USBC and Storm Products have agreed on a national tournament exclusion rule and ball exchange program for six Storm Products manufactured ball models. The agreement comes after USBC identified the models having a percentage of balls produced below USBC minimum 73D hardness specification. Read more: https://bowl.com/News/NewsDetails.aspx?id=23622337509

USBC's investigation showed a percentage of these ball models measured below the USBC-required hardness level of the approval samples submitted by Storm. Storm collaborated with USBC after being notified of this testing.

The affected models include: Storm Phaze 4, Storm Electrify Solid, Storm Trend 2, 900 Global Altered Reality, 900 Global Wolverine, Roto Grip UFO Alert

Effective March 30, 2022, these balls models are prohibited from use in USBC national tournaments, including but not limited to, the USBC Masters, U.S. Open, USBC Open Championships, USBC Women's Championships, all PWBA Tour events, USBC Junior Gold and Youth Open Championships, USBC Intercollegiate Championships, USBC Team USA Trials, USBC Senior Masters and USBC Senior Queens.

These ball models remain USBC approved. Each USBC competition, whether tournament or league, has the option to adopt USBC's national tournament rule prohibiting use of these balls or to continue to allow their use.

USBC has shared this national tournament rule with Storm and has Storm's support. Storm will offer owners of the affected balls the option to exchange their balls for a new product. Information about the exchange program will be published later this week on StormBowling.com.

You know what?

 How much does a point (or two) of hardness REALLY make at the level most of us bowl? I get that the balls are "out of spec", but having a ball check out at 71.1 isn't that far from the 73D required.

 USBC could've just quietly gone to Storm and said "Hey, were finding quite a few of your balls getting out of spec. You need to fix that, and we'll be watching. In the mean time, we're going to put out a statement that we found a problem, and are working with the manufacturer to ensure that it gets corrected.

 Nothing gets banned, nothing gets kicked out, bowlers continue to use their stuff happily, and Storm just gets to come out with a new lineup "out of season" so to speak.

 If I can put up with some of the CRAP that USBC does, surely I could survive bowling against other amateur bowlers using a ball that's only 71 hardness, right?

This is exactly how it should have been handled. The USBC could have gone to Storm and had them fix this even mid-run and no one would have known. The USBC even admits this is how it should have been handled by its very "solution" to the problem -- allowing the balls to stay in play in league and smaller tournament formats. There was never a reason to ban any of these balls including the Spectre.

People who are playing the "rules are rules" card aren't thinking past the end of their nose. We are a niche sport and if the USBC had continued to test Storm's entire catalog and shut the company down, that would have potentially been a killer for both the USBC and the PBA. Sometimes you have to be able to read the room, and the USBC has done a very poor job of it, as have a lot of bowlers. This isn't 1970 and the ABC (USBC) can't act unilaterally anymore because we simply don't have the league numbers anymore to expect the muscle our will through in any given situation. If you think we do, go to some of your corporate-owned centers right now and try to swing your stick around regarding pinspotting tolerances or lane topography. Then be ready to be put in your place.

I'd also like to mention something that I've seen alluded to a couple of places, Luke Rosdahl's YouTube feed being one of them, regarding how deep into a bowling ball a durometer actually plunges to get a reading. My thoughts on this are that polish may not really make a ball soft; rather, the durometer itself may be "fooled" by the layer of polish already on the ball. This is why we have a 500 sanded standard for certification in the first place, and if this is the source for the disagreement (meaning the USBC spot-checked polished balls) then this whole process is ridiculous on its face and a bare minimum, the testing statute needs to be rewritten entirely.

Quote from: Juggernaut on April 06, 2022, 12:52:12 PM

You know what?

 How much does a point (or two) of hardness REALLY make at the level most of us bowl? I get that the balls are "out of spec", but having a ball check out at 71.1 isn't that far from the 73D required.

 USBC could've just quietly gone to Storm and said "Hey, were finding quite a few of your balls getting out of spec. You need to fix that, and we'll be watching. In the mean time, we're going to put out a statement that we found a problem, and are working with the manufacturer to ensure that it gets corrected.

 Nothing gets banned, nothing gets kicked out, bowlers continue to use their stuff happily, and Storm just gets to come out with a new lineup "out of season" so to speak.

 If I can put up with some of the CRAP that USBC does, surely I could survive bowling against other amateur bowlers using a ball that's only 71 hardness, right?

This is exactly how it should have been handled. The USBC could have gone to Storm and had them fix this even mid-run and no one would have known. The USBC even admits this is how it should have been handled by its very "solution" to the problem -- allowing the balls to stay in play in league and smaller tournament formats. There was never a reason to ban any of these balls including the Spectre.

