USSSA Bat Mark - Effective Jan 1, 2014

[CoreSoftball20]

The 2000 standard was the beginning of ASA's certification program per ASA Bat Certification FAQs.

Q: When did the ASA Bat Certification Program begin?

A: ASA started offering standard contracts to bat manufacturers in 1999, and the rule requiring certification marks on bats became effective January 1, 2000. The ASA Bat Performance Standard has been in place since 2000.


We definitely have to wait to see whether they extend the new 2013 standard to Girls' FP, but it seems likely since they've already done it for Men's and Boys' FP.

If you search a little more, you will find a huge ban that happened in 2004 for ASA that killed a ton of bats. That was only 4 years after they developed "their" standard in 2000 which completely got rid of every bat before that. And if ASA does a change down the road, people will buy bats and keep playing, that's all you can do about it. I know its a pain, but nothing can be done.
My point is that this is the only time USSSA has really done anything like this. So to condemn them for something another assoc has done also, isn't right.
If you want to condemn them because you think their assoc stinks...that's acceptable...haha

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Wait...you think it will happen now?

When did I say ASA would never allow 2013 bats in Girl's FP? I don't see how the data they gather on girls' swing speed will preclude them from doing it. HOWEVER, I still think it will NOT ban all the currently approved bats like USSSA is doing.

Btw, if you search a little more, you will find a huge ban that happened in 2004 for ASA that killed a ton of bats

What was banned? In the interest of expediency, I'll help you out...

The 2000 standard was ASA's first shot at a standard and they quickly realized (1-2 years) they missed their intended limit. 20 bats with the 2000 mark are on ASA's non-approved lists with no indication of when they were put on the list, so the number from 2004 is only a portion of the 20. I wouldn't call that huge when you consider the total number of bats that were sold.

ASA learned from the 2000 standard and developed the 2004 standard. Only 8 bats with the 2004 mark are on the lists and 3 of them are the one-X bats that were recalled last year by LS.

 

[CoreSoftball20]

Thanks for helping SoCal...I wasn't talking only FP. Also, 10 years ago, there wasn't the mass quantity of bats that come out like today. Each manufacturer didn't make like they do now. Lets take SP for example...each company made a usssa and asa bat once a year...that was it. So now if people bought a bat for the 2000 standard, then a couple years later you "only" ban 15 (only guessing a number) bats. Its a huge percentage. Now companies make a balanced, maxload, signature models, exclusives...and they do it twice a year basically.

I really think you assume I am sticking up for usssa. This usssa ban hurt me more than anybody on this board I will bet and I was pissed at the time I heard it. But nobody can do anything about bat changes when they happen. You can only deal with it whichever way you see fit (not play or buy a new bat and play). I see that you hate usssa and that's fine. But some do play it and will have to adjust equipment. I knew a ton of guys saying they are done buying bats and they just wont play usssa. But in the end, those same guys bought bats to keep playing because they had to if they wanted to play.

So, if ASA does the same thing down the road...are you going to buy new bats or are you going to do a self imposed boycott?
My guess is you will buy a new bat because you have to.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Thanks for helping SoCal...I wasn't talking only FP. ?? Neither was I...

Also, 10 years ago, there wasn't the mass quantity of bats that come out like today. Each manufacturer didn't make like they do now. Lets take SP for example...each company made a usssa and asa bat once a year...that was it. So now if people bought a bat for the 2000 standard, then a couple years later you "only" ban 15 (only guessing a number) bats. Its a huge percentage. Now companies make a balanced, maxload, signature models, exclusives...and they do it twice a year basically.
The percentage was obviously larger for the high-end bats, but they were/are a small minority of bats sold when you look at the entire bat market. It is idiotic to ban every existing bat because the vast majority of bats would pass the new standard.

I really think you assume I am sticking up for usssa. This usssa ban hurt me more than anybody on this board I will bet and I was pissed at the time I heard it. But nobody can do anything about bat changes when they happen. You can only deal with it whichever way you see fit (not play or buy a new bat and play). I see that you hate usssa and that's fine. But some do play it and will have to adjust equipment. I knew a ton of guys saying they are done buying bats and they just wont play usssa. But in the end, those same guys bought bats to keep playing because they had to if they wanted to play.
I don't have a beef with USSSA - it was/is very good out here for travel baseball. I'm simply objecting to your inaccurate assertions about ASA.

So, if ASA does the same thing down the road...are you going to buy new bats or are you going to do a self imposed boycott?
My guess is you will buy a new bat because you have to.

My days of buying ASA certified bats are probably over whether that happens or not. In the extremely remote chance that happens with a future bat standard, everyone will evaluate their options and make a decision that makes sense for them - including the various sanctions that currently use ASA's certification (e.g. NFHS, TCS).

 

[CoreSoftball20]

My days of buying ASA certified bats are probably over whether that happens or not. In the extremely remote chance that happens with a future bat standard, everyone will evaluate their options and make a decision that makes sense for them - including the various sanctions that currently use ASA's certification (e.g. NFHS, TCS).

They aren't inaccurate, but to each their own. I know what I had to go thru and everybody else had to in the SP world at that time with ASA. I guess you didn't have to deal with it as much as others.

So how many bats did you have to send back to the factories to get the 2004 stamp put on it after you just bought the bat for the 2000 stamp? How many of your bats came back all screwed up because of it after you spent such good money to get the bat? If you didn't send them in, they were illegal to use.
Just because they didn't write the bats on a banned list doesn't mean it didn't kill or wreck a ton of bats and cost the ASA playing community a boatload of money to buy new bats after that.

