1 year suspension for illegal bats

[Goldball4]

Most manufacturers have made these improvements on their bats. And have made steps to fixing the problems. You will see a lot of the old eastons especially that are altered. The old green/yellow, blue/grey. Bats like Hawaii was using last year!! See how many they hit? And look at this year, huge difference. It's going away, but wont be entirely away , until those bats are gone.

[AlwaysImprove]

Agree, ASA has led the charge on bat safety. I have always provided huge props for the great work ASA has done in this area. Their early work with Kettering, and WSU materials testing labs. Their early work on Titanium materials. The legal work that has had to happen when working with bat manufacturers. I 100% appreciate everything ASA has done in these regards.

I also understand bat manufacturers were under the impression as long as the bat was 98mph upon manufacture, it could get as hot as they wanted after that point. Thanks to ASA for changing this mentality and working hard to create standards that are safe.

I also understand that NCAA approach to bat safety has been scattershot to non-existent.

Also agree, rolling a bat is not illegal, using a rolled bat in an ASA or NCAA game is illegal.

Are you saying that the NCAA bat compression testers are not backed up good science?

The 'tamper proof' end cap is a cat and mouse game. One that manufacturers plus ASA are going to loose. As long as someone is willing to destroy a bat to determine the tamper resistant features of the end cap, they are going to be able to figure out how to remove and replace the end cap without detection. The result is a driving manufacturers to endlessly spend more money redesigning something that is never going to be tamper resistant.

It is like the mythical unpickable lock. They are unpickable using current tools. Give the lock to an reasonable capable person and he will build a tool that a 12 yr old can pick the lock in 8 seconds. Once a new tamper resistant cap is provided to the market, someone is going to cut it half and build a tool that removes that cap with no visible marks.

In the end, if advanced materials are going to be continued to be allowed in bat construction, there will have to be a test that can be done in the field that tests something that resembles ball exit speed. This test does not have to be perfect. It is follow on testing to the bat model testing that ASA currently performs. The goal of the testing is to ensure that the materials used in the bat have not been altered to exceed the 98 mph ball exit speed. By altered I mean: natural break-in, rolling, shaving or otherwise working the material over.

[MTR]

Are you saying that the NCAA bat compression testers are not backed up good science?

What makes you think the compression testers are any different than what ASA or anyone else uses?

ASA has been testing bat on site at least since 2004. Granted, they have developed a more compact device this is being used all over the country, but they are only going to measure the compression which will find some of the shaved bats, some non-approved painted bats and some with creases or cracks.

The 'tamper proof' end cap is a cat and mouse game. One that manufacturers plus ASA are going to loose. As long as someone is willing to destroy a bat to determine the tamper resistant features of the end cap, they are going to be able to figure out how to remove and replace the end cap without detection. The result is a driving manufacturers to endlessly spend more money redesigning something that is never going to be tamper resistant.

So, the question is do you really think ASA passed a rule that directly affected the production of a bat without checking with and getting positive assurances from the manufacturers that it could be done?

It is like the mythical unpickable lock. They are unpickable using current tools. Give the lock to an reasonable capable person and he will build a tool that a 12 yr old can pick the lock in 8 seconds. Once a new tamper resistant cap is provided to the market, someone is going to cut it half and build a tool that removes that cap with no visible marks.

Personally, I don't think the bat manufacturers care, nor are trying to meet their commitments. With all the technology in today's world, you cannot convince me there is no method to make the bat impenetrable. Then again, the only people that will make money off of product failure is who?

In the end, if advanced materials are going to be continued to be allowed in bat construction, there will have to be a test that can be done in the field that tests something that resembles ball exit speed. This test does not have to be perfect. It is follow on testing to the bat model testing that ASA currently performs. The goal of the testing is to ensure that the materials used in the bat have not been altered to exceed the 98 mph ball exit speed. By altered I mean: natural break-in, rolling, shaving or otherwise working the material over.

They have begun using [url="http://www.sadlersports.com/blog/index.php/tag/bat-exit-speeds/"]Trackman which incorporates Doppler radar[/url]. If memory serves me correctly, the NCAA is assisting in the financing of incorporating this into the stardard testing. ASA has already taken this on the field with SP teams to determine if going to the 52/300 12" ball will reduce the batted ball exit speed. This could possibly have some previously approved bats which were added to the non-approved list back into the ASA game.

[AlwaysImprove]

Are you saying that the NCAA bat compression testers are not backed up good science?

What makes you think the compression testers are any different than what ASA or anyone else uses?

ASA has been testing bat on site at least since 2004. Granted, they have developed a more compact device this is being used all over the country, but they are only going to measure the compression which will find some of the shaved bats, some non-approved painted bats and some with creases or cracks.

Sorry, I sometimes have a hard time reading your posts. I thought when you said "And regardless of the fact that it was completely dismissed by those in the softball world because it did not meet their standard BS, ASA demonstrated a test which could not determine whether or not a bat was rolled, but could show a bat was rolled it if met the standards of the test. Since it wasn't dead-on accurate and ASA did not want something half-ass being done in the field that could not be backed up by science, they specifically instructed umpires to not use this test to determine if a bat was rolled." you were referring to bat compression testers. That is the reason I was asking it as a question.

The 'tamper proof' end cap is a cat and mouse game. One that manufacturers plus ASA are going to loose. As long as someone is willing to destroy a bat to determine the tamper resistant features of the end cap, they are going to be able to figure out how to remove and replace the end cap without detection. The result is a driving manufacturers to endlessly spend more money redesigning something that is never going to be tamper resistant.

