check this is the neck just below the barrel.

If you hold the paper firm against the surface of the bat and turn the bat, if you can feel a constant series of ridges around the bat, something has been done to accelerate the breakdown period of the bat, most likely rolled. No one has ever said this applies to all bats, but it is an indicator the bat has been through the process of rolling.

This is what we were told, I'm not making it up on my own because prior to experiencing this paper process, I was under the belief that lacking external evidence, there was no way to determine if a bat had been rolled or vised.

My commissioner understandably held that same position. Then he secured a bat from a player who admittedly used a rolled bat, but only in non-ASA tournaments. I showed him how to run the "test" against a non-rolled bat. He was stunned that he could feel the ridges on the rolled bat, but not on the other. Note: I'm not referring to a bump here or there, but obviously ridges equidistant around the bat.

As a matter of public dissemination, I had a few players/managers from teams waiting to play come over and each take a shot at the two bats. They were more shocked that there was a way to tell. Of course, the idea here was to get players gossiping about this and hopefully deter someone from taking a bat with the same technological science that can put a man into space and think they can improve upon it.

Now, I do not suggest that umpires arbitrarily go running around performing this test unless they have experienced the difference in a controlled environment as did those at the National UIC Clinic this year. However, I have no problem with those who know what to look for and where to find it to use this process on a questionable bat to take it out of play. That is a "questionable" bat that you have cause to suspect it, not every bat that seems to work well.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

How many times do I have to explain this?

This was demonstrated by Kelly McKeown of the ASA office. He had two identical bats (and I think it was the Clarity). One had been rolled, the other had not.

The skin of the hand is too soft to feel the particulars of a bat (decals, graphics, whatever) under the coating. If you take a flexible, but rigid material (paper) and use that to feel the barrel, you can feel every bit of the design on the bat (other than that lasered). If you perform the same process on a portion of the barrel not cluttered with any designs or graphics and turn the bat in your hand with the paper, it should be smooth. When you have a very "busy" bat, one of the better places to check this is the neck just below the barrel.

If you hold the paper firm against the surface of the bat and turn the bat, if you can feel a constant series of ridges around the bat, something has been done to accelerate the breakdown period of the bat, most likely rolled. No one has ever said this applies to all bats, but it is an indicator the bat has been through the process of rolling.

This is what we were told, I'm not making it up on my own because prior to experiencing this paper process, I was under the belief that lacking external evidence, there was no way to determine if a bat had been rolled or vised.

My commissioner understandably held that same position. Then he secured a bat from a player who admittedly used a rolled bat, but only in non-ASA tournaments. I showed him how to run the "test" against a non-rolled bat. He was stunned that he could feel the ridges on the rolled bat, but not on the other. Note: I'm not referring to a bump here or there, but obviously ridges equidistant around the bat.

As a matter of public dissemination, I had a few players/managers from teams waiting to play come over and each take a shot at the two bats. They were more shocked that there was a way to tell. Of course, the idea here was to get players gossiping about this and hopefully deter someone from taking a bat with the same technological science that can put a man into space and think they can improve upon it.

Now, I do not suggest that umpires arbitrarily go running around performing this test unless they have experienced the difference in a controlled environment as did those at the National UIC Clinic this year. However, I have no problem with those who know what to look for and where to find it to use this process on a questionable bat to take it out of play. That is a "questionable" bat that you have cause to suspect it, not every bat that seems to work well.

Shoot, that is the first time I remember Mike. But my memory was shoot by bubba and moose.

[DeputyUICHousto]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

How many times do I have to explain this?

This was demonstrated by Kelly McKeown of the ASA office. He had two identical bats (and I think it was the Clarity). One had been rolled, the other had not.

The skin of the hand is too soft to feel the particulars of a bat (decals, graphics, whatever) under the coating. If you take a flexible, but rigid material (paper) and use that to feel the barrel, you can feel every bit of the design on the bat (other than that lasered). If you perform the same process on a portion of the barrel not cluttered with any designs or graphics and turn the bat in your hand with the paper, it should be smooth. When you have a very "busy" bat, one of the better places to check this is the neck just below the barrel.

If you hold the paper firm against the surface of the bat and turn the bat, if you can feel a constant series of ridges around the bat, something has been done to accelerate the breakdown period of the bat, most likely rolled. No one has ever said this applies to all bats, but it is an indicator the bat has been through the process of rolling.

