Worth454 Pulled from college game.

[UmpSteve]

yep, too hot for college, but fine for 16U ASA. Oh but wait, NCAA bat testing is about competition.

Man, you are like a parrot on this. AI want a bat cracker??

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for college; there is a specific contract clause between NCAA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for NCAA.

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for ASA; there is a specific contract clause between ASA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for ASA.

In neither case has that bat failed the conditions in the contract. And the two separate contracts do NOT rely on the other for satisfying the conditions. And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are.

You claim to be an intelligent person knowledgeable about much, including legal matters. Why is this concept too difficult for you to grasp?

What happens to a bat that fails a field compression test?

"And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are." Apparently PGF gave a shit. Now we spend loads of money with them.

Assuming you really want an answer, you might try reading this:
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/softball/ ... _Final.pdf

The short version is you are confusing a "unit failure", which simply means that bat is pulled from the competition, with a "model failure", which can only be assessed after failing in the WSU labs. Even then, there are legal alternatives before a "strike" is assessed. Unit failures can be caused by neglect, negligence, tampering, rolling, and other issues that are not held as manufacturing issues. Until there are three strikes on model failures due to manufacturing specs, no bat model is considered too hot for the NCAA if the manufacturer submits it.

The ASA agreement also calls for failures to be determined by ASA testing in the WSU labs; and they must also be duplicated several times. They do not and cannot use the NCAA testing results, nor does the NCAA agreement relate to using the ASA test results.

As to your reference to PGF, that is absurd relating to this specific topic. PGF does no bat testing, and has no agreement with manufacturers. PGF relies on NFHS standards, which simply adopt in full the ASA standards, testing specs, and approvals. In that regard, you have painted PGF with the same brush as

yep, too hot for college, but fine for PGF.

[MTR]

What happens to a bat that fails a field compression test?

In what game? In ASA, it is not allowed to be used for that game. If a tournament, the bat can be taken for that tournament.

BTW, you do know that all a bat compression test does is check the integrity of the barrel, right? You know that it is not an exact science? You understand that not passing the test simply means a bat may have been damaged through regular use. And the more popular the product, the more likely it is for a certain model to hit three strikes even though they were all quite legal at the outset.

"And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are." Apparently PGF gave a shit. Now we spend loads of money with them.

What? Are you aware that the past couple of years, ASA had been in complete control of the tournament bats in OKC, 24/7? They performed unannounced testing of bats during the tournament and have experienced a few bats moving out of spec during the tournament? Completely legal, test-proven and now out of spec. It happens

Wouldn't doubt if the NCAA did the same.

[AlwaysImprove]

yep, too hot for college, but fine for 16U ASA. Oh but wait, NCAA bat testing is about competition.

Man, you are like a parrot on this. AI want a bat cracker??

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for college; there is a specific contract clause between NCAA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for NCAA.

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for ASA; there is a specific contract clause between ASA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for ASA.

In neither case has that bat failed the conditions in the contract. And the two separate contracts do NOT rely on the other for satisfying the conditions. And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are.

You claim to be an intelligent person knowledgeable about much, including legal matters. Why is this concept too difficult for you to grasp?

What happens to a bat that fails a field compression test?

"And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are." Apparently PGF gave a shit. Now we spend loads of money with them.

Assuming you really want an answer, you might try reading this:
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/softball/ ... _Final.pdf

The short version is you are confusing a "unit failure", which simply means that bat is pulled from the competition, with a "model failure", which can only be assessed after failing in the WSU labs. Even then, there are legal alternatives before a "strike" is assessed. Unit failures can be caused by neglect, negligence, tampering, rolling, and other issues that are not held as manufacturing issues. Until there are three strikes on model failures due to manufacturing specs, no bat model is considered too hot for the NCAA if the manufacturer submits it.

The ASA agreement also calls for failures to be determined by ASA testing in the WSU labs; and they must also be duplicated several times. They do not and cannot use the NCAA testing results, nor does the NCAA agreement relate to using the ASA test results.

As to your reference to PGF, that is absurd relating to this specific topic. PGF does no bat testing, and has no agreement with manufacturers. PGF relies on NFHS standards, which simply adopt in full the ASA standards, testing specs, and approvals. In that regard, you have painted PGF with the same brush as

yep, too hot for college, but fine for PGF.

