BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Juggernaut on March 17, 2016, 08:01:32 AM
-
OK, lets put ourselves in the USBC's shoes.
Bowling manufacturers are more than well aquainted with the regulations concerning any bowling equipment they manufacture. They know the upper limits at which they are allowed to go, and are aware that nothing beyond that point is acceptable.
Pushing the upper limits is a manufacturing choice a private company makes.
Then, you get an "anonymous" package from someone. In this package are products from that private company that have previously been approved, but a note contained in the package leads you to believe that someone has found out that not all those previously approved products are being made within those accepted limits. This leads to you testing the products to either confirm the "allegation", or deny it.
After quite thorough testing, you find the "allegation" to have merit, and products have been found that are above the acceptable limits, at too high a percentage to simply ignore.
NOW WHAT?
Comparisons have been made to other situations, but many of those really don't work here at all. Take the speed limit one for instance.
If the speed limit is 60mph, and you are doing 61mph, you probably aren't getting ticketed, simply because there are lots of others going far further past the limit than you are.
BUT, what if EVERYONE ELSE is going 60mph or less? Then, you stand out as the lone person breaking the rules, and are far more likely to be picked out and ticketed, right?
Motiv broke the rules. I believe it was inadvertently, but that is also irrelevant as it doesn't matter why, or how, the rules were broken, only that they were.
USBC is a rule making, rule enforcing, governing body, who's job it is to ensure those rules are being followed, and enforce them when they are not.
So really, HONESTLY, what were their options? And, what would you have done if YOU were the sole entity in charge of making sure EVERYBODY follows ALL the rules to the letter?
-
Grandfather in the balls in circulation. Fine Motiv much worse than they did, maybe $500,000 and disallow the production of any more Jackal/Carnage's. Make Motiv "buy back" the supply that Distributors have. So the balls bowlers or pro shops currently have are all that's left. The fine is steep enough to discourage companies from getting close on these core numbers or even go over the line, like we have here. Motiv is in the wrong and they should pay a penalty and be placed on probation, but the way things have been handled by USBC could have been different, IMO.
-
I would have disallowed the balls at the end of the 2015-16 season. Now you have tournaments that go on for an extended period of time where the two balls were used prior to the date that it was declared illegal for use.
-
This is a tough question. Tough because bowlers that only have a few pieces of equipment and the Jackal combo makes up 1/2/3 of that arsenal diminished your choices quickly. When would Motiv get the replacements to affected folks would be a question...is this expected within a few weeks, months, etc (I know there is more to come from Motiv on this, just posing the Q for now)
If Motiv could get the stuff out quickly, ban the ball now just like any other ball found to not conform to USBC specs.
With this being the first time this has ever happened, I could see precedent being set for not removing the product immediately like Bundy suggested. Problem is, the other companies can cry foul that a competitor was allowed to have a ball in the line up that was out of spec and illegal.
Tough call either way, but I think I would tend to agree with removing the product now.
-
I would have required from Motiv a full list, by serial number, of all Jackal and Carnage balls manufactured on or before March 15th for both domestic and international markets. Those balls would be grandfathered. Any honor scores submitted to USBC moving forward shot with any of those models would be cross referenced against the serial number list to verify the ball used was on the grandfathered list.
Motiv would have been required to cease production of ALL Jackal models immediately (domestic and international) and they would have been fined the obligatory fine. They also would have been required to retire the "Jackal" name moving forward to avoid any future confusion.
Any new ball created by Motiv using that core design would require Motiv to ship to the USBC the initial test balls and the first 100 mass production units to ensure total compliance to specs. No shipping to distributors would occur until all balls were spun. All testing would be at the expense of Motiv since it would require so many sample units be tested. If even one of the 100+ samples failed, the ball would not be approved. This process would continue for that core design until Motiv achieves 100% compliance (or elects to retire that core design altogether.) When the balls are approved and go on sale to the public, Motiv would be required over the next year to randomly pick four units off the line each month and send to the USBC for testing to prove the balls are remaining within spec.
-
19525:
Good response. One question though: If you resurface a ball enough, the Serial # could be removed, or lane damage could require a patch or plug where the Serial # was. What do you do then because the Serial # is gone and there is no way to verify?
Is the ball out of play if the Serial # is gone?
-
Clearly, we are all entitled to our own opinions on this, but, personally, I think that USBC acted exactly as it should've. While it isn't the bowlers' fault that they were in possession of non-conforming equipment, the fact remains that the equipment is non-conforming. Now that that has been established, I think that taking the balls out of play immediately is appropriate.
Obviously, bowlers are going to be mad, and I don't blame them, but I think that anger needs to be directed at Motiv for its errors, not at USBC for enforcing rules that have been on the books for a long time now. It should be on Motiv to scramble and bend over backwards to fix the situation so that affected bowlers can get things squared away as quickly as possible.
As for the idea of grandfathering, I understand where that idea would come from, but imagine the can of worms that would open. Let's say they grandfather those balls in, and then someone uses one or both of them to beat your team for a league title, win a local tournament, or clean up in brackets and post an Eagle-worthy score at the Open Championships. Can you imagine how many people would cry foul that a ball known to be illegal was used to do those things?
One of USBC's core functions is to enforce the rules, not to make sure that bowlers aren't inconvenienced. In this case, from where I sit, Motiv is the party that caused the inconvenience, not USBC. Again, while I feel badly for the bowlers impacted by this (and I'd be miffed too if I were one of them), I think USBC did exactly what it needed to do here.
-
19525:
Good response. One question though: If you resurface a ball enough, the Serial # could be removed, or lane damage could require a patch or plug where the Serial # was. What do you do then because the Serial # is gone and there is no way to verify?
Is the ball out of play if the Serial # is gone?
Any ball without a serial number is not allowed in USBC competition. If the owner has the original serial number they can have it engraved back on to the ball and be OK. Otherwise, without the serial number, the ball can't be used anyway and would be out of play.
-
I think there were many alternatives, but the formula should start with one question. How can we address this in a manner that minimizes the impact to members? I don't believe that criteria was considered when ultimately determining the course of action, otherwise there would have some grace period or grandfather clause that would have given the manufacturer time to remediate the issue for current owners of these products. With that said, each organization, professional, amateur or international can further define what makes sense from a ban perspective within the confines of the broader USBC ruling similar to what Sweden chose to impose.
Looking at this more broadly, I see little impact from ball motion perspective for these types of rules governing static weights, differential, etc. Maintaining some level of scoring integrity went out the window a long time ago and restricting differential isn't going to have a material impact in the grand scheme of things.
-
Is it possible that Motiv was already under probation with the USBC and failed to comply? The penalties seem a bit harsh for a first offense, so that makes me think there might be more to this than we have been told.
-
You could be correct Milo.
-
The USBC is fully transparent...I'm sure we would know if they were on probation.
-
If USBC had been the ones in error, then I would agree that the inconvenience to bowlers should have been a top priority; however, since USBC wasn't the cause of the problem, I don't think that that should've been its first priority. Its first priority needed to be getting the illegal gear off of the playing field, which is what they did. In my world, Motiv is the one that needs to be bending over backwards to give affected bowlers a quick, appropriate resolution to this.
-
If USBC had been the ones in error, then I would agree that the inconvenience to bowlers should have been a top priority; however, since USBC wasn't the cause of the problem, I don't think that that should've been its first priority. Its first priority needed to be getting the illegal gear off of the playing field, which is what they did. In my world, Motiv is the one that needs to be bending over backwards to give affected bowlers a quick, appropriate resolution to this.
If getting the illegal equipment off the playing field was the main reason, why did USBC allow Ebonite to make and sell another run of the original GameBreaker just a couple of years ago?
There has to be more to this, otherwise, Motiv should look at their legal options.
-
I don't recall the situation with the original Gamebreaker, Milo. Can you fill me in on that one?
-
I don't recall the situation with the original Gamebreaker, Milo. Can you fill me in on that one?
The low RG was outside the USBC legal limits. See attached picture from the Ebonite retired balls section.
http://www.ebonite.com/products/balls/retired-balls/gamebreaker
-
I was under the impression the Ebonite altered the core in those runs to make it legal but you may be more informed than me.
-
I was under the impression the Ebonite altered the core in those runs to make it legal but you may be more informed than me.
I doubt that, I'm not even more informed than any non-bowler. :o
Just going by what Ebonite has listed on their website. Perhaps Ebonite did raise the low RG of that last run, but then it would be a different ball, wouldn't it?
They do have a Gamebreaker 2 out now, so that would have different specs I guess.
-
If USBC had been the ones in error, then I would agree that the inconvenience to bowlers should have been a top priority; however, since USBC wasn't the cause of the problem, I don't think that that should've been its first priority. Its first priority needed to be getting the illegal gear off of the playing field, which is what they did. In my world, Motiv is the one that needs to be bending over backwards to give affected bowlers a quick, appropriate resolution to this.
Motiv could not remediate the situation for their customers in a day, it will likely take months, so it doesn't really matter how far they bend over backwards. Recalls in other industries are not generally handled this way unless there are potential health hazards associated with a product...I don't think anyone is going to die and as best I can tell there haven't been a rash of 900 series with these balls giving them some massive competitive advantage.
