AlwaysImprove wrote:I agree. I have held a bat that had been rolled, and rubbed paper on it, and you could not detect anything. I suspect you are only catching poorly modified bats with the paper test and external visual inspection. As ontheblack pointed out, having the right equipment can make a much more professional job of it. Also having someone that knows what they are doing.
While I agree that this is not an absolute test, the bat I originally worked with was determined rolled by the manufacturer and was presented in OKC. There was virtually no visual or physical difference between the two bats. I was then allow to test the bats with a simple piece of paper and could easily identify the rolled one. You have to take my word for it, but trust me, I was amazed at what I could feel with that paper.
Somewhat skeptical, the local commissioner asked me to prove it. He arranged for players to provide multiple bats and one player (who swore he only used the rolled one in U-trip games
) told the commissioner which one was rolled. He asked me to show up at a complex on a league night and I successfully identified the rolled one simply using a piece of loose-leaf paper.
I'll admit, this isn't something anyone should be using to determine the legality of a bat. I was fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time with knowledgeable people providing the proper direction. I do not suggest others use it without some experience. The person also has to know what they are feeling. I do not arbitrarily use it to exclude bats and will only consider doing so if there is reason to use this test. Also, I will not conficate the bat, simply remove it from play and return the bat after the tournament.
There is something else that should be considered. Do you honestly believe the someone at ASA just happened to stumble onto this or made it up to scare people? Or do you think the manufacturers or testing labs discovered this and passed it on?
