Bat Testing Issue
 

I am a regular poster on this forum, however, I am posting this under a different username due to the sensitive nature of this issue.
Our State HS association has received many complaints about rolled and shaved bats being used in HS games. The HS association and our local ASA association have an agreement allowing the HS association to use the ASA bat testing machine this HS season.
I have learned that earlier this week, the bat testing machine was taken to a local HS game prior to the game and bats were tested by representatives of the HS association..
One bat failed the test. When the umpires arrived at the field, they were told by the association officials that player # XX from XXX HS is to be ejected from this game for having an altered bat.
I am working with our HS board to convince the association that umpires should not be involved if this is the process. If the altered bat is used in teh game, then the umpires will deal with it per NFHS rules.
What I need is some information/ammunition we can use with our commissioner to help convince him that the umpires are not to be involved in this pre-game testing. Thanks

A bat testing machine at best can tell if the bat no longer meets ASA standards.........not that it is altered.

I agree that the umpires should not be involved in any of these processes.......

Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

Joel

OK, so that bat failed the compression test. Bat gets removed. How does any of this result in the ejection of a particular player? The bat never made it into play/the batter's box. Are these HS association people nuts? How in the name of Pete do they figure they have the authority to tell the umps to eject a specific player because they discovered a bat that failed a compression test?

All rule references from the NFHS 2010 Rules (but none were changed for 2011 AFAIK).

The umpires have no authority over pre-game bat testing or the consequences of that.

The violation is entering the batter's box with an illegal bat, not having one in the dugout prior to the game, and especially prior to the umpires' jurisdiction beginning.
See the part I've underlined in red. Bats discovered as illegal prior to the game by the league officials are a "nothing" as far as the umpires are concerned. Umpires rule on illegal bats that either they or the defense discovered during the game.Once again, the penalty is for use of the illegal bat during the game, not for bringing it to the park.Even if the illegal bat had been brought into the game, the penalty (in addition to the batter or runner being out, etc.) is a team warning, not an ejection. With a normal umpire's bat inspection prior to the game, if this bat had been discovered by the umpire, it would merely have been removed from the game; there would have been no penalty.

If the league wants to disqualify the player or take other disciplinary action, that is up to them, but it does not involve the umpires unless or until the illegal bat is used in the game.

BTW, assuming this testing is proceeding while you are working with the state officials, and that therefore some other umpires may also be informed to eject a player prior to the game beginning, perhaps a way to handle it is for the umpire to inform the coach something like this:

"Coach, I have been informed by the league officials that player x has been disqualified from this game."

I definitely agree with the other respondents - this is above and beyond the domain of the umpire.

As much as I want to see bat doctors hang by their toes on a flag pole in Death Valley in the middle of July, I seriously doubt that these girls are going out on their own and getting their bats rolled/altered. Maybe their parents are doing it, maybe their coaches are doing it, who knows? But I think the punishment is misguided here.

Secondly, as said earlier, the compression tester only finds bats that are out of compliance. It does not detect WHY that bat is out of compliance. There will always be variations in manufacturing, and it's entirely possible that a well-used bat can break-in at above specified limits. Should the player get blamed for this? Not without some other evidence that the bat was altered.

Lastly, why go so far as to eject? Why not just remove the bat? Why is that so hard? Even at Nationals, if a bat is tested and fails before the game starts, it's removed. That's all. Doesn't matter if it's youth ball, men's/women's ball or senior ball, it's just removed.

Those of you who know me well know that I can appreciate the desire to take a strong stance against bat doctoring. I hate it, and I hope it never infects the youth game as it has the SP game. But I think this is going way beyond reason, and I, as an official who only calls the game in front of me, would not want any part of it.

Run. Run like hell.

Not a problem.

Me: "Mr. HS Assn. Official, when you provide me with signed documentation that you are requiring such action, I will be more than happy to deliver it to the AD & Coach on your behalf. I assume they have, or you will include, you phone number should they have any questions."

Nothing like turning a situation around on an admin.........

I like the way you're thinking.

Joel

I agree with all the other posts here (well all that I scanned :) ) this is an association suspension / ejection. We as umpires deal with items within the confines of the field, this is clearly not within those confines. If the Association that rules your area wants to levy a penalty on that player, then that is within thier power to do. BUT it needs to come from them, NOT the umpires. That player did nothing wrong that game while we were administering the rules on the diamond it's not ours to deal with!

Another point if we have a new Easton visual technology bat that is made to show delamination and we see a white line up and down the bat equal on two sides (very distinct indication that the bat has been rolled) what do we as umpires do? We tell them they can't use that bat in this contest.....we don't suspend / eject them, so why or how could we eject them for failing a test that someone else performed with a piece of equipment that is not even mentioned in our rules of enforcement (rulebook).