For all of you who were aware there was a conference this past weekend in which ASA was considering banning particular bats (rumor was the composites), the committee went into it gung-ho. Word is that they were prepared to go even farther than banning composites.

And then the lawyers started talking. Latest report is, they are still talking. And they'll probably still be talking for quite a while. Apparently, Miken isn't that upset as they are supposed to have a bat (completely legal) in the works and ready to go at any moment should the Ultra II get banned. Easton and Worth raised the more stink as they obviously feel more threatened.

Grrrr...

Is it banned?
 

Just to add to the confusion:

"Q: I own a Worth 3DXFP bat. Is it banned?
A: No. Some manufacturers make many different models of bats that have very similar names, which has caused confusion about which model is actually banned. For example, Worth has a “3DX” line of bats that includes the 3DX and the 3DXFP. Only the 3DX model has been banned. If you would like additional verification that your 3DXFP is approved for use in ASA Championship Play, please go to the approved listing of Worth bats located in the certified equipment section of http://www.asasoftball.com."

Of course, the bat doesn't say "3DXFP". It says 3DX and then farther around the barrel it says "Fast Pitch" (spelled out). What a mess! I eventually found this in ASA equipment certification FAQ's. don't know where to find a list of apparently banned bats that are not banned.

Re: Is it banned?
 

Then you better put your glasses on and return to the site you have referenced. ALL the information you need is right there.

Worth has a 3DX, 3DXB, 3DXE, 3DXFP. ONLY the 3DX is banned. Here is the key, don't rely on the large print on the bat, go find the actual model number. It's on there somewhere.

Yes, I've seen that web site and I have the encyclopedia of bat models (http://www.asasoftball.com./about/getManufacturerDetail.asp). Even though it doesn't say legal or illegal, clinic references say it is the list of legal bats.

Do the people who make these lists understand the very limited amount of time we have to check bats, the difficulty of reading the list in the rain, the difficulty of finding the secret model code in all the decoration, the difficulty of even getting the players to present the bats before the game, the arguments we get on every bat disallowed (not to mention any illegal or banned calls during play), etc.?

No, I'm not picking on Mike, just frustrated with the aggravation and spending so much time on equipment.

This is getting old....
 

Why cant the ASA set the standard for the entire season and stick with it instead of another mid season ban?

It's not right to change the rules and standards mid season. Players, teams and manufacturers have made financial commitments based on published standards from the ASA that each bat had to meet prior to 2003.

I'm not saying some bats dont need to go....lets just manage this one season at a time.

If you want to ban composites, double walls, bombats and 50% of the single walls for next year fine.

Just one ASA managers opinion.

Make it simple. Since the only bats that are illegal are those on the banned bat list and those YOU don't believe would pass the test if presented to do so, you only need check for non-recertified, banned bats. It takes less the 5 minutes to check the bats of two teams by myself and that's even with those pesky late-comers.

Re: This is getting old....
 

You are posting on the wrong board. ASA did NOT change the rules, the manufacturers violated them. Period! End of story. Well, at least until the new standards are set next month :)

The anticipated changes are a direct result of PLAYER complaints. Not the commissioners, directors, umpires or reps, but the PLAYERS!

And it would be litigious suicide to declare something "unsafe" and not eliminate it immediately. I don't know how many times I can answer this question without getting sarcastic. If you think it's too late for that, just continue to argue the point :)

Re: This is getting old....
 

Mike is much closer to this than I, but ASA has <b>NOT</b>, so far as I know, changed their standards one iota leading up to these bans. As an outside observer, what appears to me happened was the bat manufacturers submitted "cooked" bats or specially selected "prototypes" of bats that they knew would pass for testing by ASA. Then, their production bats were "hotter" than those submitted for testing and did not pass. Therefore, ASA banned them.

Your real beef is with the bat manufacturers for making bats that exceed the ASA performance standards and placing a (fradulent, IMO) ASA stamp on them.

Again... ASA has not changed the standard. Bat manufacturers are (IMO) intentionally making bats that are hotter than those submitted for the original testing. Some of the composite bats (according to what I have read) get "hotter" with use, and after a short time in the user's hands then exceed the standards. This, again, is (IMO) an intentional dodge by the manufacturers around the standard, and again, (IMO) they are to blame for selling you a bat that they certify meets ASA specifications when they know it does not.

Re: Re: This is getting old....
 

Mike - I have no problem with a bat being banned that exceeds the current standards. No problem at all. I agree with you that the mfgs pushed the envelope and the adjustment had to be made.

I also think that if parks nationwide would adopt the 44 / 375 compression balls in leagues and tourneys rather than in just championship play, you would not be getting the player complaints like you are. Parks are still using .47 cors and 44 / 525s all over. In Cincinnati, we use 44 / 375s for everything. Scores are down. Homers are down. Things are going well.

