February ASA Rules Clarifications

[IRISHMAFIA]

Amateur Softball Association of America (ASA)

ASA confirms no CR when the DP bats for the pitcher/catcher regardless of when the pitcher/catcher is entered into the batting order.

Confirms RS 36 doesn't read exactly as the rule is to be applied.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

...Confirms RS 36 doesn't read exactly as the rule is to be applied.

Finally... how many years did this take?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Finally... how many years did this take?

Well, to them it was more directional/instructional than interpretation.

That's why we have things like clinics and schools to make sure the umpires on the field know better. In the past when raised, the umpire would accept the proper interp & ruling.

It wasn't until this year I have actually seen someone INSIST this was the proper interpretation.

[NCASAUmp]

I noticed that they provided clarification for the "non-approved bat" penalty.

Question: Does a new model bat that does not appear on the non approved bat list and does not have the ASA certification mark on it fall under the penalty for using a non approved or altered bat?

Answer: Yes. Any bat that does not meet Rule 3 Section 1A [1-3] is considered a non approved bat whether listed or not. This is the reason we went to the one bat list called Non Approved bats with Certification Marks. When making the change to the new list, the definition in Rule 1”Non Approved Bat” was missed and the “and” in the definition should have been removed and replaced with “or.” If it does not meet Rule 3 section 1A [1-3] or is on the Non Approved bats with Certification Marks list then it is a “NON APPROVED BAT.”

So yes... A brand new bat with no ASA stamp (ie., U-Trip/NSA bats) is a non-approved bat, and a batter stepping into the batter's box with one of these bats would be out and ejected.

Did someone here bump that one up for me?

[wadeintothem]

Feb 2010.. the Clarification to keep on the ole bookmark for the OBS debates. I wouldnt have minded them simply fixing the RS; however, I never really had a problem understanding the RS. The RS was too easily used out of context to justify an incorrect position in the OBS debate.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Feb 2010.. the Clarification to keep on the ole bookmark for the OBS debates. I wouldnt have minded them simply fixing the RS;

May still happen. They haven't printed a new rule book since this was presented to the staff.

however, I never really had a problem understanding the RS. The RS was too easily used out of context to justify an incorrect position in the OBS debate.

Hence the reason for the clarification

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I noticed that they provided clarification for the "non-approved bat" penalty.



So yes... A brand new bat with no ASA stamp (ie., U-Trip/NSA bats) is a non-approved bat, and a batter stepping into the batter's box with one of these bats would be out and ejected.

Did someone here bump that one up for me?

Ejected ?? - for an illegal, not altered bat??

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Ejected ?? - for an illegal, not altered bat??

Did you read the rules clarification? Remember, we're not talking about altered bats here, we're talking about non-approved.

In 2008, ASA had a huge list of 100+ bats that were "non-approved." This included bats with stamps that were later rescinded, as well as bats that never had the stamp to begin with (ie., USSSA/NSA bats). Therefor, the definition of a non-approved bat was listed as:

NON-APPROVED BAT: A bat that does not meet ASA specifications and is on the current non-approved bat list.

So in 2008, stepping into the box with a USSSA (non-approved) bat was an out + ejection, because all those NSA/U-Trip sticks WERE on the list.

In 2009, ASA changed rule 3-1 slightly to require the stamp on all 2000-or-newer bats. This eliminated the need to put all those NSA/U-Trip sticks on the non-approved list. However, they forgot to modify the rulebook definition of a non-approved bat. So by the strictest reading of the rules, a batter stepping into the box with a U-Trip bat was given a lesser penalty under the illegal bat rule: automatic out, no ejection.

ASA did not intend to lessen the penalty for bringing a bat that ASA never approved into the box, which is why they provided this month's clarification.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Ejected ?? - for an illegal, not altered bat??

And, let's be honest. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if it doesn't have an ASA approval it isn't approved for ASA play.

This also closes the previous logic hole; that a baseball bat was only an out, but a softball bat that might have an ASA approval stamp (and the owner isn't bright enough to check if it has been nonapproved) is an out and an ejection.

So now, it appears the only outs are for bats that have become illegal by use.

[CecilOne]

Speaking ASA:
As Dave pointed out, I did not read the clarification before asking for confirmation of his "non-approved ejection" comment. I have now read it without full comprehension and reviewed the rule itself. Yes I see the ejection for non-approved in 7-6-B.

I have always understood the rule to be out/ejection for altered, just an out for other illegal. To me, non-approved meant the same as illegal. I have trouble understanding how a bat can be "illegal" and not be "non-approved". Am I just trying to apply a dictionary to rule book semantics?

Further, I thought the non-approved list (http://www.asasoftball.com/about/bui...t_one_page.asp) was to correct those previously certified and those rejected to begin with. The idea being to minimize having to search the approved list for every bat. Are we/they using "non-approved" in two different ways?

What I seem to have missed is there are three categories, approved, non-approved, and non-approved with certification. The second, non-approved seems to include non-tested, which I assume are those referred to as USSSA/NSA for lack of a more specific name. (Does non-approved mean the same as disapproved?).

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

So now, it appears the only outs are for bats that have become illegal by use.

Please explain.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Please explain.

Steve means that "illegal" bats are previously legal bats that have become illegal due to the use or abuse of the bat.

For example, a legal bat which has dented, bent, creased, cracked, been damaged in any way that made the surface of the taper or barrel something other than smooth (like a discernable scratch), the end cap pop off, etc.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Steve means that "illegal" bats are previously legal bats that have become illegal due to the use or abuse of the bat.

For example, a legal bat which has dented, bent, creased, cracked, been damaged in any way that made the surface of the taper or barrel something other than smooth (like a discernable scratch), the end cap pop off, etc.

Isn't that "altered"?

[BretMan]

I always took "altered" to mean the bat was purposely tampered with the express intent to change its charateristics, not damage or wear that can occur from normal usage.

In regard to the clarification of R/S #36- the "Ruling" posted on the ASA site might be more "clarifying" if they hadn't omitted the "Play" that apparently should precede it!

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by BretMan

I always took "altered" to mean the bat was purposely tampered with the express intent to change its charateristics, not damage or wear that can occur from normal usage.

The definition of altered bat just says legal bat physically changed.
No mention of purpose, intent, or why.