Sweden decided to put their members first by defining a grace period, which for me seems to be a bit more logical. The USBC needs to remember where they make their money...especially when they're asking for more from a constantly shrinking membership base. That's just common sense.
-
WOW! USBC finally stands its ground. But let's look at the situation.
If a person has possession of this ball, what advantage does he/she have?
I have been reminded many times on this site that those numbers are meaningless.
-
Not taking a position one way or another, but another thing people should know. Maximum rg differential is a potential that is only reached when a ball is drilled with the pin at full leverage position ( 3 3/8 from PAP). Lots of people do lay out balls with the pin at max leverage, but lots don't. I understand that you have to draw a line, but I also know that it is doubtful anyone ever gained an advantage from one of the balls that exceeded the limit.
Also, rg diff is not a static weight issue that can be detected by a dodo scale.
-
Milo-Thanks for the link/info, but I'm still a bit unclear on a couple of things. Are you saying that the Gamebreaker was illegal the whole time, or are you referring to the point in time when these new limits were put into place? I think I was there when those specs were put on the books, and the policy stated that balls produced prior to the deadline would be grandfathered, but all runs after that must conform to the new numbers. Are you trying to say that you are under the impression that USBC allowed Ebonite to keep making Gamebreakers outside of the specs AFTER the rule was put into place? If that's the case, that's news to me.
Now, back to the Jackal and Carnage, I agree with many of you that 99.9% of bowlers would be incapable of seeing (or exploiting) any discernible advantage from using one of these non-conforming balls. With that being said, why have rules/limits if you're not going to enforce them? Plus, as I stated earlier, even though most of us know that there is unlikely to be any true advantage gained by using one of these balls, can you imagine the whining and crying that we'd hear any time somebody used them to shoot an honor score or win a league or tournament?
I'm a bowler, and I have many bowling friends, but bowlers are HUGE hypocrites. Lane conditions are only too easy when bowers we view as being lesser than us score well; we never complain when WE put up the big numbers. Likewise, bowlers who have these balls in their bags right now will likely cry foul that they are being punished due to a manufacturer's mistake, and, to a point, I agree; however, many of those same bowlers would go ape if someone used one of those balls to beat them, and who could blame them? USBC can't knowingly allow a known non-conforming ball to be used in competition. That would make zero sense.
My comments regarding Motiv bending over backwards (as they may be attempting to do) were not meant to imply that this whole thing could be resolved quickly and easily. My point was simply to illustrate that THEY need to be the ones working to help bowlers through this; that's not USBC's job. If it was shown that these balls were always illegal and USBC screwed up during the testing process or something, then I would say that was USBC's fault for messing up the certification process. That doesn't sound like the case here. It sounds like the test balls passed, and future runs did not. How and why that is the case is a matter of conjecture, but, again, in the end, it's up to the manufacturers to make sure their equipment meets the posted guidelines. If they don't do that, it's not on USBC to appease ticked off bowlers; it's up to the company that made the mistake.
Morpheus, you keep mentioning this Sweden situation. I'm not familiar with that, so feel free to shed some light on what happened there if you feel like that's truly a good example to support your point of view.
-
Translated from the website:
(http://www.swebowl.se/Nyheter/NyheterSwebowl/Jackalerna/)
Swedish Bowling Federation went on Wednesday out with the granting dispensation to play with, the USBC, prohibited the balls at the Swedish tournament play until June 30, 2016
- This is not a good situation in any way, but for bowlarna this is a good solution . It solves the most pressing problem for the average bowler in a very good way, says Mats Hard.
-
Okay, but that's an individual tournament scenario, not a move for an entire organization/membership. Now, I assume you're saying that USBC could've (and maybe should've) done that for the Open Championships, but I'm not sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison. Is that Swedish Tournament a USBC-certified event? If not, they can make whatever rules they please. Truthfully, any tournament director in the United States can choose to allow those balls in they are not USBC-certified events.
-
I was under the impression the Ebonite altered the core in those runs to make it legal but you may be more informed than me.
I doubt that, I'm not even more informed than any non-bowler. :o
Just going by what Ebonite has listed on their website. Perhaps Ebonite did raise the low RG of that last run, but then it would be a different ball, wouldn't it?
They do have a Gamebreaker 2 out now, so that would have different specs I guess.
The Gamebreaker remake from a few years ago was a limited run remake of the original ball. It was grandfathered in and allowed to be made for a certain amount of time. Once production stopped, Ebonite could not make anymore. Which is why we have the GB2 now. It posses a different core than the original and the original remake.
-
Practically speaking, no bowler is going to see a material benefit from the Diff being .0004 or even .0014 greater than it should be. The USBC, before jumping to an all out ban, could have taken that under consideration and pardoned the existing balls in the interest of several thousand of their members.
Granted, rules are rules and they need to be enforced. I get that. But to penalize several thousand members at the same time for a latent defect seems a bit extreme. Not to mention diminishing the prestige of the 2 pro titles won using the equipment.
-
Practically speaking, no bowler is going to see a material benefit from the Diff being .0004 or even .0014 greater than it should be. The USBC, before jumping to an all out ban, could have taken that under consideration and pardoned the existing balls in the interest of several thousand of their members.
Granted, rules are rules and they need to be enforced. I get that. But to penalize several thousand members at the same time for a latent defect seems a bit extreme. Not to mention diminishing the prestige of the 2 pro titles won using the equipment.
I agree with the notion that most bowlers won't see the benefit, but I disagree that there should have been a pardon. USBC is there to enforce the rules. If they didn't do that here, there would be just as many people on here complaining that they failed to uphold that responsibility. It's a lose-lose on their end.
-
19525:
Good response. One question though: If you resurface a ball enough, the Serial # could be removed, or lane damage could require a patch or plug where the Serial # was. What do you do then because the Serial # is gone and there is no way to verify?
Is the ball out of play if the Serial # is gone?
Any ball without a serial number is not allowed in USBC competition. If the owner has the original serial number they can have it engraved back on to the ball and be OK. Otherwise, without the serial number, the ball can't be used anyway and would be out of play.
Unless they have changed again, the requirement is to have A number on the ball...it did not have to be the original serial number. I actually had a letter from them many moons ago precisely because the original serial number on a old blue Faball Nail was partially gone and you could not see the entire number. Ball was still legal for both ABC/WIBC (later USBC) as well as PWBA competition. It was weighed in at a SW PBA regional but never saw the light of day that weekend...so obviously legal there as well.
-
I agree with the notion that most bowlers won't see the benefit, but I disagree that there should have been a pardon. USBC is there to enforce the rules. If they didn't do that here, there would be just as many people on here complaining that they failed to uphold that responsibility. It's a lose-lose on their end.
It is definitely a Catch-22 situation.
It is similar to speed limits. Police give drivers everyday a pass for being up to 7 mph over the speed limit (which in some cases, depending on the posted limit, can be a 20% variance.) They understand there can be speedometer calibration issues, equipment variances, etc. Why pull over the driver going 42 in a 35 zone, when 2 minutes later you can nab the public nuisance blatantly going 55 in a 35?
The USBC is essentially the police of the ball standards. If Motiv has designed a core with an 0.06 undrilled Diff in compliance with ball standards, and some balls are coming off the line with variances that amount to a scant 0.67% - 2.3% difference range, there should be some understanding that manufacturing processes or manufacturing material density variances could easily account for this. The percentage difference, in speed terms, would be the equivalent of driving 56mph in a 55mph zone. Not even worth the time. If the Diff was more than 20% over the spec, then that would be a material problem.
Fine Motiv and put them on probation, but also keep the thousands of affected USBC members in mind and make a decision that is in their best interest.
Any bowler that would blame an opponent's bowling ball for a loss is overstating their own talent and underestimating the talent of their opponent. The ball doesn't throw itself.
-
19525:
Good response. One question though: If you resurface a ball enough, the Serial # could be removed, or lane damage could require a patch or plug where the Serial # was. What do you do then because the Serial # is gone and there is no way to verify?
Is the ball out of play if the Serial # is gone?
Any ball without a serial number is not allowed in USBC competition. If the owner has the original serial number they can have it engraved back on to the ball and be OK. Otherwise, without the serial number, the ball can't be used anyway and would be out of play.
Unless they have changed again, the requirement is to have A number on the ball...it did not have to be the original serial number. I actually had a letter from them many moons ago precisely because the original serial number on a old blue Faball Nail was partially gone and you could not see the entire number. Ball was still legal for both ABC/WIBC (later USBC) as well as PWBA competition. It was weighed in at a SW PBA regional but never saw the light of day that weekend...so obviously legal there as well.
That is correct. "A" serial number needs to be on the ball. If the original is gone you can engrave any identifiable number on the ball. In the context of using the original serial number to track grandfathered balls, however, the only way to do that would be to maintain the original serial number.
-
Seems like the USBC chose a nuclear response to a minor skirmish. I think most would agree there were other options that would have resulted in a more positive experience for membership.
-
Any bowler that would blame an opponent's bowling ball for a loss is overstating their own talent and underestimating the talent of their opponent. The ball doesn't throw itself.
[/quote]
I agree with you, but can you keep a straight face while telling me that it doesn't happen all of the time? lol
As for your comment about variance, I think that USBC's position would be that manufacturers need to account for that on their end during design and for quality control. If you're not sure you can get close to the line without going over, don't go so close to the line in the first place.