So, the question is do you really think ASA passed a rule that directly affected the production of a bat without checking with and getting positive assurances from the manufacturers that it could be done?

It is like the mythical unpickable lock. They are unpickable using current tools. Give the lock to an reasonable capable person and he will build a tool that a 12 yr old can pick the lock in 8 seconds. Once a new tamper resistant cap is provided to the market, someone is going to cut it half and build a tool that removes that cap with no visible marks.

Personally, I don't think the bat manufacturers care, nor are trying to meet their commitments. With all the technology in today's world, you cannot convince me there is no method to make the bat impenetrable. Then again, the only people that will make money off of product failure is who?

Agree, bat manufactures do not appear to care. Also agree bat manufacturers probably make more money if they do not succeed in creating truly tamper resistant. Not sure why they signed up for the commitment in the first place, I was not involved. Maybe they initially thought it was possible, then found this problem was hard or costly. Either way, given what we know now, relying upon tamper proof caps is probably not a great approach.

Also Easton put a ton of money into the tamper resistant features of the clarity line. Only to see the clarity line fail, and hurt the sales of their other models. So you cannot exactly say that this is just a bat manufacturer problem. Reality of the sport is that no one is going to self impose a limit far below what most others on the field are allowed. Clarity asked them to do this.

I think once you think about how tamper proofing may be accomplished, you only have to think a bit longer to think how it may be defeated. Just a matter of tools and engineering.

In the end, if advanced materials are going to be continued to be allowed in bat construction, there will have to be a test that can be done in the field that tests something that resembles ball exit speed. This test does not have to be perfect. It is follow on testing to the bat model testing that ASA currently performs. The goal of the testing is to ensure that the materials used in the bat have not been altered to exceed the 98 mph ball exit speed. By altered I mean: natural break-in, rolling, shaving or otherwise working the material over.

They have begun using [url="http://www.sadlersports.com/blog/index.php/tag/bat-exit-speeds/"]Trackman which incorporates Doppler radar[/url]. If memory serves me correctly, the NCAA is assisting in the financing of incorporating this into the stardard testing. ASA has already taken this on the field with SP teams to determine if going to the 52/300 12" ball will reduce the batted ball exit speed. This could possibly have some previously approved bats which were added to the non-approved list back into the ASA game.

Yeah, trackman seems like a great approach. Both to improve the WSU standard testing and to use in the field. It would be great to get a bat from the Dawg and see what it does against a hard throwing pitcher.

A podunk golf facility in our area has a trackman. Amazing how golf ooze's with money.

If I understand you correctly, you said that ASA is using bat compression testers. Yet, I have never seen one, no one I know in my area has seen one, and we have never heard reports about one here on heybucket. Maybe they are only being used at slow pitch games. I think it would do a lot to hear of a bat compression tester at a fast pitch game.

[MTR]

Sorry, I sometimes have a hard time reading your posts. I thought when you said "And regardless of the fact that it was completely dismissed by those in the softball world because it did not meet their standard BS, ASA demonstrated a test which could not determine whether or not a bat was rolled, but could show a bat was rolled it if met the standards of the test. Since it wasn't dead-on accurate and ASA did not want something half-ass being done in the field that could not be backed up by science, they specifically instructed umpires to not use this test to determine if a bat was rolled." you were referring to bat compression testers. That is the reason I was asking it as a question.

No, I was referring to the infamous "paper test" which applied to an indicator of a bat having been rolled.

Agree, bat manufactures do not appear to care. Also agree bat manufacturers probably make more money if they do not succeed in creating truly tamper resistant. Not sure why they signed up for the commitment in the first place, I was not involved. Maybe they initially thought it was possible, then found this problem was hard or costly. Either way, given what we know now, relying upon tamper proof caps is probably not a great approach.

Also Easton put a ton of money into the tamper resistant features of the clarity line. Only to see the clarity line fail, and hurt the sales of their other models. So you cannot exactly say that this is just a bat manufacturer problem. Reality of the sport is that no one is going to self impose a limit far below what most others on the field are allowed. Clarity asked them to do this.

I think once you think about how tamper proofing may be accomplished, you only have to think a bit longer to think how it may be defeated. Just a matter of tools and engineering.

I agree that someone will always find a way to "beat the system" regardless of what that system may be. But then again, after all the seals and gaskets that have been developed to keep man safe in space, underwater and underground, you would be able to find a way to seal a bat.

How about if it is changed to that NO ONE can remove it without destruction including the manufacturer?

A podunk golf facility in our area has a trackman. Amazing how golf ooze's with money.

That's because all the softball people changed to where it they do put the ball on the T for you

If I understand you correctly, you said that ASA is using bat compression testers. Yet, I have never seen one, no one I know in my area has seen one, and we have never heard reports about one here on heybucket. Maybe they are only being used at slow pitch games. I think it would do a lot to hear of a bat compression tester at a fast pitch game.

Here is a short clip of the Easton machine being used. It is an electronic model, but there has been a manual device developed that does not require electricity to operate. The cost for these is around $700. This clip is at a SP tournament, but there is no reason they cannot be used for FP games. There is also some "local" information that isn't factual.

The newer testers have a guide which has the device test every bat from the same distance from the cap. In the clip there is a misconception that simply because a bat is U-trip approved and not ASA that it will not pass the test. Remember, this is only checking the compression. While a U-trip bat may allow for higher exit speeds at times, it doesn't mean that at point in its life (assumedly early on) it will not pass such a test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ztaVdmY5v8

[ontheblack]

How about if it is changed to that NO ONE can remove it without destruction including the manufacturer?

If I recall correctly, Tumblebug said some similar.

If it can be removed by the manufacturer, then anyone can remove it.