Easton just voluntarily removed a truckload of bats from ASA certified bat list

[YOCOACH]

MTR...as you can see by the FAQ's posted earlier by me, the ASA used that term as well on these questions. I'm not saying it is the correct term for use but you have to give a little leeway in your exacting standards of terminology if the sanctioning body has posted that term. Most of us know that it means the bat is no longer on the ASA approved list of bats allowed to be used in that sanctioning bodies tournaments. As for the term "grandfathered," again, most of us know the term as being meant, 'until proven otherwise, it is still sanctioned for use under the current rules.' I do understand that terminology of the rules are pretty exacting, but please, give the general population a little slack in slinging lingo around that many others use in day to day incorrect utilization. Especially in this instance

 

[CoreSoftball20]

It's probably a good thing you don't get involved in the tech hitting section.

You are absolutely correct...actually its also because of a certain person or two that p!ss me off with their nonsense and I refuse to internet fight

 

[Eric F]

You are absolutely correct...actually its also because of a certain person or two that p!ss me off with their nonsense and I refuse to internet fight

I understand. It's too bad that the attitudes of certain posters are dominant enough to keep others from getting involved.

 

[CoreSoftball20]

I understand. It's too bad that the attitudes of certain posters are dominant enough to keep others from getting involved.

Believe me, dominant isn't the word I would use

 

[MTR]

MTR...as you can see by the FAQ's posted earlier by me, the ASA used that term as well on these questions. I'm not saying it is the correct term for use but you have to give a little leeway in your exacting standards of terminology if the sanctioning body has posted that term. Most of us know that it means the bat is no longer on the ASA approved list of bats allowed to be used in that sanctioning bodies tournaments. As for the term "grandfathered," again, most of us know the term as being meant, 'until proven otherwise, it is still sanctioned for use under the current rules.' I do understand that terminology of the rules are pretty exacting, but please, give the general population a little slack in slinging lingo around that many others use in day to day incorrect utilization. Especially in this instance

Actually, the word/term "grandfather" does not appear in the ASA FAQ you posted earlier. I agree it is simply a matter of terminology. Common inference of grandfathered is an item which did not meet the set itandards yet permitted to remain "legal" and allowed to be used in the game (ASA). The term was appropriately used by ASA a decade ago. Using the same term for what is a different, unqualifying situation is misleading.

You may believe my raising the issue to be anal and I will not argue. However, I believe it is more important to be accurate when people are seeking specific information. There is never anything wrong with helping people learn.

 

[Stick07]

Just my two cents on the issue. I know I'm new to softball but have completed in several different sports over the years and usually a a very high level. My DD currently swings a Easton fs3 and we are more than happy with it. When it comes to grandfathered equipment getting dropped this happens. If you didn't think it would happen you're fooling your self. It will continue to happen with all brands Easton just pulled the trigger first. Second if you have to have a grandfathered equipment that is on the edge of the qualifications to compete then you can't compete. Either you have the ability or you don't. I get these bats where hot and added distance. When it comes down to brass tacks either you can play at that level or you can't no bat will save you. Just my thoughts.

 

[vdubya]

Second if you have to have a grandfathered equipment that is on the edge of the qualifications to compete then you can't compete. Either you have the ability or you don't. I get these bats where hot and added distance. When it comes down to brass tacks either you can play at that level or you can't no bat will save you. Just my thoughts.

I hope your kid has a chance to compete at a high level one day, beyond 14u. If she does, you'll see a number of things the kids are doing to give them a competitive edge. Some examples:

Pitchers develop a riseball, for instance. It is within the rules of the game to throw a good riseball. Would you say "If a pitcher throws a riseball to compete, then she can't compete." Didn't think so. You might say that if a pitcher must crow hop to gain mph, then she can't compete, because the crow hop isn't playing within the rules of the game. See the difference?

Older kids hit the gym to get stronger/faster/better. They do it for a competitive edge and for injury prevention. Would you say "If a kid builds strength to compete then she really can't compete." Haha, ridiculous isn't it? If the kid starts injecting PED's, that crosses the line.