-
Agree. Motive deserves penalties for non compliance even if it was inadvertent, but bowlers should not be punished for having a ball that is giving them no competitive advantage based on the amount the rg diff is above tolerances. Balls already sold should be grandfathered in until Motiv can replace them with their customers.
Just as a side note, the last thing I ever want on a tournament patterns is a max diff layout. I think the vast majority of competitive bowlers would agree with me.
-
Seems like the USBC chose a nuclear response to a minor skirmish. I think most would agree there were other options that would have resulted in a more positive experience for membership.
Correction: MOST RATIONAL PEOPLE would agree there were other options...
-
Milo-Thanks for the link/info, but I'm still a bit unclear on a couple of things. Are you saying that the Gamebreaker was illegal the whole time, or are you referring to the point in time when these new limits were put into place? I think I was there when those specs were put on the books, and the policy stated that balls produced prior to the deadline would be grandfathered, but all runs after that must conform to the new numbers. Are you trying to say that you are under the impression that USBC allowed Ebonite to keep making Gamebreakers outside of the specs AFTER the rule was put into place? If that's the case, that's news to me.
Yea, the V2 core was grandfathered in when the new USBC specs came out. The original Gamebreaker was already in production at the time. Then Ebonite discontinued the Gamebreaker. Around 2011 or so, as I understand the situation, Ebonite was allowed one more production run of the original Gamebreaker with the V2 core.
Perhaps I didn't have the correct information, but that was my understanding of it.
-
I was under the impression the Ebonite altered the core in those runs to make it legal but you may be more informed than me.
I doubt that, I'm not even more informed than any non-bowler. :o
Just going by what Ebonite has listed on their website. Perhaps Ebonite did raise the low RG of that last run, but then it would be a different ball, wouldn't it?
They do have a Gamebreaker 2 out now, so that would have different specs I guess.
The Gamebreaker remake from a few years ago was a limited run remake of the original ball. It was grandfathered in and allowed to be made for a certain amount of time. Once production stopped, Ebonite could not make anymore. Which is why we have the GB2 now. It posses a different core than the original and the original remake.
But it was a limited run remake of a ball using a core that no longer was legal by USBC specifications. The core was legal when it was originally poured, but not when it was used in the remake.
-
I was under the impression the Ebonite altered the core in those runs to make it legal but you may be more informed than me.
I doubt that, I'm not even more informed than any non-bowler. :o
Just going by what Ebonite has listed on their website. Perhaps Ebonite did raise the low RG of that last run, but then it would be a different ball, wouldn't it?
They do have a Gamebreaker 2 out now, so that would have different specs I guess.
The Gamebreaker remake from a few years ago was a limited run remake of the original ball. It was grandfathered in and allowed to be made for a certain amount of time. Once production stopped, Ebonite could not make anymore. Which is why we have the GB2 now. It posses a different core than the original and the original remake.
But it was a limited run remake of a ball using a core that no longer was legal by USBC specifications. The core was legal when it was originally poured, but not when it was used in the remake.
100% agree. It was illegal based upon 2011 specs.
-
Seems like the USBC chose a nuclear response to a minor skirmish. I think most would agree there were other options that would have resulted in a more positive experience for membership.
Correction: MOST RATIONAL PEOPLE would agree there were other options...
For those unfamiliar with his posts, rational = like-minded people who believe that the USBC is the Antichrist and that anyone who doesn't puke coathangers when discussing the dues increase is a fool.
Rational? Do you want to play the role of the pot or the kettle, Morpheus? Good lord.
-
ra·tion·al
adjective
Based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Are able to consider an idea that didn't come from the USBC?
-
When the specs changed and made the Gamebreaker and other balls fall outside the spec, all existing balls were grand fathered in. This was for actually released balls, meaning the core, cover, color and finish. All manufacturers were given a window of a year I think to continue to manufacture the balls then they had to stop. Any Gamebreakers with the original core were produced and sold in this window. After that date, there have been no balls outside the current specs sold.
Also, it is lesser known, but 2 or 3 years ago the USBC changed how they defined the upper limit of 0.060 differential. Previous to the change, if a ball averaged 0.060 or less, then it was legal. As many have pointed out, a ball that is close to the limit on average would with manufacturing variation have balls in the field over the limit. To address this, the USBC changed the definition and in effect lowered the upper limit by doing so.
Now, if a new design is over a number (I believe it is around 0.053 or so), additional samples have to be sent in. If the average of these sample is over a different threshold, somewhere around 0.056 or so, then the manufacturer has to demonstrate that their process will produce balls that will not exceed 0.060 at some percentage. This is done by extra sampling by the manufacturer. Only then will the ball be approved.
The cores in question must have been approved under these more stringent standards, so the fact that in the field they are averaging over 0.061 is significant.
-
Good try, Morph, but, yes, unlike many, I listen to arguments from all sides and then make my own decision based upon the evidence provided in that case. I don't decide that I love (or in your case hate) someone or something and then approach every future situation with bias.
To be transparent, I'm a former USBC employee who was let go during the company's first budget-forced layoffs. That happened a little over a year and a half after the company said that I was the No. 1 PR prospect that they wanted to bring in, which convinced me to have my wife leave a respected teaching job and transplant our family 900 miles from home. I am and always will be bitter against USBC for that. So I ask you, who should have a bigger axe to grind with that organization, me, the one who lost his job and had to figure out what do with family 900 miles from home, or you, the guy who feels that his $18 annual contribution isn't being used to the fullest?
As I've said in our previous conversations, you clearly hate USBC, and you have that right, but that doesn't make you right when you bash them for everything they do. They've done some good things, and they've done some bad things. I give them credit when I feel it's due, and I criticize them when I feel it is warranted. You criticize them for not doing their jobs, and then when they perform one of its core functions, you criticize their approach to doing it. Just admit it, buddy, to you, the organization can and never will do anything right. If that's how you feel, own up to it, but just because you're biased beyond reason doesn't mean that all of us are!
-
I'd raise the limit to 1.00 xD
That'd make it very interesting to see what kind of balls we'd get in the future from all the companies.
Just imagine the insane hook we'd get :P
Though I'd raise it before this happened. To me with such a low rev and high speed, 0.60 is clearly not enough :P
I'm joking, I would've done the same.
Edit: I'd do something similar, but let the 2015-16 season end first.
-
Good try, Morph, but, yes, unlike many, I listen to arguments from all sides and then make my own decision based upon the evidence provided in that case. I don't decide that I love (or in your case hate) someone or something and then approach every future situation with bias.
To be transparent, I'm a former USBC employee who was let go during the company's first budget-forced layoffs. That happened a little over a year and a half after the company said that I was the No. 1 PR prospect that they wanted to bring in, which convinced me to have my wife leave a respected teaching job and transplant our family 900 miles from home. I am and always will be bitter against USBC for that. So I ask you, who should have a bigger axe to grind with that organization, me, the one who lost his job and had to figure out what do with family 900 miles from home, or you, the guy who feels that his $18 annual contribution isn't being used to the fullest?
As I've said in our previous conversations, you clearly hate USBC, and you have that right, but that doesn't make you right when you bash them for everything they do. They've done some good things, and they've done some bad things. I give them credit when I feel it's due, and I criticize them when I feel it is warranted. Just because you're biased beyond reason doesn't mean that all of us are!
So what you're saying is there was no other option in this case that might have resulted in a better outcome for our members while still holding Motiv accountable?
-
Although it is a different situation with different circumstances, couldn't they have made an exception in this case, and treated it like they did with The Visionary immortals. They received approval before the rule change, but didn't get released until after that point. Visionary Had a point in time where they were told they couldn't produce any more of them.
Brad
-
To start, i personally have no Motive (products) hahaha...so no bias in that sense.
So, many people complain that we pay our sanction dues to usbc and don't get much in return. Now when the usbc makes a ruling that some may not agree with, we complain again. You can't have it both ways. I believe that the usbc in this case is trying to maintain the integrity of the game and was in a tough spot. It is not the usbc's fault, it is motiv's. Motiv is responsible for their manufacturing process and should be held accountable. Just like any other product, if the product is not compliant with the rules, the manufacturer will recall the product. I don't think many of us blame the FDA, USDA, NHTSA, etc for trying to protect the consumer.
That said, I do feel that the people that own the ball are also put in a tough spot by Motiv's error. A possible solution would be to let those people exchange their defective ball (or receive credit) toward the purchase of another Motiv ball.
All in all, we need a ruling body to help maintain and uphold the integrity of the game/sport. If we don't then why have a sanctioning body at all.
-
In the not to distant past when 16 pound equipment was the norm, balls would sometimes come in over weight at nationals. Even urethane will absorb oil when thrown over a long period of time. Your only choices were to not use the equipment or have the staff drill a weight hole to get the weight under 16 pounds. I believe they typically put a large hole right in the middle of your grip to keep it simple. They didn't care what it did to your reaction - it wasn't illegal, they made it legal. I agree with Gene here. The USBC's job is to make and enforce rules. It's unfortunate that the consumers are the ones being hurt until Motiv provides replacements, but they would lose what's left of their credibility if they let people continue to use non conforming equipment.
-
I agree that USBC did what was right. Motiv was in the wrong.