This is what we were told, I'm not making it up on my own because prior to experiencing this paper process, I was under the belief that lacking external evidence, there was no way to determine if a bat had been rolled or vised.

My commissioner understandably held that same position. Then he secured a bat from a player who admittedly used a rolled bat, but only in non-ASA tournaments. I showed him how to run the "test" against a non-rolled bat. He was stunned that he could feel the ridges on the rolled bat, but not on the other. Note: I'm not referring to a bump here or there, but obviously ridges equidistant around the bat.

As a matter of public dissemination, I had a few players/managers from teams waiting to play come over and each take a shot at the two bats. They were more shocked that there was a way to tell. Of course, the idea here was to get players gossiping about this and hopefully deter someone from taking a bat with the same technological science that can put a man into space and think they can improve upon it.

Now, I do not suggest that umpires arbitrarily go running around performing this test unless they have experienced the difference in a controlled environment as did those at the National UIC Clinic this year. However, I have no problem with those who know what to look for and where to find it to use this process on a questionable bat to take it out of play. That is a "questionable" bat that you have cause to suspect it, not every bat that seems to work well.

I was in one of Kelly's meetings and was shocked at how much using the paper brought out the properties of the rolled bat.

[wadeintothem]

He wasnt using the paper trick, he was talking about it. He doesnt need no stinking paper.. he can tell just by looking at it.

I dont know that I could adequately explain this but maybe someone else can - because he says it wasnt during OKC.

He says with the clarity - if you not these lines that run the length of the barrel (under the "skin") - that is a rolled bat.

More of the same including an ejection and an ejection by his partner.

I'm kinda venting about him because he is one of the nit pickers who lack common sense and think making the game miserable for everyone is his purpose in life.

[azbigdawg]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

He wasnt using the paper trick, he was talking about it. He doesnt need no stinking paper.. he can tell just by looking at it.

I dont know that I could adequately explain this but maybe someone else can - because he says it wasnt during OKC.

He says with the clarity - if you not these lines that run the length of the barrel (under the "skin") - that is a rolled bat.

More of the same including an ejection and an ejection by his partner.

I'm kinda venting about him because he is one of the nit pickers who lack common sense and think making the game miserable for everyone is his purpose in life.

U wanna translate that?

[wadeintothem]

lol - sorry 5 two hour big games at over 100 - 107 degree heat had toasted me.

When you look at the Clarity barrel (the part that changes color) there are distinct lines that form under the "clear coat skin". These lines run the length of this "color changing" portion of the bat.

There is probably no way to explain it.

[SC Ump]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...if a bat had been rolled or vised.

I've been away from slow pitch. What exactly is rolled or vised?

I used to have them roll around in the back of my truck, before they got too expensive for me to buy.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by azbigdawg

U wanna translate that?

I think he is referring to the Clarity's change in hue when a particular spot on the bat begins to "break down".

As the bat becomes broken in by use, the hue of the barrel will begin to show light-shaded blotches. This is NOT an indication the bat has been altered or is no longer legal.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SC Ump

I've been away from slow pitch. What exactly is rolled or vised?

I used to have them roll around in the back of my truck, before they got too expensive for me to buy.

Go here:

http://downloads.asasoftball.com/ump...ctoredBats.pdf

BTW, this is not SP, but all levels and classes of softball AND baseball.

Baseball rules panel seeks to deter 'rolling' - NCAA.org

[NCASAUmp]

I emailed Tony on the equipment committee, and here's his response:

Dave,

Yes, this is true. I have done it myself and you can definitely feel the ridges of a rolled bat. I am on the equipment committee and we have not recommended this method be used to throw out any bats. This is not a "perfected" test but only an indicator that the bat may have been rolled. Thanks,

Tony

I think the bottom line is that it's a neat trick, but it's not consistent enough to be used as a reliable indicator of a rolled bat.

Call Dunder Mifflin and cancel your huge paper orders. Ask for Dwight.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I emailed Tony on the equipment committee, and here's his response:



I think the bottom line is that it's a neat trick, but it's not consistent enough to be used as a reliable indicator of a rolled bat.

Call Dunder Mifflin and cancel your huge paper orders. Ask for Dwight.

Now you are just showing off!

For those of you in law enforcement, think of this method as a polygraph. You cannot use it as definitive evidence, but it is a fair tool for investigative purposes.