Most associations allow metal cleats starting at 14u and up. A great many kids switch to the metal cleats and believe that they provide better 'dig'. Would you say that if the kid wears metal cleats to compete then she really can't compete? Probably not. Metal cleats are within the rules, even if they provide a little advantage over molded. If a kid files the cleats into a point and intentionally lodges them in an opponents fibula, she has crossed the line. You might say that if she must do that to compete, then she really can't compete.

Who am I to say what crosses the line? Fortunately, I don't have to be the guy that decides. The examples I am giving are addressed in the rules of the game, and here's the kicker...SO ARE BAT SPECS AND APPROVED MODELS.

If a kid uses a bat that is approved, it is within the rules to do so, competitive advantage or not. Shaved and rolled or damaged, NO, but otherwise one approved bat is just as legal as another approved bat.

Now that the older Eastons are gone, is it time to start saying "If a girl uses a LXT or CF8 or Mako to compete, then she really can't compete." Those bats are clearly better than wood or the walmart tinky-tinks, right?

One more time, folks. It's the in-jun, not the arrow. If the in-jun chooses to use the best bat available-- within the rules-- then that's simply a wiser in-jun.

 

[BobInMadison]

I hope your kid has a chance to compete at a high level one day, beyond 14u. If she does, you'll see a number of things the kids are doing to give them a competitive edge. Some examples:

Pitchers develop a riseball, for instance. It is within the rules of the game to throw a good riseball. Would you say "If a pitcher throws a riseball to compete, then she can't compete." Didn't think so. You might say that if a pitcher must crow hop to gain mph, then she can't compete, because the crow hop isn't playing within the rules of the game. See the difference?

Older kids hit the gym to get stronger/faster/better. They do it for a competitive edge and for injury prevention. Would you say "If a kid builds strength to compete then she really can't compete." Haha, ridiculous isn't it? If the kid starts injecting PED's, that crosses the line.

Most associations allow metal cleats starting at 14u and up. A great many kids switch to the metal cleats and believe that they provide better 'dig'. Would you say that if the kid wears metal cleats to compete then she really can't compete? Probably not. Metal cleats are within the rules, even if they provide a little advantage over molded. If a kid files the cleats into a point and intentionally lodges them in an opponents fibula, she has crossed the line. You might say that if she must do that to compete, then she really can't compete.

Who am I to say what crosses the line? Fortunately, I don't have to be the guy that decides. The examples I am giving are addressed in the rules of the game, and here's the kicker...SO ARE BAT SPECS AND APPROVED MODELS.

If a kid uses a bat that is approved, it is within the rules to do so, competitive advantage or not. Shaved and rolled or damaged, NO, but otherwise one approved bat is just as legal as another approved bat.

Now that the older Eastons are gone, is it time to start saying "If a girl uses a LXT or CF8 or Mako to compete, then she really can't compete." Those bats are clearly better than wood or the walmart tinky-tinks, right?

One more time, folks. It's the in-jun, not the arrow. If the in-jun chooses to use the best bat available-- within the rules-- then that's simply a wiser in-jun.

Speaking as a card carrying member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, let's just say my little Indian spends many hours getting better so the right arrow can give her a HR. Her new arrow is a CF8. Got her Christmas present from Bethlehem. Bethlehem, PA, of course, where CoreSoftball ships his bats. ��

 

[Chelle]

Not sure what this ramble is implying? What I got from the previous post is if you can play with the pulled bat but can't now, get another bat and you can still play the same that's within the new specs possibly? This won't stop. Every year they're going to ban certain bats and equipment and although losing the money sucks, our DD should be able to pick up the best bats allowed and play and it shouldn't matter if they have the talent. If the bat made the difference then the talent just isn't there in my opinion as well as precious posters.

 

[YOCOACH]

vdubya's post wasn't a ramble. It was a clear and concise argument against an opinion expressed by another member that many players can only legitimately compete at the highest levels by using these bats.