Motive should replace all the balls with another ball of the bowlers choice from their lineup.
Plus if sold thru a proshop they should give some compensation to them for having to drill 2 balls and deal with the grief they will get.
-
Good try, Morph, but, yes, unlike many, I listen to arguments from all sides and then make my own decision based upon the evidence provided in that case. I don't decide that I love (or in your case hate) someone or something and then approach every future situation with bias.
To be transparent, I'm a former USBC employee who was let go during the company's first budget-forced layoffs. That happened a little over a year and a half after the company said that I was the No. 1 PR prospect that they wanted to bring in, which convinced me to have my wife leave a respected teaching job and transplant our family 900 miles from home. I am and always will be bitter against USBC for that. So I ask you, who should have a bigger axe to grind with that organization, me, the one who lost his job and had to figure out what do with family 900 miles from home, or you, the guy who feels that his $18 annual contribution isn't being used to the fullest?
As I've said in our previous conversations, you clearly hate USBC, and you have that right, but that doesn't make you right when you bash them for everything they do. They've done some good things, and they've done some bad things. I give them credit when I feel it's due, and I criticize them when I feel it is warranted. Just because you're biased beyond reason doesn't mean that all of us are!
So what you're saying is there was no other option in this case that might have resulted in a better outcome for our members while still holding Motiv accountable?
Well, actually, I never said that. What I said was that I don't think that it was USBC's responsibility to make sure members weren't inconvenienced since USBC wasn't the one that caused said inconvenience. Basically, you're saying that they need to enforce the rules, but they need to do it in a way that doesn't put any bowlers out.
Could they have handled it differently? Of course they could, but do I think that they should've grandfathered those balls, no, I don't. To me, if you know a piece of equipment is illegal, you have to pull it because as much as it sucks for the bowlers with those balls, it's the right thing to do.
-
No need to bring any solutions up only 1 solution needed to be done which is banning the ball...
-
Another interesting feat is that there are 5 more bowling balls with that core that are still approved/legal. It seems like only the original Jackal and Jackal Carnage was targetted and hit.
Predator Core Equipped:
Raptor P7
Raptor Attack
Raptor Talon
Sapphire Jackal (Japan)
Jackal Pro (Korea)
-
Another interesting feat is that there are 5 more bowling balls with that core that are still approved/legal. It seems like only the original Jackal and Jackal Carnage was targetted and hit.
Predator Core Equipped:
Raptor P7
Raptor Attack
Raptor Talon
Sapphire Jackal (Japan)
Jackal Pro (Korea)
Not only this but a plethora of bowling balls with higher diff that are still legal. Yes, grandfathered in but still legal and nobody has a competitive advantage using them. If it was me, I would have hit Motiv with a heavy fine and forced them to stop production of them and that is it. Force them to financially be responsible for the mishap with the fine but at the same time not hurting the consumer by banning a ball that was bought with the USBC stamp of approval. Just poor judgement on the USBC end not realizing how this would affect the same people they are supposedly in place to look out for....the bowlers.
-
Another interesting feat is that there are 5 more bowling balls with that core that are still approved/legal. It seems like only the original Jackal and Jackal Carnage was targetted and hit.
Predator Core Equipped:
Raptor P7
Raptor Attack
Raptor Talon
Sapphire Jackal (Japan)
Jackal Pro (Korea)
Not only this but a plethora of bowling balls with higher diff that are still legal. Yes, grandfathered in but still legal and nobody has a competitive advantage using them. If it was me, I would have hit Motiv with a heavy fine and forced them to stop production of them and that is it. Force them to financially be responsible for the mishap with the fine but at the same time not hurting the consumer by banning a ball that was bought with the USBC stamp of approval. Just poor judgement on the USBC end not realizing how this would affect the same people they are supposedly in place to look out for....the bowlers.
Okay, so USBC needs to enforce the rules...but not if it means inconveniencing bowlers. Is that how it's supposed to work? Does the NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB discount tickets or let fans in for free if they attend a game where a superstar player is sitting out due to a suspension? I mean, it's not the fans' fault that the player did something to warrant having to sit out.
Why do we make everything more complicated than it needs to be? Rules are rules. I don't know the specifics of the grandfathering rule, so I can't speak intelligently on that aspect. Other than that, all manufacturers know the specs, and they've known them for quite some time. Motiv either intentionally tried to do something it knew it shouldn't, or it had bad quality control. Either way, their balls were illegal, and they needed to be pulled.
In all honestly, I'd have been more disappointed in USBC if it HAD allowed those balls to stay in play because I would see that as a shameless attempt to win favor with bowlers instead of sticking to their guns and doing what they're supposed to do, uphold the rules! In my world, USBC took the more difficult option, the one that was give people a reason (not that many around here need one) to make USBC look like the bad guy instead of placing blame where it belongs, on Motiv!
-
However "Gene" please enlighten me and tell me where I said Motiv was not at fault? They are 100% at fault either with a quality control oversight or just being TOO CLOSE to the limit. I think they deserve to get a heavy fine but it is also hurting THE CONSUMERS. If USBC fined Motiv heavily (something equal to what this will cost them anyway) they get their point across, hurt Motiv, and NOT HURT THE CONSUMER! Balls that have higher diffs than these Jackals are legal. Yes I understand rules were broken I get that but what you are not understanding is that if USBC did what I stated there is only one person who is not hurt in this whole thing THE CONSUMER. Motiv hurt financially, Motiv stops production on Jackals, USBC no longer looks like a bad guy, and John Doe with his Jackal as his only ball can still go throw it WITHOUT A COMPETETIVE ADVANTAGE. This is not cork in a bat, this is not steroids, the diff of a ball goes up considerably when drilled, there is no competitive advantage to these balls so there is one group of people that is being hurt by this that shouldn't THE CONSUMER.
Say it with me Gene "The Consumer"!
-
Another interesting feat is that there are 5 more bowling balls with that core that are still approved/legal. It seems like only the original Jackal and Jackal Carnage was targetted and hit.
Predator Core Equipped:
Raptor P7
Raptor Attack
Raptor Talon
Sapphire Jackal (Japan)
Jackal Pro (Korea)
Not only this but a plethora of bowling balls with higher diff that are still legal. Yes, grandfathered in but still legal and nobody has a competitive advantage using them. If it was me, I would have hit Motiv with a heavy fine and forced them to stop production of them and that is it. Force them to financially be responsible for the mishap with the fine but at the same time not hurting the consumer by banning a ball that was bought with the USBC stamp of approval. Just poor judgement on the USBC end not realizing how this would affect the same people they are supposedly in place to look out for....the bowlers.
Okay, so USBC needs to enforce the rules...but not if it means inconveniencing bowlers. Is that how it's supposed to work? Does the NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB discount tickets or let fans in for free if they attend a game where a superstar player is sitting out due to a suspension? I mean, it's not the fans' fault that the player did something to warrant having to sit out.
Why do we make everything more complicated than it needs to be? Rules are rules. I don't know the specifics of the grandfathering rule, so I can't speak intelligently on that aspect. Other than that, all manufacturers know the specs, and they've known them for quite some time. Motiv either intentionally tried to do something it knew it shouldn't, or it had bad quality control. Either way, their balls were illegal, and they needed to be pulled.
In all honestly, I'd have been more disappointed in USBC if it HAD allowed those balls to stay in play because I would see that as a shameless attempt to win favor with bowlers instead of sticking to their guns and doing what they're supposed to do, uphold the rules! In my world, USBC took the more difficult option, the one that was give people a reason (not that many around here need one) to make USBC look like the bad guy instead of placing blame where it belongs, on Motiv!
Also, what does MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA have to do with this in any way? You using that as an argument makes ZERO sense. If you want to use that as an example use a better one like if a MLB game gets postponed YES THEY DO GIVE FREE TICKETS.
I'm not here to argue, just stating MY opinion. I disagree with every single one of yours so let's just leave it at that :)
-
Why did you choose to put quotation marks around my name? Are you implying that I'm not actually Gene? Strange.
But back on topic, I didn't say that YOU said Motiv was at fault. I'm saying that Motiv is at fault and should be the ones responsible for mitigating the inconvenience to the bowlers. USBC didn't cause this problem, so they shouldn't be held responsible for making sure that bowlers aren't put out by it. To me, that's Motiv's job.
USBC enforces rules. Rules were broken, so they needed to act. They did act, and now people are saying that they acted inappropriately because CONSUMERS were inconvenienced. When attempting to rebut my example from other sports, you mentioned corked bats and steroids. Those are not the only reasons why players are suspended from games. Players are suspended for drinking and driving, domestic issues, etc. etc. Again, if I pay $50 to watch my favorite team play, and their best player misses that game because of a DUI, I'm missing out as the CONSUMER. They're punishing me even though I did nothing wrong, right? Should the league just fine that player or push the suspension to another time so that I'm not screwed over as the CONSUMER?
Getting back to the issue at hand, I know a fair amount about equipment as well, so I am well aware of the fact that there was/is no discernible advantage given to bowlers who were using those balls. In my world, that's not the point. If the rules say that that ball is illegal, that ball shouldn't be used, period. I'd say that even if I was one of the bowlers who had those balls in the bag. I'm not telling you that I'd like it, but I'd agree that that's what needed to happen. The ones who would've felt my wrath in that case would've been Motiv!
