Oversight in editing? Or intentional?

[Tru_in_Blu]

I'll vote for oversight, or something that slipped through the cracks.

I think the concept of an non-approved bat is simple, that is in the year 2000 or later, it never had an ASA logo on it. I'd say that bat never met the specs.

I further think that the second part of the description describes bats that may have initially met the specs and were granted the ASA logo. But later on they were discovered to be out of spec. Since it's not feasible to recall all the bats and erase the ASA logos on them, they simply created this category of bats that have the logo but are no longer approved, so now non-approved.

The description should replace the word "and" with the word "or". Only one condition needs to be met for the bat to be non-approved, not both.

It might read that a non-approved bat would be one without an ASA logo, but bats manufactured prior to 2000 have no such logos and fall under the decision of the umpires for that game to allow their use or not.