ASA approved bats
 

how do bats get on the ASA approved bat list but fail to have 2000 or 2004 cerification marks?...how does that system work?

Is there such a bat? And I'm not talking about the new 2013 marking for slow pitch bats. Do you have an example of a bat that meets your assumption?

They are grandfathered in made before the stamp requirement.

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.

a local mens league decided to use wood bats this year. they decided to use community bats that would be shared by the teams. the league purchased 10 or 12 wood bats at its own expense. the bats from Worth had no certification stamps on them. i questioned the league president about it and he produced the approved bat list which indeed did have that bat on it. is it just that the wood bats do not require a stamp?

I'm no expert, but my guess is that ASA determined that bats made of wood would never come near exceeding the performance standards that the 2000 and 2004 tests require.

The link below provides some information on ASA bat and ball standards. Note in the third paragraph on page 1 where ASA acknowledges that wood bats don't require certification.

http://www.phys.utk.edu/demoroom/MEC...m_Overview.pdf

No, ASA has clearly stated that ALL bats manufactured since the certification stamps were initiated are required to have the certification stamps on them.

Let's not mix up the verbiage (they already do).

Paragraph 2 clearly states all bats manufactured since 2000 must have a certification mark on it. Paragraph 3 means that wood bats don't have to be processed through the testing for certification, just meet other specs and standards, not that they don't require a certification mark.

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.

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?

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

This.......