2012 Rocketech and NCAA Approval?

[AlwaysImprove]

Perhaps you missed this part of the discusion.

Nope, saw it.

This says bats were failing. NCAA launched this new process to eliminate hot bats, not to eliminate old bats. This was backed up stats. Trust me, you guys appear either unintelligent or self-serving arguing that bats were not known to be hot.

The NCAA process removed exactly the bats everyone thought they should. Yet those bats remain in play at ASA.

I think we see in this thread how excited customers are when manufacturers just choose not to put a bat on the list when their customers are using that bat. The reason the manufacturers gave up on these specific models is cause they knew they would not survive a field testing regimen.

I didn't (and won't) argue with you. I just said what it takes to add or delete a bat from my point of view. I'm not guessing or interpreting rules, I know from doing it. I also know from doing my own testing that many bats that pass the certification test never or no longer appear on the new lists. To their credit, the NCAA is very accommodating in this and the manufacturers have few restrictions in their choices for inclusion. If it passes it qualifies to go on the list if it doesn't pass it doesn't qualify to go on the list and they put whatever qualifying bats the manufacturer chooses to include on the list. It's not any more complicated than that.

Yep, agree. There are a number of old bats that could be on the list, that do not make that list, because they are old, and no one using them, and no one cares.

Saying, as MTR and Jonriv do that therefore that list is about old bats, is comical.

NCAA was very clear about why they needed to create a new bat testing process, and old bats had nothing to do with it. It was and is about hot bats.

Hot bats that are still in play at ASA. Bats that have been deemed unsafe/risky/unfair for the top college players in the world. Yet they are fine for 14U kids.

[UmpSteve]

Oh hell's bells let it go already

I would, well, except for the part where AI continues to state his opinions and his conclusions as facts; without any substantiation, proof, or even support from (now) TWO of the manufacturers that actually participate in the process.

So, DeMarini lied, and Tumbleweed doesn't know what he is talking about. But, AI draws his conclusions and restates as facts. Because he knows.

Restated: 1) The NCAA created a process (well, actually three different processes, since the first two didn't accomplish what they desired) in an effort to eliminate "hot" bats. 2) No bat models have actually failed that process; thus no bat models could even be declared "hot bats" by the NCAA. Just not on the approved list (a designation declared and intended to be exactly THAT by the NCAA). 3) The NCAA process isn't binding on the ASA contract with the manufacturers, the ASA end-users, or, actually, anyone aside from the NCAA and the manufacturers' relationship with NCAA. 4) Without any substantiation, proof, or support, AI continues to assert that this set of facts creates a potential liability for ASA (but, apparently not NFHS or PGF, which both rely on the ASA approved bat list as the industry standard for bat approval). 5) Anyone that disagrees with AI's conclusions as being facts is an ASA apologist (not that he is pulling $hit out of his a$$).

All that said, for the record (since it will instantly be challenged), and jmo can substantiate, as we have conversed AT THE PGF CHAMPIONSHIP both years, as well as other times. I AM a PGF registered umpire, have worked the HS division championships BOTH years of their existence, have been reinvited and plan to work it again THIS year, currently registered with PGF for 2012 and selected as a Qualifier UIC. This ISN'T about ASA, PGF, or NCAA as being better or worse, right or wrong, good or evil. It is about someone claiming to "know" facts, when he is stating bull$hit.

He may be knowledgeable about other topics (although I see many of the same type opinions and conclusions restated as "facts" in other threads), but he simply is wrong here. Ending the conversation without saying that first would be equally wrong.

[AlwaysImprove]

Oh hell's bells let it go already

I would, well, except for the part where AI continues to state his opinions and his conclusions as facts; without any substantiation, proof, or even support from (now) TWO of the manufacturers that actually participate in the process.

So, DeMarini lied, and Tumbleweed doesn't know what he is talking about. But, AI draws his conclusions and restates as facts. Because he knows.

Restated: 1) The NCAA created a process (well, actually three different processes, since the first two didn't accomplish what they desired) in an effort to eliminate "hot" bats. 2) No bat models have actually failed that process; thus no bat models could even be declared "hot bats" by the NCAA. Just not on the approved list (a designation declared and intended to be exactly THAT by the NCAA). 3) The NCAA process isn't binding on the ASA contract with the manufacturers, the ASA end-users, or, actually, anyone aside from the NCAA and the manufacturers' relationship with NCAA. 4) Without any substantiation, proof, or support, AI continues to assert that this set of facts creates a potential liability for ASA (but, apparently not NFHS or PGF, which both rely on the ASA approved bat list as the industry standard for bat approval). 5) Anyone that disagrees with AI's conclusions as being facts is an ASA apologist (not that he is pulling $hit out of his a$$).

All that said, for the record (since it will instantly be challenged), and jmo can substantiate, as we have conversed AT THE PGF CHAMPIONSHIP both years, as well as other times. I AM a PGF registered umpire, have worked the HS division championships BOTH years of their existence, have been reinvited and plan to work it again THIS year, currently registered with PGF for 2012 and selected as a Qualifier UIC. This ISN'T about ASA, PGF, or NCAA as being better or worse, right or wrong, good or evil. It is about someone claiming to "know" facts, when he is stating bull$hit.

He may be knowledgeable about other topics (although I see many of the same type opinions and conclusions restated as "facts" in other threads), but he simply is wrong here. Ending the conversation without saying that first would be equally wrong.