Again, get it through your head that I understand that USBC could have taken the action you suggested, but just because that's what you and SOME (certainly not all) others feel they should've done, that does not automatically make you right. Obviously, before you point it out, the fact that I agree with USBC's actions here doesn't automatically make me right.
That's what debate and discussion are all about. I couldn't care less whether you or anyone else around here agrees with me on this. I have my opinions, and I'll share them. You have your opinions, and you're free to share those. If you don't like what I post, put me on your ignore list, but if you think you're going to make me feel bad about myself by attempting to make it seem like you're smarter than I am, you're wasting your time. I don't crave validation from you or anyone else.
-
Like I said not arguing "Gene" (I put quotations because it's the internet, who knows real names it's not important) not exactly necessary I know.
I just state that they should have acted differently. It's funny you say USBC isn't in it for the best interest of the bowler when in fact that is what they are supposed to be doing...looking out for the bowler (CONSUMER).
We just need to accept the fact that the USBC is a governing body that was not elected that will do whatever they want because they can. We (as consumers) will have to just sit back and do exactly as they say. Which is why people don't agree with the USBC in this matter and put some of the blame on them.
-
I mentioned corked bats and steroids not as a SUSPENSION. I mentioned corked bats and steroids as a form of cheating. Your argument makes no sense with sporting events. This situation compared to professional sporting events is more like this. You buy the tickets because of your favorite player or team whatever, your favorite player is not playing so now your tickets are illegal. That is this situation in relation to professional sports.
-
Thanks for the explanation on the name thing. lol
I didn't say that USBC isn't in it for the best interest of the bowler. I said that they should only take that into account when remedying a mistake of their own, not one caused by a manufacturer.
I understand your view of how USBC operates, but as someone who worked on the inside for a while, I can tell you from experience that that's not the way they look at it (doing whatever they want without caring what bowlers think). In fact, I think they sometimes pay too close attention to what bowlers think, and that causes them to fear taking action because of the potential blowback.
In any case, it's clear we'll never see eye to eye on this, and that's fine. There are some people who agree with me, and I know that there are plenty who will agree with you. That's what makes life great; we get to make up our own minds.
-
Think of the
children CONSUMER! :P :P
-
USBC should have notified Motiv the very instant they started getting information so Motiv could have corrected it and then we wouldn't have had this issue. USBC has fallen out of favor (if it ever was in favor), and I think this just amounted to a statement of "hey look at us, we're doing something!" ANYONE who thinks Motiv was knowingly producing illegal balls needs to exit the conversation, that definitely wasn't happening. Also, anyone that thinks that a ball with a pre-drilled diff of .061 is unfairly superior to a ball with a pre-drilled diff of .058 needs to spend more time reading and learning. Just because something can be more beneficial when it's in the right hands on the right condition used the right way doesn't mean much to the average consumer. I continue to be as unworried about it as I would be if someone brought an illegal driver to a par 3 course.
-
Great to see folks speaking out and advocating for the solutions serving the interest of our members. If the USBC based decisions with that as a core tenant, I think our sport would be in a much different place. I hope more people will find their voice and demand better from the USBC...remind them they work for you!
-
Not reading 6 pages but I would grandfather those two balls in...force stopped production. Make them alter the core and continue production. Jackal and jackal carnage with a .58 or something.
-
USBC should have notified Motiv the very instant they started getting information so Motiv could have corrected it and then we wouldn't have had this issue. USBC has fallen out of favor (if it ever was in favor), and I think this just amounted to a statement of "hey look at us, we're doing something!" ANYONE who thinks Motiv was knowingly producing illegal balls needs to exit the conversation, that definitely wasn't happening. Also, anyone that thinks that a ball with a pre-drilled diff of .061 is unfairly superior to a ball with a pre-drilled diff of .058 needs to spend more time reading and learning. Just because something can be more beneficial when it's in the right hands on the right condition used the right way doesn't mean much to the average consumer. I continue to be as unworried about it as I would be if someone brought an illegal driver to a par 3 course.
Good points and I agree with them in total,
BUT, one of these statements, 'USBC has fallen out of favor (if it ever was in favor), and I think this just amounted to a statement of "hey look at us, we're doing something!" '
brings to mind something that has bothered me a lot through out these discussions.
I don't know if anyone else has brought up this topic. If so, please pardon me; there have been so many posts written on this subject, it's impossible to sort through all the facts, innuendos, suppositions, opinions, and pure unadulterated BS that has been posted.
There have been any balls manufactured over the past 20 years or so whose higher RG differential was near or at the then current limit (be it the current .060" or the previous .080"). I think most manufacturers know or realize that during production there will be variations that produce cores whose differential is sometimes UNDER the specification and sometimes OVER the specification.
(Side Note: I know Visionary, at one time [I think it was when the limit was .080"] had a ball, measured at the USBC, which was above the limit; they needed to re-work the core and re-submit it to get it approved. The release date for the ball was moved back. Sorry, I don't remember which ball this was.)
Now these questions come to my mind:
1. Why did the USBC pick Motiv's Jackal, at this point in time, as the ball to examine from field samples to analyze for violation of their rule for maximum RG differential?
2. How many balls did they have to examine to determine that the results implied that too many Jackals in the public's hands were over the limit?
3. What other companies have been examined in this same manner and what percentage of violations were there such that the USBC or the ABC did not see fit to rescind the approval? As far as I know, if a ball has the highest possible differential, it is impossible in a production run for there NOT to be any balls that have a differential over that limit. There will be some over and some under that limit.
So, what percentage of balls made by 1 or more other manufacturers were over the limit but deemed an acceptable amount by the USBC/ABC????
Both organizations keep/kept records, I am sure. So what's the story here. What is an acceptable amount/percentage and by what degree did Motiv go over that set limit?
If none of the above happened, then why has Motiv been singled now? This whole picture seems odd, out of place.
-
Now these questions come to my mind:
1. Why did the USBC pick Motiv's Jackal, at this point in time, as the ball to examine from field samples to analyze for violation of their rule for maximum RG differential?
According to this from Dilaura Brothers:
http://i68.tinypic.com/14l68sh.jpg (http://i68.tinypic.com/14l68sh.jpg)
It was because someone anonymously sent the USBC a box of Jackal Carnage balls and a note that said "spin me".
Seems a lot have a RADICAL guess of who did it, because of the "Spin Me" note comment.
But nobody knows for sure who.
-
Not reading 6 pages but I would grandfather those two balls in...force stopped production. Make them alter the core and continue production. Jackal and jackal carnage with a .58 or something.
The USBC did the right thing in this case. The rule has been in place before Motiv was even a company. Can't remember the year but I remember the Lane #1 super carbide bomb pearl wasn't approved cause the core was over the limit. Company's at the time this rule came out could use the cores that were over only if it wasn't a new release. Again Lane #1 had the super carbide bomb and could have continued to make the ball with the core that was over but once the called it the super carbide bomb pearl that's a new release and there for the core can't be used.
-
I may be mistaken here, but isn't it a bit silly to regulate a ball in it's BEFORE drilling state?
To me, what would matter is the differential AFTER the gripping holes are drilled. My guess is the actual differential could be substantially altered.... especially if the gripping holes extend into the weightblock.
Anyone????
---afterthought--- A horrific vision, the USBC now requiring drillers to purchase expensive spin determinators in order to determine a given ball's final differential.
I shudder at that thought...
-
Exactly, those are the same questions a lot of other people are asking. It stinks of a witch hunt to a lot of people, the circumstances are way too murky and questionable. Why this ball, why now, and why do this much damage to a company over such a marginal overage? Yes, illegal is illegal, but this could have been done privately behind closed doors. This didn't even have to be public, apparently USBC doesn't understand their own bowlers, who don't even understand the vast majority of ball tech to begin with, now they're causing ignorant "panic" so to speak. It's a very short leap of logic to conclude that someone or a group of someones aren't happy with Motiv for one reason or another and found a way to get at them. HOWEVER, Motiv also gave themselves no margin for error. I don't believe a core needs to be that close to the limit to be effective. Yes it may be marketing more than anything, as pushing a limit is an effective marketing tool, but if Gary Faulkner is throwing an Alpha Crux instead of a Carnage, he still wins that title, as a high differential is just as beneficial as it is harmful depending on the situation and circumstances. Maybe one of those balls that went a little high on him or started up a little early sits there with a lower diff. Overall though, there are some pretty obviously underhanded dealings here. We may or may never find out what those are, but something is definitely fishy.
USBC should have notified Motiv the very instant they started getting information so Motiv could have corrected it and then we wouldn't have had this issue. USBC has fallen out of favor (if it ever was in favor), and I think this just amounted to a statement of "hey look at us, we're doing something!" ANYONE who thinks Motiv was knowingly producing illegal balls needs to exit the conversation, that definitely wasn't happening. Also, anyone that thinks that a ball with a pre-drilled diff of .061 is unfairly superior to a ball with a pre-drilled diff of .058 needs to spend more time reading and learning. Just because something can be more beneficial when it's in the right hands on the right condition used the right way doesn't mean much to the average consumer. I continue to be as unworried about it as I would be if someone brought an illegal driver to a par 3 course.
