Legal Safety Grip?

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by CelticNHBlue

I agree that the rule was probably written with the understanding that it would/should start at the knob, and it should be specific if that is what is desired, however, I could imagine where a petite player may purchase a larger bat but always choke up... just sayin'

I agree, and that's why ASA allows for up to 15" of grip tape. If she has to choke up any higher than that, she's got the wrong bat.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Received an e-mail today from member NUS concerning my question.

He agrees that over the past couple of reworking of the rule defining the bat the wording which would require one end of the safety tape/grip to abut the portion of the bat defined as the safety knob.

He suggested this would be addressed next November.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Received an e-mail today from member NUS concerning my question.

He agrees that over the past couple of reworking of the rule defining the bat the wording which would require one end of the safety tape/grip to abut the portion of the bat defined as the safety knob.

He suggested this would be addressed next November.

So, in other words, not legal?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

So, in other words, not legal?

Correct, just that if challenged, we (umpires) have nothing to back up that position at this moment.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Correct, just that if challenged, we (umpires) have nothing to back up that position at this moment.

Actually we have the rule that empowers umpires to rule on anything no specifically addressed in the rule book. No one seems to ever read that rule.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Actually we have the rule that empowers umpires to rule on anything no specifically addressed in the rule book. No one seems to ever read that rule.

That would be true if the location of the safety grip were NOT mentioned in the rules. But it is, so that option would not apply. Hopefully, now that the NUS is aware of the wording lost over the past couple years, there will be a clarification.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That would be true if the location of the safety grip were NOT mentioned in the rules. But it is, so that option would not apply. Hopefully, now that the NUS is aware of the wording lost over the past couple years, there will be a clarification.

Does the rule specifically address the location of the grip? I bet if it did, this discussion would have died a long time ago. If it didn't, then I guess the umpires can make a ruling. I'd hate to see an umpire make a decision that wasn't fed to him by the rule book.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Does the rule specifically address the location of the grip? I bet if it did, this discussion would have died a long time ago. If it didn't, then I guess the umpires can make a ruling. I'd hate to see an umpire make a decision that wasn't fed to him by the rule book.

While it is true there are some, not every umpire is a complete idiot and needs every little thing to be pointed out in the rule book. If that was necessary, we would need a cart to transport the tome to clinics and tournaments.

The rule involving the grip tape is specific, you must apply it to the handle of the bat. There you go, the rule offers the size and location to which it must be attached.

Let me take this another step. What are you going to do if a batter presents a bat with multiple Grip-N-Rip type of bat attachments attached with legally applied grip tape at various points on the handle?

While it seems obvious to us and most of the world that it SHOULD abut the knob, the rule does not support such a requirement. And since the rule DOES offer the mandated size restrictions and locations, IT is covered in the rule book which negates any perceived authority to rule otherwise without further direction. And I only raised the question to the NUS asking for clarification. Personally, I don't really care and I'm not sure ASA does or should. They've dropped the word "safety" from the portion of the bat description and there really isn't any wording requiring the batter to actually grip the bat on the grip, never has been.

And for someone who stands on "intent" of the rule over the wording, you seem to be approaching the OOO side on this one.

[EsqUmp]

Since "intent" was brought up . . . the intent of the rule is to keep the bat from (1) slipping and (2) being turned into a projectile. Hence the reason they call it a "safety grip" and put a knob on the bat for further assurance.

The same year that ASA changed some of the requirements for the bat, it specifically stated, "No bare metal may be exposed in the area covered by safety grip." Now what good would it do to have a bat with a grip that started 6 inches from the knob? If that was ASA's intent, then it would logically follow that ASA also would have said that a knob isn't required when the safety grip starts more than an inch from the knob. Of course, that is ludicrous.

That same rule also states, "The safety grip can be made of cork, tape or other synthetic material and must be permanently attached and cover the handle region of the bat." I would rule that the safety grip is NOT "covering" the handle region, but is merely affixed to that region.

