How far is "too far?"

[NCASAUmp]

So on another forum, guys frequently ask about fixing their bats. End caps come off (Mizunos are notorious for that), rivets come out, and so on.

Some guys say it's perfectly fine to push the rivets back in. Some say it's fine to glue the end cap back on. I had one guy ask if he could pound the end cap back into place when it had gapped slightly (about 3mm).

So where do you draw the line between normal "fixing" of a bat and "altering?"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

So on another forum, guys frequently ask about fixing their bats. End caps come off (Mizunos are notorious for that), rivets come out, and so on.

Some guys say it's perfectly fine to push the rivets back in. Some say it's fine to glue the end cap back on. I had one guy ask if he could pound the end cap back into place when it had gapped slightly (about 3mm).

So where do you draw the line between normal "fixing" of a bat and "altering?"

The rivet issue should disappear at many of those bats are leaving the market. Replacing the cap is shouldn't be necessary as it had to come off somehow. Manufacturers state that it shouldn't happen, so.....

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

The rivet issue should disappear at many of those bats are leaving the market. Replacing the cap is shouldn't be necessary as it had to come off somehow. Manufacturers state that it shouldn't happen, so.....

I agree the end caps shouldn't come off, but they do. Just about every used Mizuno I've laid my hands on seems to have some amount of separation of the end cap from the barrel, and I have no reason to suspect whatsoever that these particular players are working the caps off.

I've always felt that once the cap comes off, the bat is done unless the repairs are done by the manufacturer only. But if some umpires allow players to knock the rivets back into place, how would that be consistent with prohibiting players from glueing their end caps back into place?

Or would this be a topic better left off the public radar?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I agree the end caps shouldn't come off, but they do. Just about every used Mizuno I've laid my hands on seems to have some amount of separation of the end cap from the barrel, and I have no reason to suspect whatsoever that these particular players are working the caps off.

I've always felt that once the cap comes off, the bat is done unless the repairs are done by the manufacturer only. But if some umpires allow players to knock the rivets back into place, how would that be consistent with prohibiting players from glueing their end caps back into place?

Or would this be a topic better left off the public radar?

Cite 3.1.G. This rule is clear that if the manufacturer is not the one who removed the cap, the cap was not properly affixed which, since the manufacturer has agreed through certification that a cap cannot come off, would default to the point that someone other than the manufacturer removed or caused the cap to come off. That, by rule, DQs the bat and clearly suggests there has been an attempt to alter the bat.

If the player has a problem, it is with the manufacturer, or the person who screwed with their bat, not the sanctioning body with whose rules to which the manufacturer agreed to abide.

How about that for some serious, yet effective and factual, rhetoric?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Cite 3.1.G. This rule is clear that if the manufacturer is not the one who removed the cap, the cap was not properly affixed which, since the manufacturer has agreed through certification that a cap cannot come off, would default to the point that someone other than the manufacturer removed or caused the cap to come off. That, by rule, DQs the bat and clearly suggests there has been an attempt to alter the bat.

If the player has a problem, it is with the manufacturer, or the person who screwed with their bat, not the sanctioning body with whose rules to which the manufacturer agreed to abide.

How about that for some serious, yet effective and factual, rhetoric?

I agree completely with your interpretation of the rule regarding a cap that has come off. It's done, kaput, finished.

What about a cap that hasn't come off? One that appears to be slowly working its way out of the barrel, does not appear to be tampered with, but still appears secure? Would a player be allowed to tamp it back into place (not that we'd ever know, but if I'm asked...)?

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Cite 3.1.G. This rule is clear that if the manufacturer is not the one who removed the cap, the cap was not properly affixed which, since the manufacturer has agreed through certification that a cap cannot come off, would default to the point that someone other than the manufacturer removed or caused the cap to come off. That, by rule, DQs the bat and clearly suggests there has been an attempt to alter the bat.

If the player has a problem, it is with the manufacturer, or the person who screwed with their bat, not the sanctioning body with whose rules to which the manufacturer agreed to abide.

How about that for some serious, yet effective and factual, rhetoric?

umm, this wouldnt be the first time that a corporation has claimed their product would/wouldnt do XXXXX and they were wrong/lying.

i actually had a J2 (demarini juggernaut 2) end cap come off a month ago. i grabbed the bat, made sure it wasnt shaved, looked at the end cap to see if it had been messed with (most notably "pry marks"). nothing was wrong with the bat, but i told the team the bat had to be removed from the game.

on a side note, while i wish bat manufacturers would just make an endcap that can be taken off in 1s so anyone can check to see if the bats shaved, i will give some credit for the new utrip rules which have some sort of cap over the endcap to make it damn near impossible to take off.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I agree completely with your interpretation of the rule regarding a cap that has come off. It's done, kaput, finished.

