Legal Safety Grip?

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

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?

The rules don't allow moving the grip. It can be replaced however. Adding tape is specifically addresses and defined when and how it is legal.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

The rules don't allow moving the grip. It can be replaced however. Adding tape is specifically addresses and defined when and how it is legal.

Please provide a rule citation that backs up your ruling that the bat is altered.

In my interpretation, a bat with insufficient tape is not an altered bat. It is an illegal bat as per 3-1-D.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Please provide a rule citation that backs up your ruling that the bat is altered.

In my interpretation, a bat with insufficient tape is not an altered bat. It is an illegal bat as per 3-1-D.

My point is that if the manufacturer didn't create the bat with the grip that way, the bat is altered. The rules allow the replacing of a bat grip. The don't allow moving the grip or replacing one in a new location. The issue isn't that the grip may be insufficient, but that it isn't as it was manufactured. That's my argument for an altered bat.

I still argue that the bat is illegal because it doesn't meet specifications (assuming that some insane manufacturer made the bat that way).

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

My point is that if the manufacturer didn't create the bat with the grip that way, the bat is altered. The rules allow the replacing of a bat grip. The don't allow moving the grip or replacing one in a new location. The issue isn't that the grip may be insufficient, but that it isn't as it was manufactured. That's my argument for an altered bat.

I still argue that the bat is illegal because it doesn't meet specifications (assuming that some insane manufacturer made the bat that way).

You couldn't be more wrong. There isn't now, nor was there ever a requirement that a manufacturer's grip be retained or maintained. For that matter, there isn't even a requirement for the manufacturer to present the bat with a grip.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You couldn't be more wrong. There isn't now, nor was there ever a requirement that a manufacturer's grip be retained or maintained. For that matter, there isn't even a requirement for the manufacturer to present the bat with a grip.

You are way off. http://forum.officiating.com/images/icons/icon13.gif Obviously the manufacturer can make whatever bat they want. The question is whether it will obtain ASA approval. What you can and cannot do with a bat handle are outlined by the rules. You can replace the grip but you cannot cut it in half even if it remains 6 - 15 inches. It's absurd to think you could do that.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

You are way off. http://forum.officiating.com/images/icons/icon13.gif Obviously the manufacturer can make whatever bat they want. The question is whether it will obtain ASA approval. What you can and cannot do with a bat handle are outlined by the rules. You can replace the grip but you cannot cut it in half even if it remains 6 - 15 inches. It's absurd to think you could do that.

Uhhh, no.

I think you're focusing and over-applying the old rule where if the grip tape formed a cone or flare, the bat was considered altered. This is no longer the case. And even prior to 2010, having too short a grip or too long a grip was not considered altering the bat - it was simply illegal.

You said it yourself, the grip can legally be replaced by the owner of the bat. If the tape on the bat doesn't comply with 3-1-D, it is NOT an altered bat, it's an ILLEGAL bat. They haven't changed the physical characteristics of the bat, as the grip is not a permanent component of the bat. Therefore, moving said grip is not altering the bat. Period.

Please read the definitions of an "altered bat" and an "illegal bat" in Rule 1, then ask yourself, "how is a bat with an insufficient grip an altered bat?"

I seriously hope you haven't tossed someone in the last 2 years over how they taped their bat. If so, you owe them an apology.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

You are way off. http://forum.officiating.com/images/icons/icon13.gif Obviously the manufacturer can make whatever bat they want. The question is whether it will obtain ASA approval. What you can and cannot do with a bat handle are outlined by the rules. You can replace the grip but you cannot cut it in half even if it remains 6 - 15 inches. It's absurd to think you could do that.

You know what, you're right, the world is wrong. Good luck this season.

[SRW]

quit feeding the troll ...

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

Our state clinic today included KR; he stated that we were to require that the grip start and abut the knob, since to do otherwise would violate the other requirement of no bare metal/substance/...... in the grip area. Not sure he promised an approved ruling or written interpretation to stand on, but he was adament that was the ruling.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Our state clinic today included KR; he stated that we were to require that the grip start and abut the knob, since to do otherwise would violate the other requirement of no bare metal/substance/...... in the grip area. Not sure he promised an approved ruling or written interpretation to stand on, but he was adament that was the ruling.

And that was all I asked for from the NUS, though his response is not very strong since there will always be exposed metal on the handle until the grip and handle are restricted, by rule, to the exact same length.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Our state clinic today included KR; he stated that we were to require that the grip start and abut the knob, since to do otherwise would violate the other requirement of no bare metal/substance/...... in the grip area. Not sure he promised an approved ruling or written interpretation to stand on, but he was adament that was the ruling.

That's all well and good if that's what they want. But it's certainly not what the rule says now.

Using the same "logic", if the grip is 6" long (legal) and is abutting the knob, but the handle is 12" long, then don't you have "bare metal/substance/etc." in the grip region? This seems to make the assumption that the grip must always be equal in length to the handle.

I'm fine with an interpretation that says the grip must start at the knob. But don't try to tell us that that requirement is clearly supported by the rule as presently written. It's not...or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[MrRabbit]

My concern is why they allow as little as 6" inches of grip?
I have medium size hands and when I grip a bat I cover 7 1/2 inches of the handle.
It would seem to me that this could be a safety issue.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

My concern is why they allow as little as 6" inches of grip?
I have medium size hands and when I grip a bat I cover 7 1/2 inches of the handle.
It would seem to me that this could be a safety issue.

Which brings back the question as to how can you reference it as a safety issue if there is no requirement to actually hold the bat on the grip?

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Which brings back the question as to how can you reference it as a safety issue if there is no requirement to actually hold the bat on the grip?

No argument with that. But I find it funny that they called it a Safety Grip under Rule 3 Equipment in the 2011 book, do not have the 2012 book yet, but looked at the new rule on line and would take it that they dropped the word "Safety" from the rule, also did the word Safety get dropped from the knob rule?

Yet they are clear that it must have a grip.

So what is the the purpose of the grip if you do not have use it when batting and why if it is not for safety?

Why not just a bare handle?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by MrRabbit

No argument with that. But I find it funny that they called it a Safety Grip under Rule 3 Equipment in the 2011 book, do not have the 2012 book yet, but looked at the new rule on line and would take it that they dropped the word "Safety" from the rule, also did the word Safety get dropped from the knob rule?

The only time the word safe or safety are mentioned as it pertains to any part of the bat is when addressing multi-piece bats

Yet they are clear that it must have a grip. So what is the the purpose of the grip if you do not have use it when batting and why if it is not for safety?

Why not just a bare handle?

But the batter has NEVER been required to keep their hands on the grip, so there is nothing new there.

Maybe it is like some states where a motorcyclists must have a helmet available, but is not required to wear it. IOW, they are providing the perception of safety.