Nevertheless, I would deem the bat unsafe and not allow it. I don't mind making a tough decision and irritating a coach, especially when I am erring on the side of caution. I'd rather explain to my interpreter/assignor/UIC why I didn't allow it than to a jury as to why I did.

I would also rule that based upon my experience, review of non-approved and approved bat lists, that the bat was altered.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

Since "intent" was brought up . . . the intent of the rule is to keep the bat from (1) slipping and (2) being turned into a projectile. Hence the reason they call it a "safety grip" and put a knob on the bat for further assurance.

The same year that ASA changed some of the requirements for the bat, it specifically stated, "No bare metal may be exposed in the area covered by safety grip." Now what good would it do to have a bat with a grip that started 6 inches from the knob? If that was ASA's intent, then it would logically follow that ASA also would have said that a knob isn't required when the safety grip starts more than an inch from the knob. Of course, that is ludicrous.

That same rule also states, "The safety grip can be made of cork, tape or other synthetic material and must be permanently attached and cover the handle region of the bat." I would rule that the safety grip is NOT "covering" the handle region, but is merely affixed to that region.

Nevertheless, I would deem the bat unsafe and not allow it. I don't mind making a tough decision and irritating a coach, especially when I am erring on the side of caution. I'd rather explain to my interpreter/assignor/UIC why I didn't allow it than to a jury as to why I did.

I would also rule that based upon my experience, review of non-approved and approved bat lists, that the bat was altered.

Again, the term "safety" is gone from 3.1. The only time the word "safe" appears is as a reference to a multi-piece bat with interchangeable parts. Nor is there any such comment as that bolded area above. The rule just says that the handle must have a grip which can be anywhere from 6" to 15" inches in length, yet does not address the permissible length of the handle. That must mean there is an allowance for bare metal, composite, wood or whatever the handle is made of. Also, there is no rule requiring the batter to hold the bat on the grip, so the batter can have a 6" grip and still hold the bat with both hands and not be on the grip tape.

And there is no longer a ban using a cone attachment or "coning" the knob end of the bat with tape, so a "its for safety" argument has been seriously weakened with the multiple changes over the past few years.

I believe the "knob" requirment will always be there as a matter of ASA supporting the manufacturing of a bat which "would" be safer if the players did not change the characteristics of the handle.

We will see sometime this year if this was an oversight or not.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I would also rule that based upon my experience, review of non-approved and approved bat lists, that the bat was altered.

What about this makes you think it is an altered bat?

An illegal bat, maybe (pending further clarification of the rule as discussed above).

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by BretMan

What about this makes you think it is an altered bat?

An illegal bat, maybe (pending further clarification of the rule as discussed above).

The fact that in all my years playing, coaching and umpiring as well as researching issues pertaining to bats I've never come across one even remotely resembling one with that type of bat handle. In order to get the handle like that the handle would have to be altered from its original condition. That isn't to say such a bat can't exist and merely be illegal, but I would think the odds would not be in favor of that conclusion.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

The fact that in all my years playing, coaching and umpiring as well as researching issues pertaining to bats I've never come across one even remotely resembling one with that type of bat handle. In order to get the handle like that the handle would have to be altered from its original condition. That isn't to say such a bat can't exist and merely be illegal, but I would think the odds would not be in favor of that conclusion.

I'm failing to see what you're talking about.

What, specifically, looks altered to you? Be specific, as the difference between a batter stepping into the batter's box with an illegal bat versus an altered bat is huge. If I'm going to use the term "altered" in front of a player, I'd better be damn sure I can point to something specific and say, "this is where it's been altered."

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I'm failing to see what you're talking about.

What, specifically, looks altered to you? Be specific, as the difference between a batter stepping into the batter's box with an illegal bat versus an altered bat is huge. If I'm going to use the term "altered" in front of a player, I'd better be damn sure I can point to something specific and say, "this is where it's been altered."

The fact that the bat grip has been moved up several inches from the original position.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

The fact that the bat grip has been moved up several inches from the original position.

So you're saying that the safety grip is part of the physical structure of a bat?

What if I add more safety tape? Wouldn't that also be changing the physical structure?