I have read it. It is clear. Despite your attempts to complicate things.

Do most field Unit BCT failures result in WSU testing?

[Diesels_dad]

What will Tennessee use? that is all they swing

http://www.utsports.com/sports/w-softbl ... -body.html

fp454 has huge sweet spot n ball explodes.. have not seen legit 454 in tourney yet

[GIMNEPIWO]

DD had a bat pulled from NCAA DIII Regionals last year ... A small piece of tape was coming off the grip in a pre-game inspection ... It was out for the tournament ...

[AlwaysImprove]

yep, too hot for college, but fine for 16U ASA. Oh but wait, NCAA bat testing is about competition.

Man, you are like a parrot on this. AI want a bat cracker??

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for college; there is a specific contract clause between NCAA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for NCAA.

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for ASA; there is a specific contract clause between ASA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for ASA.

In neither case has that bat failed the conditions in the contract. And the two separate contracts do NOT rely on the other for satisfying the conditions. And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are.

You claim to be an intelligent person knowledgeable about much, including legal matters. Why is this concept too difficult for you to grasp?

What happens to a bat that fails a field compression test?

"And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are." Apparently PGF gave a shit. Now we spend loads of money with them.

Assuming you really want an answer, you might try reading this:
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/softball/ ... _Final.pdf

The short version is you are confusing a "unit failure", which simply means that bat is pulled from the competition, with a "model failure", which can only be assessed after failing in the WSU labs. Even then, there are legal alternatives before a "strike" is assessed. Unit failures can be caused by neglect, negligence, tampering, rolling, and other issues that are not held as manufacturing issues. Until there are three strikes on model failures due to manufacturing specs, no bat model is considered too hot for the NCAA if the manufacturer submits it.

The ASA agreement also calls for failures to be determined by ASA testing in the WSU labs; and they must also be duplicated several times. They do not and cannot use the NCAA testing results, nor does the NCAA agreement relate to using the ASA test results.

As to your reference to PGF, that is absurd relating to this specific topic. PGF does no bat testing, and has no agreement with manufacturers. PGF relies on NFHS standards, which simply adopt in full the ASA standards, testing specs, and approvals. In that regard, you have painted PGF with the same brush as

yep, too hot for college, but fine for PGF.

I have read it. It is clear. Despite your attempts to complicate things.

Do most field Unit BCT failures result in WSU testing?

Keep in mind it is free to send the bat to WSU. Anyone can request it. Bat manufacturer, the team involved, other users of the bat, competitor teams, competitor bat manufacturers, anyone.

Oh, alright already. I'll give you the answer. All active in use bats that have a field BCT fail are going to WSU. Initially many of the BCT fails went to WSU, as they wanted to make sure the BCT was working. Now BCT is tuned, so any fails are significant and the bat goes to WSU.

Sooo. NCAA is banning bats that have failed ASA safety test 3 times. That is the NCAA system. You have to conclude, despite the rhetoric, the NCAA is banning these bats as they are too hot for NCAA.

You guys can keep them in play if you want. Don't be surprised when they become a decent basis for an injured players legal position against ASA, or PGF, or anyone else allowing these bats.

[UmpSteve]

yep, too hot for college, but fine for 16U ASA. Oh but wait, NCAA bat testing is about competition.

Man, you are like a parrot on this. AI want a bat cracker??

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for college; there is a specific contract clause between NCAA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for NCAA.

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for ASA; there is a specific contract clause between ASA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for ASA.

In neither case has that bat failed the conditions in the contract. And the two separate contracts do NOT rely on the other for satisfying the conditions. And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are.

You claim to be an intelligent person knowledgeable about much, including legal matters. Why is this concept too difficult for you to grasp?

What happens to a bat that fails a field compression test?

"And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are." Apparently PGF gave a shit. Now we spend loads of money with them.

