Anyone have a good definition for ASA definition of "Championship Play"? This relates to the banned bats.

I have always assumed that it meant any tournament or game that can lead to National advancement.

i.e. - ASA District, State, Regional, National tourneys.

Joel

It is <u>clearly</u> defined in the Definitions section of the rule book (Rule 1)...

<font color=blue><b>CHAMPIONSHIP PLAY.</b> As used in the ASA Softball Playing Rules, the term "Championship Play" shall have the same meaning as is assigned to such term by Article 106, Section 5 of the ASA Code.</font>

Clear? :D

OK... just being a wiseguy.

Anyway, Joel is correct. Championship Play means the outcome of the tournament can lead to a national tournament championship (e.g. state tournament, regional tournament, national tournament, etc.)

Here is the tedious wording of 106-5 of the Code:
<font color=blue>5. <b><u>Championship Play</u></b> is a tournament or competition from which the winner or the winner and other selected teams may advance to higher levels of play of this Association ( See Article 508, Levels of Championship Play of this Code) .</font>

While the above are correct, do not hang your hat on it for allowing banned bats to be used.

Most leagues/tournaments which play under ASA rules offer their own amendments for their particular games. Unless otherwise noted, the default would be ASA Championship Play rules.

I've already had people try to skirt the issue with the "only for Championship Play" angle. Don't allow someone to put you in the middle of this debate. If the game is ASA sanctioned and the parties involved do not have a separate league rule in print, do yourself a favor and do not allow the bats.

Good points, Mike.

After all, the entire ASA rule book only applies to "championship play."

Local leagues, tournaments, etc., typically say something like "ASA Rules except as specified..." and then they proceed to list their local exceptions. "ASA Rules" means the same thing as "championship play" since ASA only writes rules for championship play - they don't write local rules.

I have to agree whole-heartedly with Mike on this one. 57006 is my UIC and we agreed on the first night of league that we weren't allowing those bats - one of the main reasons is liability - if ASA is banning these bats in Championship play, we shouldn't have them on our fields during league. If someone gets hurt by a batted ball, would our liability insurance cover us if it was a banned bat that the batter used?
Just some food for thought.

champ. play
 

I agree w/ Mike and others on this.

While some of the bats on the banned list are not even the hottest bats from the manufacturers in question, we have adopted the ASA ban in the league where I am commissioner.

All good points as far as the bat issue goes...........

Our directive from my local association for league play has been........"if it meets the legal definition of a bat, and has no cracks, or dents (which prevents it from passing through a bat ring).......allow it".........

Maybe we need to re-think our stance..........

Joel

Did a large tourney this weekend (2d-largest in the US, from what I understand), and the Miken Ultra bat was quite an issue. It is banned in "championship play," but since this was an invitational tournament, ASA said they had no jurisdiction over the bats. The tournament and many players wanted to ban the Ultra, but supposedly the company sent a representative to threaten a lawsuit if the tournament banned it. The five bats that ASA banned recently were also permitted. The only thing illegal was titanium.

Anyway, we had a line drive hit back to the pitcher so hard that it broke his foot, and several close calls in other plays. Some blasts appeared to be traveling almost 400 feet, this with a Trump Gold Stitch. One pitcher used a hockey-style face mask, and nobody blamed him.

The team that won the top level was sponsored by another bat company, so they didn't use the Ultra. They also hit the fewest home runs of any team at their level, only about 5 in 7 games. Some teams hit their limit of 6 by the second inning, then still hit another bunch out inadvertently.

I was umping at the same field I played on 20 years ago, with a 300-foot fence 10 feet high. Back then, the entire league might hit 25 or 30 balls out all year, with Bombats and Dudley Day-Nites.

I find it hard to believe that ASA stepped up and said, "Not our jurisdiction!" What an ASA rep may have indicated is the same as local leagues, that a private tournament could set their own exceptions. What would surprise me would be ASA sitting there and openly saying to go ahead and use the bats.

Personally, I probably would not work those games and I really don't care about a lawsuit. It is a safety issue and ASA has stated their stance on the issue. As a private tournament, the lawsuit would be a waste of time as they would simply be following the sanctioning body's ruling.

I don't know exactly what ASA said, but the tournament wanted to ban the bats and ASA would not allow the directors to invoke ASA's authority. I heard our guy was on the phone with ASA for a long time Friday. Even without that backing, a private tournament could of course set its own rules. But with a manufacturer's rep there threatening them with Perry Mason, the directors felt they had to allow the bats.

I do agree that if the directors had said, "ASA has determined that these bats are dangerous, and in the interests of safety we cannot risk allowing them," a lawsuit would have been easy to beat. But I'm not the one who would have had to pay the lawyers $25,000 to win in court.

Still, several people did warn me that as an ump I might be liable. Since there's a guy in the hospital now, I'm glad I worked under a fake name.

[Edited by greymule on Aug 6th, 2002 at 09:18 AM]