The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 29, 2002, 11:42am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,439
http://www.asasoftball.com/umpires/c..._equipment.asp
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 29, 2002, 01:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6
Word has it that most of these bats were banned because they were never officialy tested by the ASA. The companies had similiar models or the same bat with different materials already approved so they just stuck the ASA stamp on the bats.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 30, 2002, 06:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,439
Quote:
Originally posted by pompetti
Word has it that most of these bats were banned because they were never officialy tested by the ASA. The companies had similiar models or the same bat with different materials already approved so they just stuck the ASA stamp on the bats.
That would be incorrect. Instead of listening to the "word", read the press releases. The information there will be a bit more accurate.

__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 30, 2002, 01:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 6
The second paragraph of the release says this:

"ASA routinely and randomly audits compliance with the ASA Bat Performance Standard
by testing samples of certified bats. In addition, ASA takes efforts to ensure that the
ASA certification mark is not being used on bats that are not certified."


What I was trying to say is that the newly banned bats are because of the second sentence. They were never certified. The Louisville Slugger Genesis SB103 is banned but not the previous Genesis Model SB34.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 30, 2002, 02:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally posted by pompetti
The second paragraph of the release says this:

"ASA routinely and randomly audits compliance with the ASA Bat Performance Standard
by testing samples of certified bats. In addition, ASA takes efforts to ensure that the
ASA certification mark is not being used on bats that are not certified."


What I was trying to say is that the newly banned bats are because of the second sentence. They were never certified. The Louisville Slugger Genesis SB103 is banned but not the previous Genesis Model SB34.
While you are correct about the Louisville Slugger bat, you are not correct in asserting that all, or even most, of the newly banned bats were never certified. ASA did the same thing in July for the original list.

July 31 list of previously certified bats that were banned as a result of testing was:
  • DeMarini Doublewall Classic
  • Miken Velocit-E Ultra (Balanced)
  • Miken Velocit-E Ultra (Maxload)
  • Worth 3DX
  • Worth EST23

July 31 list of bats banned as a result of unauthorized use of mark
  • Steele¬ís Triple XXX

August 29 added to the list of previously certified bats that were banned as a result of testing was:
  • DeMarini Doublewall Distance
  • DeMarini B-52
  • DeMarini Fatboy
  • Easton STS4
  • Worth EST5
  • Worth ESTL
  • Worth SSEST
  • Worth PST; (a.ka. Worth PST 137)

August 29 added to the list of bats banned as a result of unauthorized use of mark
  • Louisville Slugger SB103, a.k.a (Genesis)

This brings the number of banned bats from the original 6 to now a total of 15, with 13 of the 15 being due to testing, and 2 being due to unauthorized used of the ASA mark.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 30, 2002, 02:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
PS: Not being a slow pitch guy, this list is pretty long - does it now include just about all of the high buck slow pitch bats?
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 30, 2002, 04:01pm
Tap Tap is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 96
bats

It includes probably 60-70% of the high priced bats. There are still some that are ok -- as of today anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2002, 10:41am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Columbus, MS
Posts: 273
Question Demarini Reply to Me

My Daughter has the 1998 Demarini Ultimate Distance 33/25 Blue bat and when I called Demarini they told me that the blue version was officially a Fast Pitch bat and not subject to the ban but "Some Leagues" are still banning it. What do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2002, 11:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
I'm not "Demarini", but since they are not too likely to reply here, here goes my take on your question.

The manufacturers may designate some bats as "fast pitch" and others as "slow pitch" but ASA makes no such distinction, as far as I can tell.

However, since the banned DeMarini bats are the "Doublewall Classic," "Doublewall Distance," "B-52," and the "Fat Boy," unless your bat has those words on it, it hasn't been banned.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2002, 11:03am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,662
Re: Demarini Reply to Me

Quote:
Originally posted by Dukat
My Daughter has the 1998 Demarini Ultimate Distance 33/25 Blue bat and when I called Demarini they told me that the blue version was officially a Fast Pitch bat and not subject to the ban but "Some Leagues" are still banning it. What do you think?
I don't see that particular bat on the banned list. It is legal for ASA championship play.

If "some leagues" are banning that bat, and your daughter chooses to play in "those leagues", I think that she should not use that bat.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Sep 17, 2002, 02:03pm
Tap Tap is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 96
bats

The confusion is because DeMarini used to make a 2-walled bat named the Ultimate Distance. They also make a single wall bat called the Ultimate Weapon, which is a single wall bat (it is not banned).

In the last few years, they have called their 2-walled bat the Doublewall Distance (and its progeny include the FatBoy, Classic, Demolition, and B52, all of which are 2-wall variations on the Doublewall Distance).

I think DeMarini has acknowledged via their customer service dept. that the Ultimate Distance does fall within the ban even though the bat is no longer made with that name on it.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 18, 2002, 03:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 94
The List

I am the VP of our ASA association and when I found out about the bats I contacted the League Director and told him that the bats that were banned were for Championship Play. He then told me that "if ASA bans them from Championship play, then I am authorizing banning them from league play."

What I do is make all of our umpires carry a list with them on the field so they can check the bats against the list. It takes out the confusion and when someone questions the banned bat, it is there in black and white and they have a choice to play without the bat or they don't play.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 18, 2002, 03:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Re: bats

Quote:
Originally posted by Tap
I think DeMarini has acknowledged via their customer service dept. that the Ultimate Distance does fall within the ban even though the bat is no longer made with that name on it.
It may very well be that the Ultimate Distance is the 1998 name for one of the 2002 bats with a different name. However, if the name is on the banned list from ASA, it's banned, and if it is not on the banned list (and is otherwise legal according to the pre-banning rule), then it is not banned as far as I am concerned.

Local organizations can add to / subtract from the ASA list as they see fit, but if the only instruction I have is to follow the ASA equipment approval list, then the Ultimate Distance is not banned.

In other words, I'm not checking with each manufacturer to determine all of the aliases and obsolete product names and then trying to enforce on that basis.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 18, 2002, 03:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 94
bats

The list that came out on 9/4 caused an uproar in the leagues when they saw the ** beside the Worht bats and Easton bat. They assumed the bats were legal again and I told them the bats were NOT. The ** just means that Worht and Easton have finally conformed to the standards and you can send the bat to them and the company will reconform it.

Some people take softball too seriously and the few guys that I talked to spend huge amounts of money on bats but yet won't pay child support and other humane things. They have to have the lastest bat,shoes and glove and don't think anything else matters. These are the ones who are griping the most.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1