Legal Safety Grip?

[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.

[MrRabbit]

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

I can just it heard it... batter is gripping the bat above the 6" grip on bat and loses control of it and throws it into the stands cracking someones head.
In court for the law suit... judge to person with cracked skull, please show how she was holding the bat... they show that she was holding it above the 6" grip. Judge says so she was not using it correctly... ASA person, No your honor she is not required by book the hold it by the grip.

Yes but a motorcycle ride is only in danger of busting their own skull by not wearing their helmet.

[AtlUmpSteve]

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?

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?

I see the point as requiring the bat be as safe as realisticly optimal. No one can stop the batter from then using it in a less-than-safe manner.

Requiring the batter to only hold the bat on the grip would make the vast majority of bunt attempts illegal.

[MrRabbit]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I see the point as requiring the bat be as safe as realisticly optimal. No one can stop the batter from then using it in a less-than-safe manner.

Requiring the batter to only hold the bat on the grip would make the vast majority of bunt attempts illegal.

That would be a time when it would be OK to remove a hand from the grip.

You are not likely to hit someone by losing control of a bat while bunting.