The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Softball (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/)
-   -   Oversight in editing? Or intentional? (https://forum.officiating.com/softball/55811-oversight-editing-intentional.html)

NCASAUmp Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:08pm
Oversight in editing? Or intentional?
 
If a batter steps into the box with a U-Trip-only bat (never had ASA stamp), is it just an out, or an out and an ejection?

Simple question, I know, and my gut instinct is out + ejection. However, 7-6-C calls them out for stepping into the box with an illegal bat, and 7-6-B calls them out and ejects them for stepping into the box with an altered or non-approved bat.

ASA defines a non-approved bat as:
Quote:
A bat that does not meet ASA specifications and is on the current non-approved bat list.
The bold is my highlight, not ASA's.

So in 2008, this was a no-brainer. Every bat that wasn't ASA-approved was on the non-approved list anyway, regardless of whether or not it was ever submitted to ASA for testing. The use of those bats was out + ejection, because they didn't meet ASA specs AND they appeared on the list.

This year, ASA simplified the process by requiring the stamp on all bats made in 2000 and after, and requiring that they not be on the non-approved list. But all those U-Trip/NSA bats were taken OFF of the list.

So my question becomes... By rule, are these bats non-approved or just illegal?

This should be a no-brainer, but I can see a coach making the same argument.

Tru_in_Blu Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:33pm
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.

IRISHMAFIA Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 641880)
If a batter steps into the box with a U-Trip-only bat (never had ASA stamp), is it just an out, or an out and an ejection?

Simple question, I know, and my gut instinct is out + ejection. However, 7-6-C calls them out for stepping into the box with an illegal bat, and 7-6-B calls them out and ejects them for stepping into the box with an altered or non-approved bat.

ASA defines a non-approved bat as:


The bold is my highlight, not ASA's.

So in 2008, this was a no-brainer. Every bat that wasn't ASA-approved was on the non-approved list anyway, regardless of whether or not it was ever submitted to ASA for testing. The use of those bats was out + ejection, because they didn't meet ASA specs AND they appeared on the list.

This year, ASA simplified the process by requiring the stamp on all bats made in 2000 and after, and requiring that they not be on the non-approved list. But all those U-Trip/NSA bats were taken OFF of the list.

So my question becomes... By rule, are these bats non-approved or just illegal?

This should be a no-brainer, but I can see a coach making the same argument.
Are they a softball bats? Were they ever approved? That would make them a non-approved bat.

And I don't care what a coach says, I know better. BTW, that is an ASA Non-approved Bat List. AFAIC, "this is a list of non-approved ASA bats. Since they were never ASA bats, they wouldn't belong on that list, right Coach?"

NCASAUmp Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 641887)
Are they a softball bats? Were they ever approved? That would make them a non-approved bat.

And I don't care what a coach says, I know better. BTW, that is an ASA Non-approved Bat List. AFAIC, "this is a list of non-approved ASA bats. Since they were never ASA bats, they wouldn't belong on that list, right Coach?"
I agree, and I would rule in the same way. It's just that "and" in the definition that needs to be corrected. U-Trip bats do not appear on the current non-approved bat list published on the ASA website.

I say the current definition is just an oversight from when they changed the rule for 2009, but one that I wanted to point out.

IRISHMAFIA Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 641892)
I agree, and I would rule in the same way. It's just that "and" in the definition that needs to be corrected. U-Trip bats do not appear on the current non-approved bat list published on the ASA website.

I say the current definition is just an oversight from when they changed the rule for 2009, but one that I wanted to point out.
And I'm saying it is irrelevant since they were never "approved" to become "non-approved".

Parse the sentence like this.

The official bat shall be [smooth and round to 0.050 inches in diameter] and [bear either the ASA 2000 certification mark or the ASA 2004 certification mark as shown below ( in the 2010 ASA Rule Book) and must not be listed on the ASA Non Approved Bat List.]

IOW, the "must not be listed on the ASA Non Approved Bat List" applies only to those with an ASA certification mark on them which excludes all the bats to which you are referring.

NCASAUmp Sat Dec 12, 2009 08:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 641918)
And I'm saying it is irrelevant since they were never "approved" to become "non-approved".

Parse the sentence like this.

The official bat shall be [smooth and round to 0.050 inches in diameter] and [bear either the ASA 2000 certification mark or the ASA 2004 certification mark as shown below ( in the 2010 ASA Rule Book) and must not be listed on the ASA Non Approved Bat List.]

IOW, the "must not be listed on the ASA Non Approved Bat List" applies only to those with an ASA certification mark on them which excludes all the bats to which you are referring.
That's not the "and" to which I'm referring. I'm referring to the definition of a non-approved bat:

Quote:
NON-APPROVED BAT: A bat that does not meet ASA specifications and is on the current non-approved bat list.
U-Trip sticks don't appear on the non-approved list anymore as of Jan 1, 2009.

Mike, I agree with your ruling. I'm just saying that the printed definition of a non-approved bat should more accurately reflect what really is a non-approved bat.

IRISHMAFIA Sat Dec 12, 2009 09:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 641979)
That's not the "and" to which I'm referring. I'm referring to the definition of a non-approved bat:



U-Trip sticks don't appear on the non-approved list anymore as of Jan 1, 2009.

Mike, I agree with your ruling. I'm just saying that the printed definition of a non-approved bat should more accurately reflect what really is a non-approved bat.
Than I do not understand your original argument as it hasn't changed since last year.

NCASAUmp Sat Dec 12, 2009 09:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 641983)
Than I do not understand your original argument as it hasn't changed since last year.
U-Trip bats are not on the non-approved list published on the ASA website. Only bats that have the stamp, but were later non-approved.

IRISHMAFIA Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 641989)
U-Trip bats are not on the non-approved list published on the ASA website. Only bats that have the stamp, but were later non-approved.
And the rule is the same this year as last.

The Non-approved Bat List refers only to those that were previously approved and for one reason or another lost that certification. The RULE clearly (at least IMO) indicates that.

NCASAUmp Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 642002)
And the rule is the same this year as last.

The Non-approved Bat List refers only to those that were previously approved and for one reason or another lost that certification. The RULE clearly (at least IMO) indicates that.
I agree. So does that make a U-Trip bat simply an illegal bat? Out + no ejection?

ronald Sun Dec 20, 2009 05:15pm
illegal bat.

sunny and 94 in panama city panama. :)

NCASAUmp Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronald (Post 644363)
illegal bat.

sunny and 94 in panama city panama. :)
Que suerte tienes... ;)

Skahtboi Tue Dec 22, 2009 01:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp (Post 644545)
Que suerte tienes... ;)
Es la verdad!

IRISHMAFIA Tue Dec 22, 2009 08:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skahtboi (Post 644730)
Es la verdad!
Es no cortes.

How would you like it if I signed all my posts? :rolleyes:

NCASAUmp Tue Dec 22, 2009 09:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 644748)
Es no cortes.

How would you like it if I signed all my posts? :rolleyes:
:confused:

Huh?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:06pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1