All I ask is that the ASA uses the same standard for a complete season. All the talk I hear is that they are planning on changing the standard mid season and then banning any bat that does not meet it. To me, a person who made a significant purchase decision based on trusting the ASA's information, it's frustrating to now have to buy another bat that may be legal until the ASA decides it also does meet the standard of the week.

Set the standard. Measure the results over a season. Test bats throughout the season. Ban bats that do not meet the current standard. Adjust the standard for the next season. Its not that hard guys!

Re: Re: This is getting old....
 

Good points Dakota. If MFGs are intentionally mislabeling bats, those should be banned. I'm not sure I buy in to the composite argument but if true, I still think the right thing to do is wait and roll out the adjusted wording in the standard to account for bats that are known to break in and get beyond testing OR I would even have no problem banning composites for next year if that is the material that is best known for improved performance.

The fact remains, the players AKA the Customers made the decisions on what bats to buy based purely on what the ASA said was legal. The ASA has to take some responsibility in this regard. In my opinion, the ASA can afford to wait until next season for radical changes such as banning composites. I also stand by my position that parks allowing 44 / 525s and higher are contributiong to the problem. The 44 / 375 balls here in Cincinnati have really changed the game for the good.

I believe the ASA is playing with fire. It's important to keep the sport safe and the technology in check but the financial impact on the players should be carefully considered too. Players will not keep coming back if they feel that the ASA doesnt care about the financial impact on them. You cant honestly say you dont get that part can you?

I understand your point, Larks, but when a customer buys a product that does not perform as advertized, the proper recourse is with the manufacturer, not with those that set the performance standard.

For example, if a car is sold with pollution control equipment that in a few short weeks burns away and results in a higher performance engine that no longer meets government standards, who is to blame? The government for setting and enforcing the standard, or the manufacturer for trying to dodge the standard? As a car owner, who would your beef be with, and who would you look to for financial relief? The manufacturer.

If I owned one of these bats, I'd be demanding a replacement bat that DOES meet the standard from the manufacturer, rather than complaining about ASA catching them in their shenanigans.

Fair points Tom. I still believe that the major changes suggested such as banning all composites can wait until 2004. I think most would consider that a major change in standards because it is a major change in materials allowed.

Look, this isnt as easy as tuning on and off a light switch because there is a huge impact on the sport in dollars and PR that will be negative towards the ASA should they act mid season in my opinion.

Remember, the players are the people that make this all happen. You have to work with us too to make this work. There are some players who complain about hot bats but there are just as many if not more that feel that another mid-season super-ban is not the way to go. If the bats passed the existing published testing standards, they should be allowed, period. If you want to change testing, standards, balls, hats, socks...anything you can think of, lets slow down, get the wording right....get the testing program where it needs to be and then roll it out for 2004.

If we wait until next season and heck, go back to no double walls or composites, thats fine. At least we will have an orderly change that is planned and we would know that the ASA is considering the entire picture. We'd leave this season with the confidence that any purchase for 2004 would be a good decision because the ASA is working with all parties invoved. I fear another mid season change regardless of who is a fault will lead to a further loss of players and teams at a time when the sport can least afford it.

Excellent debate Tom.

Larks

Talk about playing with fire. As Mike said "it would be litigious suicide to declare something "unsafe" and not eliminate it immediately", also very uncaring about player safety in the first place. Even without declaring it, knowing and withholding the data is just as bad.

Tom's point about recourse to the manufacturer not the ASA, like any other product, is right on.

Also, the other organizations are following the ASA banned list, which tells me it's needed.

Obviously, that is simple and easy. Doing that was my mistake. My idea is that the banned bat list should say "ACE Bat Co. model XYZ (not XYZ11 - XYZ99)".

Re: Re: Re: This is getting old....
 

Okay, you asked for it!

The customer, PLAYERS, are complaining so much that the Equipment Standards Committee was prepared to follow through with what you believe to be an unfair ban AND TAKE THE LEGAL HITS on behalf of their customer, THE PLAYERS! Luckily for ASA (and you wallet once you see the increases in registration costs it may have caused), the lawyers stepped in to avoid this possible financial fiasco.

The standards are not changing, the bats are changing. If you have anything close to a dedicated hitter on your team who uses a composite bat and s/he is truthful, they will tell you one of two things: (1) their composite bat is falling apart from use and isn't worth a damn, or (2) their composite bat has more pop now than it did new.

The big hitters knew this about the original Miken and made no secret of it, so why is it so hard to believe at this point? The only problem is that the bats which are getting hotter are a danger to everyone in front of that batter whether it be a defender or a base runner.

