The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jul 07, 2012, 06:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRW View Post
Well, the way KR made it sound, the BoD and the ETCC already said "go"... and that it was going to happen as soon as CC blessed it and gave the green light.
Okay, sounds good. But there is often more consideration given than just saying "go".

For example, ASA does try to give manufacturer's an amount of time to sell down inventories. Contrary to some belief out there, the manufacturers are pretty much kept in the loop. If they ever say they got screwed by ASA, it was probably because someone wasn't listening.

For example, when the discussion of the 52/275, 52/300 ball became serious in committee, one of the first questions was directed toward the mfg. reps as to how long it would take to exhaust their inventory of 44/375 to which a couple immediately responded "18 months". When that was stated, you could pretty much bet the house that the 52/300 would not be mandated for at least two years. Looks like it is going to be longer, but I understand that is because the ETCC wanted more "science" behind any move in that direction.

OTOH, when facemasks became mandatory for batting helmets, on mfg. rep stood up in the ETCC meeting and stated that they wanted ASA to back off the mandate for a year because they were not ready. The chair asked other reps if their companies were prepared and all stated they were and some even had the NOCSAE approved masks on the shelf already. The rep then stated they needed more time because THEY wanted to manufacture their mask to a safety level higher than the standard. That didn't work and the ASA moved ahead with the rule.

I can only think that the FP game is remaining the same because there will be no change in the ball. Meanwhile, maybe they are waiting to "pull the trigger" based upon how many 2000/2004 certified bats are being offered for the new testing. I believe under the plan, any model not offered for testing will be added to the non-approved list and that really doesn't need to be any longer than it is.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pole Vault standards set incorrectly Altor Track & Field 4 Mon May 31, 2010 08:40am
Double Standards are Fun! DonInKansas Basketball 7 Tue Mar 11, 2008 09:55am
4-15-4d change just another ref Basketball 15 Tue Sep 11, 2007 01:48am
NF announces new referee uniform standards Mark Padgett Basketball 6 Mon Aug 25, 2003 01:16pm
Low Standards hab_in_exile Football 14 Thu Feb 20, 2003 05:37pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1