People who are playing the "rules are rules" card aren't thinking past the end of their nose. We are a niche sport and if the USBC had continued to test Storm's entire catalog and shut the company down, that would have potentially been a killer for both the USBC and the PBA. Sometimes you have to be able to read the room, and the USBC has done a very poor job of it, as have a lot of bowlers. This isn't 1970 and the ABC (USBC) can't act unilaterally anymore because we simply don't have the league numbers anymore to expect the muscle our will through in any given situation. If you think we do, go to some of your corporate-owned centers right now and try to swing your stick around regarding pinspotting tolerances or lane topography. Then be ready to be put in your place.

I'd also like to mention something that I've seen alluded to a couple of places, Luke Rosdahl's YouTube feed being one of them, regarding how deep into a bowling ball a durometer actually plunges to get a reading. My thoughts on this are that polish may not really make a ball soft; rather, the durometer itself may be "fooled" by the layer of polish already on the ball. This is why we have a 500 sanded standard for certification in the first place, and if this is the source for the disagreement (meaning the USBC spot-checked polished balls) then this whole process is ridiculous on its face and a bare minimum, the testing statute needs to be rewritten entirely.

While I agree in premise, the problem remaining is that the USBC is the authority only for the USA, and as these balls are produced for worldwide consumption, the the USBC's handling of it wouldn't affect any other bowling governing body, let alone the WTBA. If the USBC took their findings to the WTBA, and let the WTBA deal with this incident and Storm directly, this would have been handled worldwide, and every bowling governing body would then have the guidelines which to abide.

BL.

While I agree in premise, the problem remaining is that the USBC is the authority only for the USA, and as these balls are produced for worldwide consumption, the the USBC's handling of it wouldn't affect any other bowling governing body, let alone the WTBA. If the USBC took their findings to the WTBA, and let the WTBA deal with this incident and Storm directly, this would have been handled worldwide, and every bowling governing body would then have the guidelines which to abide.

BL.

And since we can't seem to find anyone who can independently corroborate the USBC's findings yet, the logical assumption is the case would have died on the WTBA's doorstep. But since it didn't, there's either corroborating evidence out there that isn't being shared with us (even though there is no reason at this point to hide it, if there ever was reason in the first place) or the USBC just basically told Storm that they were going to act no matter what, and that feels wrong to me.

Interesting, I always thought of "polish" as the condition(peaks and valleys) of the surface being taken down to a very smooth level, not a coating applied to the surface of the ball like when a car is waxed.

Milo-You are correct about the surface.  They are "polished" using fine grits of buffing compound.  A coated ball wouldn't absorb oil.

That would depend on what is being used. There are a lot of polishes that have residue in suspension. Then there are slip agents, specifically designed to eliminate ball read on the lanes. One of the debates on this very site over polishing techniques is raw grit (i.e., 4000) vs. grit-plus-agent (4000 + polish) with advocates of pad-only surface changes claiming one of the benefits is the pores of the ball not becoming clogged by polishing material. Then the question becomes what formulation the manufacturers are using to get the showroom shine on the ball for sales purposes. We've all been told if you don't like the way a ball reacts out of the box, either use it for 5-10 games and/or knock the polish off with a pad, so that you can work through the "shine."

Storm booth is independent I am pretty sure and it's like $64,000 to have it there. For the tournament....

The whole situation sucks, btw, that u definitely have right.

Didn’t realize the cost to be there.  Gotta make up that $64,000 overhead.
Like many things in life, we have no control over but still affects us.

Wish someone would tell us the real background story since it is so bizarre.

Keep in mind that you're not just limited to the booth there. K&K has 4 shops there (Orleans, Gold Coast, Sam's Town, Suncoast), Bowlersmart is all over town (Texas Station, Redrock, Santa Fe Station, Sunset Station), as well as a few independents (JB Pro Shop, owned by John Burroughs and Paul Renteria) would all love to have your business, and could probably get you something faster than the booth could.

No one wants to believe Storm bowling products manufactured and cleared 7 bowling balls that are illegal.  Sean Rash says that the hammer purple urethane is a cheater ball.  Aren’t these cheater balls?

This is why I was saying that Rash doesn't have any room to talk now. It can be said that the Spectre he used was a cheater ball, and subsequently banned. One can not and should not complain about someone else's yard, especially if their own yard isn't clean up and looking better themselves.

BL.

Still remind everyone about Rash. Although I still do not condone the manner he went about expressing his frustrations....

The 2016/2017 Purple Hammers had previously been testing soft and some were confiscated. It was KNOWN by all that some were soft. Yet, the PBA and USBC still permitted the use.