Good points and I agree with them in total,
BUT, one of these statements, 'USBC has fallen out of favor (if it ever was in favor), and I think this just amounted to a statement of "hey look at us, we're doing something!" '
brings to mind something that has bothered me a lot through out these discussions.
I don't know if anyone else has brought up this topic. If so, please pardon me; there have been so many posts written on this subject, it's impossible to sort through all the facts, innuendos, suppositions, opinions, and pure unadulterated BS that has been posted.
There have been any balls manufactured over the past 20 years or so whose higher RG differential was near or at the then current limit (be it the current .060" or the previous .080"). I think most manufacturers know or realize that during production there will be variations that produce cores whose differential is sometimes UNDER the specification and sometimes OVER the specification.
(Side Note: I know Visionary, at one time [I think it was when the limit was .080"] had a ball, measured at the USBC, which was above the limit; they needed to re-work the core and re-submit it to get it approved. The release date for the ball was moved back. Sorry, I don't remember which ball this was.)
Now these questions come to my mind:
1. Why did the USBC pick Motiv's Jackal, at this point in time, as the ball to examine from field samples to analyze for violation of their rule for maximum RG differential?
2. How many balls did they have to examine to determine that the results implied that too many Jackals in the public's hands were over the limit?
3. What other companies have been examined in this same manner and what percentage of violations were there such that the USBC or the ABC did not see fit to rescind the approval? As far as I know, if a ball has the highest possible differential, it is impossible in a production run for there NOT to be any balls that have a differential over that limit. There will be some over and some under that limit.
So, what percentage of balls made by 1 or more other manufacturers were over the limit but deemed an acceptable amount by the USBC/ABC????
Both organizations keep/kept records, I am sure. So what's the story here. What is an acceptable amount/percentage and by what degree did Motiv go over that set limit?
If none of the above happened, then why has Motiv been singled now? This whole picture seems odd, out of place.
-
Way too hard to govern all that, this is more of an ease of enforcement deal. The differential can DEFINITELY be manipulated and increased significantly by drilling, but if they limit the top end of the manufactured differential, they also limit the top end of the drilled differential, it's just a different number. It's like they say with speed limits, if you want people staying under 85, make the speed limit 75 . .
I may be mistaken here, but isn't it a bit silly to regulate a ball in it's BEFORE drilling state?
To me, what would matter is the differential AFTER the gripping holes are drilled. My guess is the actual differential could be substantially altered.... especially if the gripping holes extend into the weightblock.
Anyone????
---afterthought--- A horrific vision, the USBC now requiring drillers to purchase expensive spin determinators in order to determine a given ball's final differential.
I shudder at that thought...
-
Yes, illegal is illegal, but this could have been done privately behind closed doors. This didn't even have to be public,
If the USBC did this all behind closed doors and it came to light.
Everyone on the boards would be screaming their heads off, About how the USBC was involved in a cover up and how it was another sign of how they are sucking up to mfg. and not doing their job etc. etc.
-
Now these questions come to my mind:
1. Why did the USBC pick Motiv's Jackal, at this point in time, as the ball to examine from field samples to analyze for violation of their rule for maximum RG differential?
According to this from Dilaura Brothers:
http://i68.tinypic.com/14l68sh.jpg (http://i68.tinypic.com/14l68sh.jpg)
It was because someone anonymously sent the USBC a box of Jackal Carnage balls and a note that said "spin me".
Seems a lot have a RADICAL guess of who did it, because of the "Spin Me" note comment.
But nobody knows for sure who.
I see.
But, how many more is "many more"?
and how many times have they done this and to which ball made by which company?
Was this a "witch hunt" as has been suggested or is this being done on a regular basis?
-
I'm not sure why there is so much debate on this. The rules are the rules and the fact that the Motiv balls were found to not be in compliance with the rules is pretty cut and dry to me. Yes it sucks for all those involved...usbc to make the decision, Motiv for having to take corrective action, end consumer for now having an illegal ball. The rules are there for everyone.
-
With the severity of the penalty, not the fine but the banning of the two balls, I am hoping Motiv receives all the information they are entitled to so they can find the cause and prevent it from happening again.
They should be provided with the serial numbers of all balls tested as well as the results of those tests.
They won't get any info on who sent the box of balls in.
I'm also hoping that the process used is noted somewhere so if a similar situation where ever to arise again, the same punishment is delivered in the same manner. From number of balls tested and how/where acquired to how/when Motiv was notified and if they were allowed to try to correct the issue before the ban was issued.
You think this is bad, let the process be handled completely different on the next situation.
-
Here is what should have happened. Motiv should have been penalized and part of the penalty should included a requirement to replace the balls at issue. In addition the impacted balls should be grandfathered for a short period of time so as to avoid undue hardship on bowlers.
-
I think that could have been an option Avabob. Keep the balls legal through the end of this bowling season so there is no undue hardship on the bowlers, but make Motiv stop production immediately and discontinue all sales immediately.
-
Here is what should have happened. Motiv should have been penalized and part of the penalty should included a requirement to replace the balls at issue. In addition the impacted balls should be grandfathered for a short period of time so as to avoid undue hardship on bowlers.
playing devils advocate for why I don't think a temporary grandfathering would work.
Say someone lost a close tournament to a winner throwing one or both of these now banned balls within the grandfather period? sure the winner ultimately made more shots, but couldn't the runner up claim that he lost due to balls that didn't meet spec?
I think this is the reasoning that a banning needed to occur now. if USBC nations has started with the balls being legal, I would have strongly considered a nationals only grandfathering. however, not sure how I personally would come down on that.
as to the topic in question: what would I do if made King and was in the position of the USB?
I would test the balls, I would notify Motiv of the investigation. and given the results backed up the claims of illegal balls I would have banned the balls now found to be illegal.
sure there was some outside "help" or 'whistle blower", but I think USBC did their jobs in this case
-
Here is what should have happened. Motiv should have been penalized and part of the penalty should included a requirement to replace the balls at issue. In addition the impacted balls should be grandfathered for a short period of time so as to avoid undue hardship on bowlers.
playing devils advocate for why I don't think a temporary grandfathering would work.
Say someone lost a close tournament to a winner throwing one or both of these now banned balls within the grandfather period? sure the winner ultimately made more shots, but couldn't the runner up claim that he lost due to balls that didn't meet spec?
I think this is the reasoning that a banning needed to occur now. if USBC nations has started with the balls being legal, I would have strongly considered a nationals only grandfathering. however, not sure how I personally would come down on that.
as to the topic in question: what would I do if made King and was in the position of the USB?
I would test the balls, I would notify Motiv of the investigation. and given the results backed up the claims of illegal balls I would have banned the balls now found to be illegal.
sure there was some outside "help" or 'whistle blower", but I think USBC did their jobs in this case
Ideally, they should have been banned before Nationals even started. I could see concerns coming up where someone could use a Jackal early in the tournament but then have it banned part of the way through. Also any honor scores shot in the early part of the tournament will be looked down upon because of the timing.
It's a total lose-lose situation. People who have either of the Jackals will be pissed at Motiv because they can't use those balls anymore. Also, people will be pissed at the USBC because of the timing of the ban.
I hope that the USBC will give Motiv as much information as possible so this way everything can be reviewed and used to improve overall manufacturing. Stuff like how the test was performed, which serial numbers were used, things like that. If the USBC does not provide that info, then it's suspect.
Motiv may also need to change the diffs to not exceed .058-.059 going forward so this way they have a bit more tolerance should anything like this ever happen again.
-
Spot On Tommy Boy!
-
Just an FYI -
In a small local county tournament today (equivalent of the Nationals :team, singles, doubles), they had 2 printouts. One of the Jackal and one of the Carnage, saying that these balls have recently been removed from the USBC approval list and anyone using them would be immediately disqualified.
-
Because of the point in time when this was discovered there should have been a grace period until the end of the 2016 season. Nobody can demonstrate any advantage gained by the balls that were out of compliance by a miniscule amount. Motiv should be punished and balls should be outlawed beginning for the fall season.
-
Because of the point in time when this was discovered there should have been a grace period until the end of the 2016 season. Nobody can demonstrate any advantage gained by the balls that were out of compliance by a miniscule amount. Motiv should be punished and balls should be outlawed beginning for the fall season.
Exactly. But try explaining that to the freedom fighters that defend the governing body to the death, no matter how bad it is.
As I said, you have tournaments that take place over a period of months where those balls have already been used. If common sense was used, they would wait until nationals was over to disallow the two balls.
But common sense is a foreign object to the country club that is known as the governing body.
-
I'm not sure why either ball is banned to begin with. Yes, rules I get it I understand that but at the same time tell me why Jackal and Jackal Carnage are banned for use in USBC sanctioned events yet someone can walk in with a Jackal Pro or Jackal Sapphire (or any other Raptor series utilizing the same core) but they are allowed to use those? I get these balls are off spec and all but the Sapphire and Pro are the exact same balls yet they can be freely used?
-
I'm not sure why either ball is banned to begin with. Yes, rules I get it I understand that but at the same time tell me why Jackal and Jackal Carnage are banned for use in USBC sanctioned events yet someone can walk in with a Jackal Pro or Jackal Sapphire (or any other Raptor series utilizing the same core) but they are allowed to use those? I get these balls are off spec and all but the Sapphire and Pro are the exact same balls yet they can be freely used?