We both have diff ideas of what may or may not happen down the line...which is fine and makes for good conversation. It effects me in no way at this point.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

So how many bats did you have to send back to the factories to get the 2004 stamp put on it after you just bought the bat for the 2000 stamp? How many of your bats came back all screwed up because of it after you spent such good money to get the bat? If you didn't send them in, they were illegal to use.
Just because they didn't write the bats on a banned list doesn't mean it didn't kill or wreck a ton of bats and cost the ASA playing community a boatload of money to buy new bats after that.

I think you're mistaken on your recollection of some details. The 2000 stamp was sufficient unless it was on the banned bat list or there was a local rule to the contrary. Edit: Here's a copy of the 2005 rules and 3-1A(1) was unchanged from 2004 - 2005 Umpire Rulebook.

People with a bat on the banned list sent them in to get a recertified mark.

Q: The bat I own has an ASA certification mark on it, but it was banned. What should I do?

A: Under the ASA standard contract with participating bat manufacturers, the manufacturer has 30 days (or more under certain circumstances) to announce any possible method to cure the noncompliance problem. At that time, the manufacturer will provide specific instructions (including on their website) for how a noncomplying bat should be returned to the manufacturerand “recertified” and given an ASA recertification mark. If the noncompliance cannot be cured, the manufacturer’s only other options are to appeal the finding of noncompliance or to conduct a recall of the product. Regardless of the circumstance, the proper party to contact about your bat is the manufacturer of that bat.

Edit: The 2004 change didn't affect us or anyone I knew as my DD was in 8U rec at the time - not many high-end bats in rec. I wasn't aware of any in the league until 2008. I did go through the BBCOR rollout in baseball, which was rushed out in CA a year ahead of the rest of the country.

 

[CoreSoftball20]

Exactly what I said...(I don't remember all the wording because its been a while), but they made you send bats in to get a new recert stamp on it. Which basically screwed the bat all up because it changed the weighting (made an endload bat feel like a heavy balanced and over weighted most of them), which in turn, most of the time, ruined the feel of it. So just because they didn't "ban" the bats, they ruined a ton of them. So you had to buy a bat with the 2000 mark, then basically had to buy another bat a couple years later to take the place of that bat that just got ruined by "fixing". And if you didn't send the bat in...it was illegal to use...but not banned...wow...play on words. Also, this wasn't a week to get done because now every ASA guy (most every SP bat had to be fixed) who had a bat they just bought with the 2000 stamp had to send in to their respective manufacturer for restamping. You also had to have a bat in the meantime to use while the factories were "fixing" your bat. This was a cluster in the complete sense of the word.

So you didn't have to deal with any of it. Sounds like no big deal when just reading off of websites and rulebooks but it was a disaster. And you wanna know who was the most uninformed people on the planet when this all went down...yup...umpires.

Another thing that was terrible. The manufactures weren't advertising the "fix". So if you didn't follow the game close, your bat became illegal because you had no idea you only had a certain amount of time to send back.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Exactly what I said...(I don't remember all the wording because its been a while),

No, read it again - only the bats on the banned list had to be sent in for the recert stamp. Anyone that sent in a bat NOT on the banned list did so needlessly due to ignorance.

but they made you send bats in to get a new recert stamp on it. Which basically screwed the bat all up because it changed the weighting (made an endload bat feel like a heavy balanced and over weighted most of them), which in turn, most of the time, ruined the feel of it. ...

Are you seriously saying a decal/sticker changed the weighting of the bat?

 

[CoreSoftball20]

No, read it again - only the bats on the banned list had to be sent in for the recert stamp. Anyone that sent in a bat NOT on the banned list did so needlessly due to ignorance.


A decal/sticker screwed up the weight of the bat?! LMFAO!

Wow, you are something for a guy that had no idea and didnt have anything to do with it...only that qoutes rules...haha. The bat was sent in to get "fixed" to meet the recert standards for the "noncompliance issues". Which is why the manufacturers had to tell ASA what they were going to do to rectify the issue to make the bats comply. They opened them up and did whatever they had to so to meet the standards. And most came back with a imprinted stamp...not sticker. Depending on the manufacturer. They weren't just sent in, stickered and resent back. What would be the point of that? And most of the SP bats at that time did have to be sent in. You can check your list. Btw, you also might want to do more research about the bats that are no longer on that list because once they went to the 2004 testing, most of those bats became legal whether they were recertified or not (the list back then consisted of about 50-70 bats because of this disaster, and I will search to find the banned list from back then). So your precious current list doesn't give the whole story of ALL the bats that were hammered back then.

Keep posting umpire rules/ASA rules about something you never had to deal, but only read about now.

Do you even know what the noncompliance issues the manufacuters had to fix for all their bats? And answer without quoting somebody else...just based upon what you know?

Let me help you out, the issue with most bats back then was the amount endload that was in them. So they either put a lighter endcap in them, OR they added more weight in the handle to counter the endload to make them swing more balanced. Either of these things CHANGED THE WAY THE BAT WOULD FEEL AND SWING and SCREWED THE WEIGHT UP. You could have sent in an 27oz EST and it would come back like a 28 or 29oz balanced bat or a 25oz balanced bat depending if they removed or added. Most players that didn't send them in are thankful because they are legal now and aren't all screwed up like the rest of us did by recertifying them. So you can "LMFAO" all you want thinking they just "threw" a stamp on a bat without knowing what really happened and not knowing facts. And nobody was IGNORANT because you had to get a return number from the manufacturer for the bat before you sent it in. So you COULDN'T send a bat in that didn't have to be recertified.

But ok, I'm done with this at this point but will leave you with something that will make you happy.

ASA is awesome and never did anything ridiculous!!