When Sean was using the Spectre....he did not know they were soft at that point. Nobody did (that we know of). Once they were found to be soft, poof, everyone outlawed the Spectres. I don't remember anyone allowing the use of the Spectre after it was found to be soft....

So....its a slightly different scenario

 Wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out Mr. Rash is at the heart of all of this.

 Think about it for a minute.

 Rash was with Big B. Rash leaves Big B for 900G (a Storm subsidiary)

 Rash complains that one of Big B's subsidiaries is putting out an illegal, sub-standard product.

 Product gets looked into, partially banned, and Brunswick is out lots of money trying to make things right to the consumer.

 Brunswick thinks fair is fair, and tit for tat, and repays the favor by getting some Storm stuff looked into and checked, already having done so themselves (so they know it's out of spec too).

 Now, Storm gets some stuff partially banned, and is going to be out a lot more money because it isn't just one ball, it's seven.

 Conspiracy theory or what? (Yeah, that one is Radical). 

Quote from: SVstar34 on April 05, 2022, 06:34:31 PM

Quote from: bradl on April 05, 2022, 05:31:29 PM

Quote from: BeerLeague on April 05, 2022, 10:17:06 AM

Want to know why bowling is such a mess ... look no further than the USBC.

They tested balls yes ..... BUT THEY DID NOT ADHERE TO THEIR OWN POLICY !!!!

All balls must be sanded to 500 grit before testing -- THEY DIDN'T DO THIS !!!!!!

This ruling has ZERO integrity behind it !  -- It's pathetic that the governing body behind bowling at the national level has less integrity than a condo owners association. 

Who hires these idiots?

Wait.. You're expecting the USBC to take balls out from the field, resand them to 500 grit, then retest? Completely ignoring the fact that taking the polish off the ball results in them becoming harder again, as well as conversely the fact that adding polish can soften the surface of the ball?

What happened to at the point of testing, that the balls submitted to the USBC MUST ALREADY BE AT 500 GRIT BEFORE BEING HANDED TO THE USBC FOR TESTING!??

Who didn't do their job at that point? The USBC, or the manufacturer? JR Raymond even mentioned that it is up to the ball company to take them right off the lines at 500 grit and get them over to the USBC for testing. That isn't the USBC's problem, but the manufacturer's problem.

BL.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

I'm confused by the FAQ saying that "spot check balls are purchased from distribution". Assuming they tested the balls at OOB finish, that would be polished for all of the 6(7 if you include the Spectre).

But initial approval testing is done at 500 grit? That seems to be contradictory and initial approval testing should be done on balls at the manufacturer out of box finish.

Nope.. not being sarcastic. It had been mentioned in a few sources more knowledgeable in the process that when the balls are produced for inspection, they are presented to the USBC at 500-grit, and that is what the USBC uses for testing. If it passes then, they're good. If it doesn't, there's a problem. What was being called into scrutiny about integrity is if the USBC tested them at 500 grit, meaning either that when the balls were submitted, they were not at 500 grit, and that it is the USBC's responsibility to return them to 500 grit prior to testing. That isn't the USBC's responsibility to do. The ball manufacturer needs to submit it to the USBC at that condition (500 grit) so that the USBC can not be called into scrutiny for modifying a ball prior to testing, therefore contaminating their own process for certification of a ball.

Further, in a video posted by JR Raymond, it was even surmised that the balls going to the USBC for testing are ones that would come straight off the line and go directly to the USBC for testing.

Now to address if the ball should be at OOB finish, that's where we come into an even bigger problem - which actually might be the crux of the matter - as we know that not only does color affect the hardness of the ball, but polish does as well. From the FAQ:

USBC testing does confirm that removing the surface finish polish by sanding will cause the balls to measure harder.

If a ball is at 500 grit for its testing and passes that test, then is taken to OOB finish, when it hits OOB finish, it could fall under spec, causing it to get subsequently revoked. If at OOB finish for its testing, the ball should pass. if it doesn't, revoke them, and fix the problem. But either way, it is not the USBC's responsibility to take the ball to 500 for the test, nor take it to OOB finish for its test. That responsibility should fall to the ball company.

BL.

The initial balls submitted for approval are provided by the company. Thus the company is responsible for getting the surface to 500.

Where did these other balls come from? Directly from Storm or where they purchased from the open market to spot check?

If just purchased from the open market, it’s on the USBC to sand them. Storm didn’t provide them directly. They may not even know they’re being checked.

Sorry, you can’t say sanding would make them harder, then say it wouldn’t have made a difference. Some of the balls tested 72.8. How much harder does sanding make them? 0.2 maybe?

How about actually sanding them and testing? Or at least say how much of a difference sanding makes. They brought it up themselves.

I do agree..

FIASCO