What do you mean you don't get why those balls got banned.... And how are all the jackals the same ball they have different cover stocks...
-
I'm not sure why either ball is banned to begin with. Yes, rules I get it I understand that but at the same time tell me why Jackal and Jackal Carnage are banned for use in USBC sanctioned events yet someone can walk in with a Jackal Pro or Jackal Sapphire (or any other Raptor series utilizing the same core) but they are allowed to use those? I get these balls are off spec and all but the Sapphire and Pro are the exact same balls yet they can be freely used?
What do you mean you don't get why those balls got banned.... And how are all the jackals the same ball they have different cover stocks...
Was my post hard to understand? Please tell me what a coverstock has to do with the inner core specifications? What we have at hand is 2 balls that got banned yet the entire Raptor series as well as the two overseas jackald are approved for use with the exact same cores inside of them. That's why I am not sure why they have been banned. Don't tell me "they are illegal blah blah blah" that's fine I understand they are out of "compliance" but the USBC revoking approval on 2 balls yet they let all the other ones out there with the same .060 diff core loaded up in them stay on the approved list. They didn't test them and can't I know that. Just proves the USBC made a wrong choice in doing anything but simply stopping production and fining Motiv the cost it would be to replace them.
-
It is definitely confusing when a core has been approved for use over the span of at least 4 years and 6 different balls, yet only 2 of those releases are banned. Hopefully the USBC will explain their logic and provide some clarity around the field testing process at some point.
-
It is definitely confusing when a core has been approved for use over the span of at least 4 years and 6 different balls, yet only 2 of those releases are banned. Hopefully the USBC will explain their logic and provide some clarity around the field testing process at some point.
Good luck with that. You would have an easier time trying to find Jimmy Hoffa's body than getting an answer from the select country club.
-
I'm not sure why either ball is banned to begin with. Yes, rules I get it I understand that but at the same time tell me why Jackal and Jackal Carnage are banned for use in USBC sanctioned events yet someone can walk in with a Jackal Pro or Jackal Sapphire (or any other Raptor series utilizing the same core) but they are allowed to use those? I get these balls are off spec and all but the Sapphire and Pro are the exact same balls yet they can be freely used?
What do you mean you don't get why those balls got banned.... And how are all the jackals the same ball they have different cover stocks...
Was my post hard to understand? Please tell me what a coverstock has to do with the inner core specifications? What we have at hand is 2 balls that got banned yet the entire Raptor series as well as the two overseas jackald are approved for use with the exact same cores inside of them. That's why I am not sure why they have been banned. Don't tell me "they are illegal blah blah blah" that's fine I understand they are out of "compliance" but the USBC revoking approval on 2 balls yet they let all the other ones out there with the same .060 diff core loaded up in them stay on the approved list. They didn't test them and can't I know that. Just proves the USBC made a wrong choice in doing anything but simply stopping production and fining Motiv the cost it would be to replace them.
So your saying the two current jackals should not be banned because the other two jackal haven't been tested
-
Bought a share of Motivation, declared their equipment illegal, then begin selling everything at a stupid premium on eBay claiming it's outlawed and banned...
Oh wait, the selling part is already being done.
-
I'm not sure why either ball is banned to begin with. Yes, rules I get it I understand that but at the same time tell me why Jackal and Jackal Carnage are banned for use in USBC sanctioned events yet someone can walk in with a Jackal Pro or Jackal Sapphire (or any other Raptor series utilizing the same core) but they are allowed to use those? I get these balls are off spec and all but the Sapphire and Pro are the exact same balls yet they can be freely used?
What do you mean you don't get why those balls got banned.... And how are all the jackals the same ball they have different cover stocks...
Was my post hard to understand? Please tell me what a coverstock has to do with the inner core specifications? What we have at hand is 2 balls that got banned yet the entire Raptor series as well as the two overseas jackald are approved for use with the exact same cores inside of them. That's why I am not sure why they have been banned. Don't tell me "they are illegal blah blah blah" that's fine I understand they are out of "compliance" but the USBC revoking approval on 2 balls yet they let all the other ones out there with the same .060 diff core loaded up in them stay on the approved list. They didn't test them and can't I know that. Just proves the USBC made a wrong choice in doing anything but simply stopping production and fining Motiv the cost it would be to replace them.
So your saying the two current jackals should not be banned because the other two jackal haven't been tested
You sir, clearly don't comprehend anything. Good day.
-
I don't know that we know if the overseas Jackals have been tested or not.
If, as it seems, there was a shift in the core making process at Motiv that caused the balls to go over the spec limit, it could be just a matter of timing. The overseas releases could have been shorter runs made prior to the shift and the domestic balls made after the shift. If that is the case, the overseas could very well be legal.
I don't think there is any arguing that up to a date the Jackals were legal and then they crossed a threshold. They are not the same ball as was approved. The Carnage probably the same, only a larger percentage of the balls in circulation are probably over the limit. But I don't see what choice the USBC had. They aren't taking the core off the approved list as such. Just specific balls found to violate the rules.
-
I don't know that we know if the overseas Jackals have been tested or not.
If, as it seems, there was a shift in the core making process at Motiv that caused the balls to go over the spec limit, it could be just a matter of timing. The overseas releases could have been shorter runs made prior to the shift and the domestic balls made after the shift. If that is the case, the overseas could very well be legal.
I don't think there is any arguing that up to a date the Jackals were legal and then they crossed a threshold. They are not the same ball as was approved. The Carnage probably the same, only a larger percentage of the balls in circulation are probably over the limit. But I don't see what choice the USBC had. They aren't taking the core off the approved list as such. Just specific balls found to violate the rules.
It has been confirmed (direct from the horses mouth) USBC did NOT test the overseas Jackals as they did not have enough access to them for testing. If you don't understand how it makes zero sense to completely ban a bowling ball when the exact same ball is out there, although very limited quantities, and remains approved then I feel sorry for you.
-
When you really think about it this could open up a huge can of worms. RG and diff are dynamic balance measures that, I suspect, are not spot checked on subsequent runs of balls. Lots of balls are advertised at the lowest rg, for example. I wonder how many other balls have come off the lines of all manufacturers that did not meet dynamic specs
-
I would venture to say many more avabob.
-
When a victorious NASCAR car is disqualified because some tolerance or the height of the car or whatever they check is ruled out of spec, I am sure there are people saying it didn't matter because the violation was only (insert whatever arbitrary small number that gets your blood boiling) and the driver would have won if it was only slightly different anyway. But rules are rules.
That's the way it is in the world. Pity not required.
-
When a victorious NASCAR car is disqualified because some tolerance or the height of the car or whatever they check is ruled out of spec, I am sure there are people saying it didn't matter because the violation was only (insert whatever arbitrary small number that gets your blood boiling) and the driver would have won if it was only slightly different anyway. But rules are rules.
That's the way it is in the world. Pity not required.
So this is what you are saying and endorsing with your statement "it's only cheating if you get caught." Am I correct in assuming that?
-
I'm not sure why either ball is banned to begin with. Yes, rules I get it I understand that but at the same time tell me why Jackal and Jackal Carnage are banned for use in USBC sanctioned events yet someone can walk in with a Jackal Pro or Jackal Sapphire (or any other Raptor series utilizing the same core) but they are allowed to use those? I get these balls are off spec and all but the Sapphire and Pro are the exact same balls yet they can be freely used?
What do you mean you don't get why those balls got banned.... And how are all the jackals the same ball they have different cover stocks...
Was my post hard to understand? Please tell me what a coverstock has to do with the inner core specifications? What we have at hand is 2 balls that got banned yet the entire Raptor series as well as the two overseas jackald are approved for use with the exact same cores inside of them. That's why I am not sure why they have been banned. Don't tell me "they are illegal blah blah blah" that's fine I understand they are out of "compliance" but the USBC revoking approval on 2 balls yet they let all the other ones out there with the same .060 diff core loaded up in them stay on the approved list. They didn't test them and can't I know that. Just proves the USBC made a wrong choice in doing anything but simply stopping production and fining Motiv the cost it would be to replace them.
So your saying the two current jackals should not be banned because the other two jackal haven't been tested
You sir, clearly don't comprehend anything. Good day.
Yea I clearly dont understand. Your saying they are the same ball.... I am saying they are not the same ball. You say they are the same ball because of the core??? As i brought up before the coverstock are different thus why they are different balls. They might have same core but does not make the balls the same.... I do not see anywhere in the statement made by USBC they are banning the core....
And when i ask the question why you dont get it you said "I'm not sure why either ball is banned to begin with. Yes, rules I get it I understand that" if you understand why the ball got banned, why do you start off by saying im not sure why either ball is banned then you say yes I get it. All I asked was what you mean you dont get it but you get it and yes clearly I dont understand.
-
Not at all. There are rules and limits. You violate them, you pay the price.
Over the limit is a violation. How much it matters is a different debate I think.
I suspect a lot of people protesting because .0014 is a very small number (.0600 is as well, 0.014 is over 2% high) also make a judgement on a balls performance or worth based in large part on the RG and diff numbers. So the numbers are important, the magnitude of the importance is a personal thing I guess.