What about a cap that hasn't come off? One that appears to be slowly working its way out of the barrel, does not appear to be tampered with, but still appears secure? Would a player be allowed to tamp it back into place (not that we'd ever know, but if I'm asked...)?

How can it appear to be working it's way out and still appear secure?

As noted in the rules, the end cap must be securely in place so that the end cap can only be removed by the manfacturer without being destroyed.

Unless the guy who was swinging the bat owns the company that produced that bat, any appearance that the cap is not exactly where it was when it left the factory is not good to go.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jr131981

umm, this wouldnt be the first time that a corporation has claimed their product would/wouldnt do XXXXX and they were wrong/lying.

That's fine, but it isn't the umpire's problem. That is purely a issue between the consumer and manufacturer.

i actually had a J2 (demarini juggernaut 2) end cap come off a month ago. i grabbed the bat, made sure it wasnt shaved, looked at the end cap to see if it had been messed with (most notably "pry marks"). nothing was wrong with the bat, but i told the team the bat had to be removed from the game.

What were you going to do if you found evidence there was an issue with the bat?

on a side note, while i wish bat manufacturers would just make an endcap that can be taken off in 1s so anyone can check to see if the bats shaved,

Why would you care? Do you know how many times you would be asked to check this bat or that? I'm there to umpire a ball game, not be a hall monitor for bats.

i will give some credit for the new utrip rules which have some sort of cap over the endcap to make it damn near impossible to take off.

A cap for a cap? If they cannot/do not make one secure, what makes you think the second will be?

If you really want to alleviate the situation, get rid of the end cap, period. Make them find a way to produce a bat that doesn't need and end cap.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That's fine, but it isn't the umpire's problem. That is purely a issue between the consumer and manufacturer.

flat out, i dont understand why anyone would think EVERY time an end cap comes off its bc the player did something to it. IMO, this isnt even debatable.

What were you going to do if you found evidence there was an issue with the bat?

apply the appropriate ruling

Why would you care? Do you know how many times you would be asked to check this bat or that? I'm there to umpire a ball game, not be a hall monitor for bats.

before your game, arent you supposed to check and see if the bats are ASA certified, if they fit in the bat ring, if they dont show dents or excessive wear, if they are rattling? why would you care about those things but not care if a bat was shaved? i dont understand your point

A cap for a cap? If they cannot/do not make one secure, what makes you think the second will be?

its sorta like a backup fail safe (superfluous on purpose) in case the glue comes undone the cap doesnt come off bc theres a piece of material also holding the cap on, or if someone wants to take the cap off, they would have to jimmy with this external cover and then jimmy with the actual cap.

its sorta like having the plastic cases around a fire alarm in a public building. first you have to open of the case, then pull the alarm. having the case prevents an accidental pull. having a cover on the endcap prevents someone from removing the cap without it being pretty f'n obvious, even to the untrained eye.

If you really want to alleviate the situation, get rid of the end cap, period. Make them find a way to produce a bat that doesn't need and end cap.

remind me again what your response to my suggestion that endcaps be easily removable so one can check easily if a bat is shaved? if you dont want to hall monitor bats, why would you want to have bats that are easily "hall monitored"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jr131981

flat out, i dont understand why anyone would think EVERY time an end cap comes off its bc the player did something to it. IMO, this isnt even debatable.

Not assuming anything, it is the rule.

apply the appropriate ruling

And that is?

before your game, arent you supposed to check and see if the bats are ASA certified, if they fit in the bat ring, if they dont show dents or excessive wear, if they are rattling? why would you care about those things but not care if a bat was shaved? i dont understand your point

Bat ring? Talk about outdated equipment. But why don't you take this out of context? My statement was a response to a comment of manufacturing. And yes, do you know how many times an umpire would be asked during the game to check a bat? And just who is going to train all these umpires what to look for once they take the end cap off? Nope, just have the bat made properly and there is no issue. BTW, trusting manufacturers to do things right? How did that recertification of bats process work out?

its sorta like a backup fail safe (superfluous on purpose) in case the glue comes undone the cap doesnt come off bc theres a piece of material also holding the cap on, or if someone wants to take the cap off, they would have to jimmy with this external cover and then jimmy with the actual cap.

its sorta like having the plastic cases around a fire alarm in a public building. first you have to open of the case, then pull the alarm. having the case prevents an accidental pull. having a cover on the endcap prevents someone from removing the cap without it being pretty f'n obvious, even to the untrained eye.

