Legal Safety Grip?
 

Speaking ASA

Referring solely to the handle, is this bat legal with the safety grip applied as it is here?

Softball Bat

I'll say no because the grip itself is only 8" long, not a minimum of 10".

Better check your rule changes.

Or the calendar- it's still 2011! :D

I would say no, not legal.

In my interpretation of the safety grip rule, the 10"-15" (6"-15" in 2012) measurement starts from the safety knob, not simply where the tape happens to start.

Okay, you got me.:D For the purpose of this question, let's refer to the 2012 ASA rules.

agreed.

I believe the rule also says...
 

no exposed metal on the handle of the bat.

That's not what the rule actually says, is it? If that was the rule, then all safety grips would need to be the exact same length as the handle and extend from the knob to the taper. That doesn't seem to be the intent- why else would they say the grip can be anywhere from 6 to 15 inches long?

I read the rule to mean that none of the handle can be exposed in the area actually covered by the safety grip. Some of the handle can be exposed, just not within the part that the grip is covering.

This seems to be another case where they've tried to redefine and clarify the description of a legal bat, yet from an editorial standpoint still left some details open to interpretation.

If I'm forced to rule on this bat...three days from now ;) ...I'm going to say this is a legal grip. I've never seen any rule or interpretation that says the grip must begin exactly at the knob, or any other specific point on the handle, for that matter. To assume that it must begin there would be a personal interpretation not backed up by any rule. If that's what they meant, then that's what the rule should say.

2009 ASA Rules

Safety Grip shall not be more than 10.0 inches long and not extend more than 15.0 inches from the small/knob end of the bat. Well, this wording still allowed for the grip to start 5.0 inches from the knob and still meet the state requirement.

However, in the following rule defining the Safety Knob it states that the distance from the apex of the knob to the Safety Grip shall not exceed 0.3750 inches. This meant that the Safety Grip pretty much had to start at the knob of the bat to meet this standard.

Over the past two years, the wording has changed a couple times which eliminated this requirement.

Hence, I cannot find anything upon which to not permit the use of this bat without some form of clarification or interpretation from ASA.

When I look at rule 3.1.C:
HANDLE: The region of the bat from the knob, not including the knob, to the
start of the taper where the diameter increases. The handle will include a
safety grip.

Then I look at Rule 3.1.D:
SAFETY GRIP: The Safety Grip can be made of cork, tape or other syn-
thetic material and must be permanently attached and cover the handle
region of the bat.(more about distance and attachements cut to save space)

Since the handle region of the bat starts at the knob (per 3.1.C) and the safety grip has to cover the handle region(per 3.1.D)(or at least 6-15" of it in 2012), then the safety grip has to start at the knob.

Of course this is all from the 2011 rule book since I don't have a 2012 yet, so I will check that wording when I get my new book. But it seems like 2011 tells me that the bat in question is illegal since the safety grip doesn't start at the knob.

That's a heck of a sentence!!!:D

But could it not just as easily start at the taper? And if the handle area is to be covered, why is their a minimum and maximum? Why not just state the handle area must be covered?

I don't disagree that it should start at the knob. I'm just pointing out that the rule's wording has changed to the point there is no given starting point as there once was.

I agree that the wording would lead one to that conclusion. However, I believe that it was probably an oversight, combined with a case of "well, who in their right mind would ever do THAT?!"

The old rule was completely and totally gutted, re-written from the ground up. Increases the likelihood that this was nothing more than an oversight.

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.

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?

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.

:confused:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

quit feeding the troll ...

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.

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.

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?

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?

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


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.

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.

"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.

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.

Ever seen that whole '360 behind the back' slapper/bunt dealio? :D

Which is irrelevant to my comment, but even if it were, using the helmet, or grip, does not preclude the possibilty the accident would not have happened if they were.:D

All other things aside...

What was their reasoning behind changing the grip from 10 to 15 inches to 6 to 15 inches?

There was no comment given for the change, it was part of the redefinition of the "grip".

Because the players have been trying to pass 6" off for 10" for years?









I'll just let that one sink in. :D

And from what I understand, Dave uses this line a lot....... :eek:;)

Knew my post would get some good replies.

I would like to know what they were drinking / smoking before they decide to make the change from 10 to 6.

You would think they had better rule changes to consider.

DOH! :p

Spoke with KR about this today in OKC, and he stated this was more of a slow pitch dealio and that there was a 'complaint' that SP players felt this was a waste of grip tape and 'expense'. (do SP players regrip their tape that much?... I have no clue)

but he also re-confirmed that the tape must 'begin at the knob' and that would be 're-inserted' in 2012 and was an over sight, and said this should come up in a future rules clarification on the website soon.