Assuming you really want an answer, you might try reading this:
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/softball/ ... _Final.pdf

The short version is you are confusing a "unit failure", which simply means that bat is pulled from the competition, with a "model failure", which can only be assessed after failing in the WSU labs. Even then, there are legal alternatives before a "strike" is assessed. Unit failures can be caused by neglect, negligence, tampering, rolling, and other issues that are not held as manufacturing issues. Until there are three strikes on model failures due to manufacturing specs, no bat model is considered too hot for the NCAA if the manufacturer submits it.

The ASA agreement also calls for failures to be determined by ASA testing in the WSU labs; and they must also be duplicated several times. They do not and cannot use the NCAA testing results, nor does the NCAA agreement relate to using the ASA test results.

As to your reference to PGF, that is absurd relating to this specific topic. PGF does no bat testing, and has no agreement with manufacturers. PGF relies on NFHS standards, which simply adopt in full the ASA standards, testing specs, and approvals. In that regard, you have painted PGF with the same brush as

yep, too hot for college, but fine for PGF.

I have read it. It is clear. Despite your attempts to complicate things.

Do most field Unit BCT failures result in WSU testing?

Keep in mind it is free to send the bat to WSU. Anyone can request it. Bat manufacturer, the team involved, other users of the bat, competitor teams, competitor bat manufacturers, anyone.

Oh, alright already. I'll give you the answer. All active in use bats that have a field BCT fail are going to WSU. Initially many of the BCT fails went to WSU, as they wanted to make sure the BCT was working. Now BCT is tuned, so any fails are significant and the bat goes to WSU.

Sooo. NCAA is banning bats that have failed ASA safety test 3 times. That is the NCAA system. You have to conclude, despite the rhetoric, the NCAA is banning these bats as they are too hot for NCAA.

You guys can keep them in play if you want. Don't be surprised when they become a decent basis for an injured players legal position against ASA, or PGF, or anyone else allowing these bats.

Now that your response indicates you have actually read the document, you reach an unsupported conclusion. Can you name ONE BAT MODEL that you know for a fact has been banned for failing the WSU lab test three times? There you go, here's your chance to speak with even one specific example that isn't your speculation. Because it will take EVIDENCE to support your often repeated but nonexistant legal position.

Here is what we DO know, the summary list of changes to the NCAA Approved Bat List:
http://sup.arbitersports.com/Groups/104 ... hanges.pdf

Despite pretty substantial BCT testing at NCAA tournament sites, and ALL bats that failed a BCT test being sent to WSU labs, not even ONE strike has been assessed since the start of the 2013 year to any bat currently on the list. That with two updates since the 1/2013 start documenting over-the-winter test results. HELLO!!! Unit failures documented with BCT failures, no model failures documented at WSU labs.

You cannot support your conclusion without even one model failure, can you?? I am sure some ambulance chaser will try to test your conclusion, but using what evidence besides an unsubstantiated conclusion? How is anyone liable for injury without any documented model failures by either NCAA or ASA model testing in WSU labs to allege disregard of player safety?

Come back with facts, not unsubstantiated conclusions or theories.

[AlwaysImprove]

yep, too hot for college, but fine for 16U ASA. Oh but wait, NCAA bat testing is about competition.

Man, you are like a parrot on this. AI want a bat cracker??

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for college; there is a specific contract clause between NCAA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for NCAA.

That bat is NOT yet proven too hot for ASA; there is a specific contract clause between ASA and the manufacturers that defines the conditions of too hot for ASA.

In neither case has that bat failed the conditions in the contract. And the two separate contracts do NOT rely on the other for satisfying the conditions. And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are.

You claim to be an intelligent person knowledgeable about much, including legal matters. Why is this concept too difficult for you to grasp?

What happens to a bat that fails a field compression test?

"And, frankly, neither one gives a shit if it meets your approval, they are what they are." Apparently PGF gave a shit. Now we spend loads of money with them.

Assuming you really want an answer, you might try reading this:
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/rules/softball/ ... _Final.pdf

The short version is you are confusing a "unit failure", which simply means that bat is pulled from the competition, with a "model failure", which can only be assessed after failing in the WSU labs. Even then, there are legal alternatives before a "strike" is assessed. Unit failures can be caused by neglect, negligence, tampering, rolling, and other issues that are not held as manufacturing issues. Until there are three strikes on model failures due to manufacturing specs, no bat model is considered too hot for the NCAA if the manufacturer submits it.

