ASA approved bats

[Insane Blue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

While that is true, and the umpire CAN rule it an approved bat on that judgement, those bats do not appear on the ASA Approved Bat List, which was the requirement of the original post.

There is no such thing for bats made after the 2000 standard came to be.
Here is a better link for bats and so on from ASA . Amateur Softball Association of America

If you read #3 this will tell you the only way a bat can have no certification mark and still be legal and that is

must, in the sole opinion and discretion of the umpire, have been manufactured prior to 2000 and if tested, would comply with the ASA bat performance standards then in effect. This includes Wooden Bats

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

There is no such thing for bats made after the 2000 standard came to be.
Here is a better link for bats and so on from ASA . Amateur Softball Association of America

If you read #3 this will tell you the only way a bat can have no certification mark and still be legal and that is

I think the point is that the bats were NOT grandfathered in anywhere. That would insinuate they were approved bats. The only thing the rule allows is for those bats to be exempt from the requirements of being on the list and having the certification stamp attached.

The original guideline for bats not bearing a certification stamp was that the bat would pass the present day testing and were manufactured prior to 1995 (now 2000). Whether these bats are legal to use in a game is solely at the umpire's discretion that the bat met these requirements. Since 2000, all bats must be stamped and on the approved list.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Insane Blue

There is no such thing for bats made after the 2000 standard came to be.
Here is a better link for bats and so on from ASA . Amateur Softball Association of America

If you read #3 this will tell you the only way a bat can have no certification mark and still be legal and that is

I just have to question what you are reading, or if it is a comprehension issue.

I agreed with your original statement (bad grammar, spelling, or typo's ignored) that bats made before 2000 can be approved for use; but added it would require the umpire's judgement, as #3 states.

I also stated these bats would not appear on the Approved Bat List.

So, what is it, exactly, that you are saying differently, adding, clarifying, or correcting?

[Insane Blue]

okay should have been more articulate in my posting sorry will try to remember in the future.

[Gulf Coast Blue]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I just have to question what you are reading, or if it is a comprehension issue.

I agreed with your original statement (bad grammar, spelling, or typo's ignored) that bats made before 2000 can be approved for use; but added it would require the umpire's judgement, as #3 states.

I also stated these bats would not appear on the Approved Bat List.

So, what is it, exactly, that you are saying differently, adding, clarifying, or correcting?

This.......