Is there anyone on this board, especially non-umpires who is willing to offer their time and money to visit anyone injured by a ball off these bats and explain to them that YOU didn't think it was important to get rid of the bats about which the PLAYERS have been complaining? And when you are done, can you please stop by and pitch 100 balls to me. I'll be the guy holding the Miken Ultra II in my hands at the plate.

Too many folks out there are only reading the cover to this book. Take off the wrapper and open it up with a bit of intelligence and common sense.

It's not that difficult.

Re: Re: Re: Re: This is getting old....
 

Mike,

I play 100 games a year. I've been playing for 14 years. I know a lot of managers and players in Cincinnati and I can tell you that the complaints aren’t here to the extent you imply they are coming in to the association. In Cincinnati we use .44 / 375s in leagues AND tourney play. Injuries are down. Games times and scores are down. Things are headed in the right direction.

Look, I just believe that after last summer, ASA needs stability. Like it or not, players will not exempt the ASA from blame this time. If they have a ban on specific bats that fail the 2003 testing program fine, ban it. Anything else drastic can and should wait.

Why aren’t the Associations pressuring parks to switch to the new balls for all play rather than just championship play. None of you have yet to disagree with my point that too many parks are still using .44 & .47 / 525s!!

The ASA needs to make an approved material decision for 2004. If that means no composites, fine but I still submit we can wait because I believe moving ahead with arbitrary bans now will lead to a lengthily and costly court battle. You can complain about having to go thru court but the bottom line is when you accepted the mantle of being the decision maker on equipment, your interpretations will be subject to review. That’s just the country we live in.

I believe if you wait, your chances of staying out of court go way up and the on-going mission still gets accomplished.

Take your time and get it right.

Larks

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is getting old....
 

Each year I umpire as many games, UIC multiple state and regional tournaments, umpired in four upper-level ASA NCs and two International Softball Federation SP World Cup tournaments, played for over 20 years and my total umpiring life has covered 37 years. I think I can fairly state that I've been around the bases a few times.

Now that we have the credentials out of the way...

ASA went to those balls last year, that is not just a local rulte. however, the game times and scores have not gone down at all in Delaware. As the ASA State UIC, I really am nothing more than an umpire when it comes to local issues. Yet, I am the first to hear the complaints along with the county (which operates the program). The Mikens have been banned locally and what complaints do I hear now? It isn't about the Mikens being dumped, but "when are they going to outlaw the Synergy?"

Quote:

Look, I just believe that after last summer, ASA needs stability. Like it or not, players will not exempt the ASA from blame this time. If they have a ban on specific bats that fail the 2003 testing program fine, ban it. Anything else drastic can and should wait. Why aren’t the Associations pressuring parks to switch to the new balls for all play rather than just championship play. None of you have yet to disagree with my point that too many parks are still using .44 & .47 / 525s!!

You apparently don't understand the responsibility of sanctioning bodies. ASA handles championship play. They do not have the authority to tell private organizations how to run their business, just as ASA will not have those organizations dictating to them how to run championship play. Granted, the local parks are taking a risk when using equipment which has been deemed unsafe by other organizations, but if it is such a problem, why do the teams use the balls? The rules set a maximum standard, which means if you choose to play with balls that are of a lesser COR or compression, there should be no complaints.

Quote:

The ASA needs to make an approved material decision for 2004. If that means no composites, fine but I still submit we can wait because I believe moving ahead with arbitrary bans now will lead to a lengthily and costly court battle. You can complain about having to go thru court but the bottom line is when you accepted the mantle of being the decision maker on equipment, your interpretations will be subject to review. That’s just the country we live in. I believe if you wait, your chances of staying out of court go way up and the on-going mission still gets accomplished. Take your time and get it right. Larks.

And that is just what ASA is doing, making decisions, they just don't happen to be popular ones in the eye of some teams. And whether you like it or not, ASA must be careful to avoid litigation, as does every other corporation in this country in which we live.

If the manufacturers weren't so damn greedy and would actually look at their product's affect on the game instead of their bank account, the game and it's participants would be much better off. And they would still make their bucks, just legitimately.

As an active player, can you tell me the affect of what you consider the unpopular decision to ban the Miken UltraII has taken on USSSA or NSA? I haven't heard any complaints.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Jun 10th, 2003 at 11:08 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is getting old....
 

Quote:

ASA went to those balls last year, that is not just a local rulte. however, the game times and scores have not gone down at all in Delaware.