From my perspective, I feel like you are arguing with this NCAA press release http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/softball/2010/2011_Bat_Compliance_Final.pdf In particular these parts:

The NCAA 2011 Approved Softball Bat List attempts to limit the number of allowable bat models to those consistent with the Softball Rules Committee’s core values of ensuring fair and equitable competition between teams, supporting the delicate balance of offense and defense within the game, and maintaining vigilance regarding both student-athlete safety and risk minimization.

Review of the barrel compression test (BCT) data and the Washington State University (WSU) lab results from the 2010 season by the NCAA Softball Rules Committee. Notification sent to institutions and manufacturers whose bats tested 98 mph or faster.

Which was then asked to be backed up by stats, which was done. To me these are statements of record/fact. Are you saying they do not say what they say?

[Tumblebug]

For what it’s worth, my understanding of the recent NCAA rule changes is that they were about cheating, not safety. That in itself separates the organizing bodies and their approach to this issue. The NCAA list simply defines what bats the manufacturer certifies is legal from what they won't certify as legal from that point forward. With that statement, liability for an altered bat is shifted back to the field if the organizing body requires that the manufacturer certify that their bat doesn't violate the rules and will never violate the rules unless it is altered. It's about not being able to cheat purposefully by altering a bat or serendipitously through use and being able to blame it backwards.

[AlwaysImprove]

For what it’s worth, my understanding of the recent NCAA rule changes is that they were about cheating, not safety. That in itself separates the organizing bodies and their approach to this issue. The NCAA list simply defines what bats the manufacturer certifies is legal from what they won't certify as legal from that point forward. With that statement, liability for an altered bat is shifted back to the field if the organizing body requires that the manufacturer certify that their bat doesn't violate the rules and will never violate the rules unless it is altered. It's about not being able to cheat purposefully by altering a bat or serendipitously through use and being able to blame it backwards.

The statement says 'safety and risk minimization' in addition to competition. It also says BCT and WSU tests were turning up bats that exceeded well established ASA safety standard of 98mph. Enough of some bat models were failing that NCAA put this process in place to eliminate those bats from competition.

I agree with the rest of your post.

I realize what the press release says puts ASA and PGF in a difficult position. It is not an ASA vs PGF issue. For me at least, it is very hard to say that NCAA statement does not say what it says.

[Tumblebug]

For what it’s worth, my understanding of the recent NCAA rule changes is that they were about cheating, not safety. That in itself separates the organizing bodies and their approach to this issue. The NCAA list simply defines what bats the manufacturer certifies is legal from what they won't certify as legal from that point forward. With that statement, liability for an altered bat is shifted back to the field if the organizing body requires that the manufacturer certify that their bat doesn't violate the rules and will never violate the rules unless it is altered. It's about not being able to cheat purposefully by altering a bat or serendipitously through use and being able to blame it backwards.

The statement says 'safety and risk minimization' in addition to competition. It also says BCT and WSU tests were turning up bats that exceeded well established ASA safety standard of 98mph. Enough of some bat models were failing that NCAA put this process in place to eliminate those bats from competition.

I agree with the rest of your post.

I realize what the press release says puts ASA and PGF in a difficult position. It is not an ASA vs PGF issue. For me at least, it is very hard to say that NCAA statement does not say what it says.

I don't care if you agree. I didn't talk to a press release. I talked to NCAA directly.

[AlwaysImprove]

For what it’s worth, my understanding of the recent NCAA rule changes is that they were about cheating, not safety. That in itself separates the organizing bodies and their approach to this issue. The NCAA list simply defines what bats the manufacturer certifies is legal from what they won't certify as legal from that point forward. With that statement, liability for an altered bat is shifted back to the field if the organizing body requires that the manufacturer certify that their bat doesn't violate the rules and will never violate the rules unless it is altered. It's about not being able to cheat purposefully by altering a bat or serendipitously through use and being able to blame it backwards.

The statement says 'safety and risk minimization' in addition to competition. It also says BCT and WSU tests were turning up bats that exceeded well established ASA safety standard of 98mph. Enough of some bat models were failing that NCAA put this process in place to eliminate those bats from competition.

I agree with the rest of your post.

I realize what the press release says puts ASA and PGF in a difficult position. It is not an ASA vs PGF issue. For me at least, it is very hard to say that NCAA statement does not say what it says.

I don't care if you agree. I didn't talk to a press release. I talked to NCAA directly.

NCAA said they were were retracting their public statement that bats were failing? Not sure why I care that a couple of Good Ole ASA Boys got on the phone and declared NCAA statements to be about competition not safety. NCAA statement was clear. Bats were failing 98mph ASA tests. Tough hard reality, but reality none the less.

Just so the ASA guys do not think I am picking on them. PGF guys are also taking a head in the sand approach to this issue.

[Tumblebug]

I don't care if you agree. I didn't talk to a press release. I talked to NCAA directly.

NCAA said they were were retracting their public statement that bats were failing? Not sure why I care that a couple of Good Ole ASA Boys got on the phone and declared NCAA statements to be about competition not safety. NCAA statement was clear. Bats were failing 98mph ASA tests. Tough hard reality, but reality none the less.

Just so the ASA guys do not think I am picking on them. PGF guys are also taking a head in the sand approach to this issue.

I don’t know why you are quoting me and responding to my post like your opinion matters to me. You are attempting to rabble-rouse a thinning-uninterested crowd into responding to a tired over-argued non-issue by hijacking a thread about an administrative paperwork miscue that has been resolved and using it as your soapbox. Please start a new thread and let the rectified original complaint dissolve into history.

[balou]

Tumblebug, both you and your company are great.....this thread is reminding me of an old saying...."be careful when you wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and he likes it". JMO