The ASA agreement also calls for failures to be determined by ASA testing in the WSU labs; and they must also be duplicated several times. They do not and cannot use the NCAA testing results, nor does the NCAA agreement relate to using the ASA test results.

As to your reference to PGF, that is absurd relating to this specific topic. PGF does no bat testing, and has no agreement with manufacturers. PGF relies on NFHS standards, which simply adopt in full the ASA standards, testing specs, and approvals. In that regard, you have painted PGF with the same brush as

yep, too hot for college, but fine for PGF.

I have read it. It is clear. Despite your attempts to complicate things.

Do most field Unit BCT failures result in WSU testing?

Keep in mind it is free to send the bat to WSU. Anyone can request it. Bat manufacturer, the team involved, other users of the bat, competitor teams, competitor bat manufacturers, anyone.

Oh, alright already. I'll give you the answer. All active in use bats that have a field BCT fail are going to WSU. Initially many of the BCT fails went to WSU, as they wanted to make sure the BCT was working. Now BCT is tuned, so any fails are significant and the bat goes to WSU.

Sooo. NCAA is banning bats that have failed ASA safety test 3 times. That is the NCAA system. You have to conclude, despite the rhetoric, the NCAA is banning these bats as they are too hot for NCAA.

You guys can keep them in play if you want. Don't be surprised when they become a decent basis for an injured players legal position against ASA, or PGF, or anyone else allowing these bats.

Now that your response indicates you have actually read the document, you reach an unsupported conclusion. Can you name ONE BAT MODEL that you know for a fact has been banned for failing the WSU lab test three times? There you go, here's your chance to speak with even one specific example that isn't your speculation. Because it will take EVIDENCE to support your often repeated but nonexistant legal position.

Here is what we DO know, the summary list of changes to the NCAA Approved Bat List:
http://sup.arbitersports.com/Groups/104 ... hanges.pdf

Despite pretty substantial BCT testing at NCAA tournament sites, and ALL bats that failed a BCT test being sent to WSU labs, not even ONE strike has been assessed since the start of the 2013 year to any bat currently on the list. That with two updates since the 1/2013 start documenting over-the-winter test results. HELLO!!! Unit failures documented with BCT failures, no model failures documented at WSU labs.

You cannot support your conclusion without even one model failure, can you?? I am sure some ambulance chaser will try to test your conclusion, but using what evidence besides an unsubstantiated conclusion? How is anyone liable for injury without any documented model failures by either NCAA or ASA model testing in WSU labs to allege disregard of player safety?

Come back with facts, not unsubstantiated conclusions or theories.

You are arguing that NCAA bats are being banned without failing WSU testing. That of course is ludicrous. As you know manufactures would not accept this process. Especially since first part of your argument would have to be BCT's are inaccurate and everyone knows it..

I'd be willing to bet one of your samwiches that any banned bat has been through a minimum of 2 failing WSU tests, if not three. Any two bit lawyer could beat you easy on this discussion.

No model failures for 2013 means the process is working. Bat's that were a problem are gone. BCT is tuned. The process is working. Manufacturers are not even submitting problem bats to NCAA for play.

For ASA the problem is the bats that NCAA has already been banned. Those ones selling for $800 on ebay. The Nike bat, the UCLA bat, the Hawaii bat, are all still valid in ASA play. They were a clear advantage at the NCAA level. They were removed because they were too hot.

At this point NCAA has done your job. All you have to do is send the bat manufacturers a nice letter. Based on your bat being banned from college play, it is reasonable to conclude that your bat may not remain in the 98mph safety protocol, therefore we believe we should remove your bat from play. Most of the manufacturers have already quit making that brand of bat. They not going to care if you remove these from play.

Also this will save you down the line when you get one of these idiot manufacturers that learns that if they can get a bat banned by NCAA list they could sell it for $400 to ASA parents.

[CharlieHough]

so is this bat hot???? or a piece of CHIT...Charlie is confused

model FPLGT 34/24

photo.jpg (110.16 KiB) Viewed 3994 times

[AlwaysImprove]

The Reloaded is legit.
The Legit is not.
Send it to bigdawgbatrolling.com. He can help with the break in.