I'll agree to disagree with you. I have the same guys playing the same level and our team's runs have gone from 14.9 per game to 13.1 avg. If you take that and double it thats a savings of 3 and a half runs per game, times 4 or 5 games a night and suddenly the 10:10 game actually starts on time for the most part. Also, our home runs have gone from 2.1 per game to 1.2 per game. (These are averages, obviously I know you cant hit .2 of a HR)

Quote:

You apparently don't understand the responsibility of sanctioning bodies. ASA handles championship play. They do not have the authority to tell private organizations how to run their business, just as ASA will not have those organizations dictating to them how to run championship play. Granted, the local parks are taking a risk when using equipment which has been deemed unsafe by other organizations, but if it is such a problem, why do the teams use the balls? The rules set a maximum standard, which means if you choose to play with balls that are of a lesser COR or compression, there should be no complaints.

Mike - Isnt there park and team insurance that comes thru sanctioning? I would think you could mandate an equipment standard such as a maximum compression to be eligible for coverage. I dont have the perspective of having the option to hit 47s or 44 / 525s. The parks around here mandate the 44 / 375 for all play. They actually all settled on the Worth 44 / 375. We provide our own and can buy them from the parks at a fair price.

Quote:

If the manufacturers weren't so damn greedy and would actually look at their product's affect on the game instead of their bank account, the game and it's participants would be much better off. And they would still make their bucks, just legitimately.

I dont totally disagree with this point but is it fair to paint a broad stroke that all the MFGs are trying to get over? Bottom line is that the manufacturers have contributed to this mess. I dont think anyone would disagree with that. The main issue to me is how we get the jeanie back into the bottle without wrecking the sport.

Quote:

As an active player, can you tell me the affect of what you consider the unpopular decision to ban the Miken UltraII has taken on USSSA or NSA? I haven't heard any complaints.

As I understand it, The Miken was not submitted to testing to the NSA or USSSA. No test = ban. I think the players pretty much know that was the case. Now the recent Synergy ban by NSA took a lot of people by surprise. Easton has announced a more than fair replacement program (2 different bats and a bat bag) for those players that dont want to wait until or if NSA and Easton settle their differences.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is getting old....
 

Disagree all you like, I cannot help it if your guys are not hitting as well this year as last. Around here, I'm seeing zero difference in the game I say last summer.

Quote:

You apparently don't understand the responsibility of sanctioning bodies. ASA handles championship play. They do not have the authority to tell private organizations how to run their business, just as ASA will not have those organizations dictating to them how to run championship play. Granted, the local parks are taking a risk when using equipment which has been deemed unsafe by other organizations, but if it is such a problem, why do the teams use the balls? The rules set a maximum standard, which means if you choose to play with balls that are of a lesser COR or compression, there should be no complaints Mike - Isnt there park and team insurance that comes thru sanctioning? I would think you could mandate an equipment standard such as a maximum compression to be eligible for coverage. I dont have the perspective of having the option to hit 47s or 44 / 525s. The parks around here mandate the 44 / 375 for all play. They actually all settled on the Worth 44 / 375. We provide our own and can buy them from the parks at a fair price.

They can purchase their insurance from whomever they please, it doesn't need to be ASA. So the answer to the mandate question would be "no". Also, I cannot help what your local park does, nor can ASA. The sanctioning body sets the maximum allowance. If the people who run your league are boneheaded enough to circumvent ASA's rule and lock you in to a particular ball, you need to take your argument to them.

Quote:

If the manufacturers weren't so damn greedy and would actually look at their product's affect on the game instead of their bank account, the game and it's participants would be much better off. And they would still make their bucks, just legitimately I dont totally disagree with this point but is it fair to paint a broad stroke that all the MFGs are trying to get over? Bottom line is that the manufacturers have contributed to this mess. I dont think anyone would disagree with that. The main issue to me is how we get the jeanie back into the bottle without wrecking the sport.

.

No, just the one's who cheat and sell their product under fraudulant conditions.

Quote:

As an active player, can you tell me the affect of what you consider the unpopular decision to ban the Miken UltraII has taken on USSSA or NSA? I haven't heard any complaints.

As I understand it, The Miken was not submitted to testing to the NSA or USSSA. No test = ban. I think the players pretty much know that was the case. Now the recent Synergy ban by NSA took a lot of people by surprise. Easton has announced a more than fair replacement program (2 different bats and a bat bag) for those players that dont want to wait until or if NSA and Easton settle their differences.
[/B][/QUOTE]

From what I understand from Miken is that they were told their Ultra II did not meet the new standard and a grandfather clause would not be offered. The testing was already performed on existing, previously approved bats, hence there really isn't the need to do it again, is there?

Okay, I have offered all I can. Anyone out there can take it for what it's worth. Some understand, some don't, but it's not worth the argument.

I will be closing this thread and will offer a new one when I receive more information on any further action by ASA.