ASA & Bats

[IRISHMAFIA]

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.

[oatmealqueen]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
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...

[CecilOne]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by CecilOne
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.

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.

[CecilOne]

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.?

[CecilOne]

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

[Larks]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Larks
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.

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

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Larks
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.

Mike is much closer to this than I, but ASA has NOT, 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.

[Larks]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

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!

[Larks]

Originally posted by Dakota

Mike is much closer to this than I, but ASA has NOT, 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.

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?

[Dakota]

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.

[Larks]

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

[CecilOne]

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.