Here's a thought. I know this is contrary to the standard American laziness, but how about just making it right the first time and not having to worry about it down the road?

There have been space-age adhesives around for years. There is absolutely no excuse for the production of a substandard piece of equipment.

remind me again what your response to my suggestion that endcaps be easily removable so one can check easily if a bat is shaved? if you dont want to hall monitor bats, why would you want to have bats that are easily "hall monitored"

See response above. Umpires should not have to be babysitters for lazy manufacturers and cheating players. We are there to umpire a ball game. Checking equipment is not a problem, but nor does it provide absolution. IOW, it is basically a courtesy.

I'd just rather go to a low-compression 14" ball and let them use anything they can find to hit the damn thing.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

....I'd just rather go to a low-compression 14" ball and let them use anything they can find to hit the damn thing.

Then they'd just figure out ways to doctor the ball.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Then they'd just figure out ways to doctor the ball.

"Figure out?"

Trust me, that was done long ago.

[jr131981]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Not assuming anything, it is the rule.




And that is?



Bat ring? Talk about outdated equipment. But why don't you take this out of context? My statement was a response to a comment of manufacturing. And yes, do you know how many times an umpire would be asked during the game to check a bat? And just who is going to train all these umpires what to look for once they take the end cap off? Nope, just have the bat made properly and there is no issue. BTW, trusting manufacturers to do things right? How did that recertification of bats process work out?



Here's a thought. I know this is contrary to the standard American laziness, but how about just making it right the first time and not having to worry about it down the road?

There have been space-age adhesives around for years. There is absolutely no excuse for the production of a substandard piece of equipment.



See response above. Umpires should not have to be babysitters for lazy manufacturers and cheating players. We are there to umpire a ball game. Checking equipment is not a problem, but nor does it provide absolution. IOW, it is basically a courtesy.

I'd just rather go to a low-compression 14" ball and let them use anything they can find to hit the damn thing.

i appreciate your responses to not only this thread but to all the threads, its obvious you have a wealth of knowledge.

but you did say that if the cap comes off a bat, that it "clearly suggests there has been an attempt to alter the bat."

i agree there definitely could be a better way to manufacture the bats, but companies dont do whats the best, they do whats the most profitable.

and btw, just last spring i purchased a brush that has a bat ring built in from my ASA office.

very similar to this one

Sport About Equipment : Allstar Umpire Plate Brush and Bat Ring PB3 [PB3] - $8.99

please dont fault me for buying what was stocked in my local ASA office.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jr131981

i appreciate your responses to not only this thread but to all the threads, its obvious you have a wealth of knowledge.

but you did say that if the cap comes off a bat, that it "clearly suggests there has been an attempt to alter the bat."

No, I said that if you take everything that is supposed to occur, including the manufacturer meeting the specs to which they agreed and a cap comes off, then it would suggest it was done to alter the bat.

If you are going to take everything out of context, please let me know now so I can save the keystrokes after this post.

i agree there definitely could be a better way to manufacture the bats, but companies dont do whats the best, they do whats the most profitable.

Then they should charge more to meet THEIR promise to meet the specs or not produce bats they say do. In some circles, failing to meet the specs intentionally would be considered fraudulent.

and btw, just last spring i purchased a brush that has a bat ring built in from my ASA office.

That's fine, but they are relatively useless since ASA eliminated the allowance for dents and dings.

very similar to this one

Sport About Equipment : Allstar Umpire Plate Brush and Bat Ring PB3 [PB3] - $8.99

please dont fault me for buying what was stocked in my local ASA office.

No, if you had purchased the brush from Sport About Equipment, I would fault you for paying $2 more than what Official Gear sells it. Then again, you can buy a $4 brush and I have never paid for a bat ring. For that matter, I've got a couple hundred bat rings that I cannot give away.

[NCASAUmp]

I'm still of the camp that believes that bat rings still serve a purpose, albeit a very narrow one now. While they are no longer necessary to detect dents in a bat, they can be useful to spot a bat that has been poorly painted or has deceptive decals.

This won't stop a bat that has been visited by a decent enough bat doctor, but it can catch the fly-by-night bat doctors.

I still keep them in my bag. Feel free to send them my way.