With any measurement, if it gets divided into smaller and smaller increments then the difference between two measurements becomes more insignificant. But exceeding a spec is not arbitrary, not a judgment call. It is a boundary.
Also, if you read the USBC ball specs, the current approval process requires a manufacturer to provide data showing that less than 0.6% of balls will exceed the upper limit. For a sample to contain over 50% is not a small change.
-
I'm not sure why either ball is banned to begin with. Yes, rules I get it I understand that but at the same time tell me why Jackal and Jackal Carnage are banned for use in USBC sanctioned events yet someone can walk in with a Jackal Pro or Jackal Sapphire (or any other Raptor series utilizing the same core) but they are allowed to use those? I get these balls are off spec and all but the Sapphire and Pro are the exact same balls yet they can be freely used?
What do you mean you don't get why those balls got banned.... And how are all the jackals the same ball they have different cover stocks...
Was my post hard to understand? Please tell me what a coverstock has to do with the inner core specifications? What we have at hand is 2 balls that got banned yet the entire Raptor series as well as the two overseas jackald are approved for use with the exact same cores inside of them. That's why I am not sure why they have been banned. Don't tell me "they are illegal blah blah blah" that's fine I understand they are out of "compliance" but the USBC revoking approval on 2 balls yet they let all the other ones out there with the same .060 diff core loaded up in them stay on the approved list. They didn't test them and can't I know that. Just proves the USBC made a wrong choice in doing anything but simply stopping production and fining Motiv the cost it would be to replace them.
So your saying the two current jackals should not be banned because the other two jackal haven't been tested
You sir, clearly don't comprehend anything. Good day.
Yea I clearly dont understand. Your saying they are the same ball.... I am saying they are not the same ball. You say they are the same ball because of the core??? As i brought up before the coverstock are different thus why they are different balls. They might have same core but does not make the balls the same.... I do not see anywhere in the statement made by USBC they are banning the core....
And when i ask the question why you dont get it you said "I'm not sure why either ball is banned to begin with. Yes, rules I get it I understand that" if you understand why the ball got banned, why do you start off by saying im not sure why either ball is banned then you say yes I get it. All I asked was what you mean you dont get it but you get it and yes clearly I dont understand.
Ken a cover has nothing to do with the core specifications stop being ignorant.
And I said I understand why they got banned BUT if they are being banned because of a core specification shouldn't ALL balls with that core be banned? My point is if they are going to enforce this kind of BS shouldn't they be consistent with the BS they are enforcing?
-
Is it possible that as time went on, something changed with core - different resin supplier, slight density change, sloppy QC ... that made the new version of the core flare just a bit more to push it out of spec? That would justify banning the new versions while leaving the others? A worse possibility is that if all of the balls with the same core measured high, all would illegal and the USBC is afraid of banning that many balls now?
-
Im not being ignorant Im telling you they are not the same exact ball. Same exact core yes....
-
Is it possible that as time went on, something changed with core - different resin supplier, slight density change, sloppy QC ... that made the new version of the core flare just a bit more to push it out of spec? That would justify banning the new versions while leaving the others? A worse possibility is that if all of the balls with the same core measured high, all would illegal and the USBC is afraid of banning that many balls now?
There is no way of knowing. The overseas versions and the Raptor series cannot be tested. The USBC won't ban all of the balls with the .060 core in it because they cannot prove they will exceed the limits. Since they are the same cores with the same .060 diff specification they would most likely fail the same tests performed on the two "banned" Jackals. The point I am trying to make is that a bowler has a Jackal and another bowler has a Jackal Sapphire the Jackal is illegal while the Jackal Sapphire is legal? Essentially if the Jackal was discontinued 2 months ago it would still be approved today.
-
No, not all balls with the core should be banned. If the scenario is playing out in rumors is true that the core molds expanded from use, then when the core molds were the correct size, the cores were made as expected and the ball did not exceed the max diff.
Problem: I am sure the USBC never did field testing of the ball, or any ball, so we do not know how long this has been an issue. So the USBC cannot do any predrilled testing on the balls. Tough to outlaw a ball the USBC cannot test to make a determination if the finished undrilled product falls inside or outside of the USBC regs.
If Motiv were to produce another ball with the same core, same materials, same densities, I would like to think that any future balls with the same supposed core would be subject to more stringent USBC inspections, prior to ball approval and also field tests if the ball receives approval. I do not expect Motiv to use the same core (at least the same molds) maybe lower the diff just a nudge to ensure any manufacturing tolerances would still be under the max diff.
Strider...I had suggested in one of the 20 threads the theory that a supplier delivered a raw material of a different density or a different material all together. This ties back to a poor QC program at Motiv. Motiv should have known if the raw material was different from previously received raw materials. Further, Motiv should have known these balls were coming off the line above the max diff allowed. All point to either the QC person or department asleep at the switch.
Either that person(s) is/are fired, or there is some major hiring about to commence at Motiv to ensure this never occurs again.
-
No, not all balls with the core should be banned. If the scenario is playing out in rumors is true that the core molds expanded from use, then when the core molds were the correct size, the cores were made as expected and the ball did not exceed the max diff.
Problem: I am sure the USBC never did field testing of the ball, or any ball, so we do not know how long this has been an issue. So the USBC cannot do any predrilled testing on the balls. Tough to outlaw a ball the USBC cannot test to make a determination if the finished undrilled product falls inside or outside of the USBC regs.
If Motiv were to produce another ball with the same core, same materials, same densities, I would like to think that any future balls with the same supposed core would be subject to more stringent USBC inspections, prior to ball approval and also field tests if the ball receives approval. I do not expect Motiv to use the same core (at least the same molds) maybe lower the diff just a nudge to ensure any manufacturing tolerances would still be under the max diff.
Strider...I had suggested in one of the 20 threads the theory that a supplier delivered a raw material of a different density or a different material all together. This ties back to a poor QC program at Motiv. Motiv should have known if the raw material was different from previously received raw materials. Further, Motiv should have known these balls were coming off the line above the max diff allowed. All point to either the QC person or department asleep at the switch.
Either that person(s) is/are fired, or there is some major hiring about to commence at Motiv to ensure this never occurs again.
I don't believe all balls with that core should be banned, I just don't understand how you can ban the two when there is a high probability that more of them out there fall into the same specifications. They should have stopped production fined Motiv however much it would have been projected to cost them to replace the balls they are now having to replace and slap them with probation. Who wins? The average bowler wins. They get to keep their ball that is not gaining any competitive advantage with, and USBC gets injected with the fine money that maybe they can do something productive with. I am not a USBC hater or lover, usually indifferent on the subject, but this should have been handled way differently.
-
I know this is way too much to ask for, but too bad Motiv didn't give an option to refund the ball in cash. I only state this because what if a person had decided between one of the Jackals and maybe the Lock/Menace/Swerve/whatever for heavy oil. Now the bowler is stuck with another Motiv ball that may not fit anywhere he/she wants.
I guess you can sell it on ebay/somewhere, but there is no guarantee you will receive the amount you put into the ball to start.
Oh well.
-
So, is there any way to test a core by itself to see if it is in spec?
If you need the ball to perform the tests, then you can't ban the core, you have to ban the ball?
If you can't obtain a significant amount of the undrilled balls to perform the tests to get a reliable sampling (overseas so not available locally or so long out of production that not many are left on the market), then you can't ban the ball?
-
Plus, core numbers change after drilling...
-
I am late to this party, as always it seems, but let me add my .02:
The USBC did what it had to do. The balls tested as illegal, and had to be removed from competition. That is what a governing body does. The NASCAR example is spot on. NASCAR is a governing body. They spot check cars to make sure they meet spec. If a car is out of spec, it is fixed or removed from competition. And just like in the Motiv case, sometime is it "anonymous" tips that points NASCAR to look at specific teams, think back a year or two when someone told NASCAR about the rear-end gears being out of spec on the Penske cars. NASCAR pulled them out and checked them, found them to be out of tolerance and made them replace them. Unfortunately, with bowling balls, you can't "repair" an out of spec core, so the equipment must be removed. In NASCAR if you can't fix the problem, the car is impounded and removed from competition. NASCAR doesn't care about the feelings of the owner of that car, it is illegal and removed. Just like the USBC shouldn't care about the owners of the balls, they are illegal and should be removed. The people upset should be upset at Motiv, they sold the faulty product, not at the USBC for upholding the rules.
Now, just another point. We have heard people say that the difference in differential doesn't give anyone a performance advantage. How can you so sure? Couldn't this difference do this: The added differential could allow the ball to start it's hook 1/2 or 1/4 second before a legal ball, that small added difference could allow that ball to enter the pocket different from a legal ball. And that difference in entering the pocket could be difference between a solid 10 (or solid 8 ) and a strike. And that tap could be the difference between winning and losing( a tournament, between finishing in the money and out of the money, or between finishing at a higher prize spot or a lower prize spot). How can anyone say for 100% certainty that the illegal ball will not gain someone that one shot advantage that could make a difference?
-
In my opinion, the reason there is a rule on non-drilled equipment is because it is the easiest way to test for compliance. USBC would only have to check the provided balls from a company to determine if the balls are within the rules. USBC can't check every ball off the line, but as we see now, they can spot check some balls already on the market for compliance. Whether the balls are checked or not, all equipment must pass the rules.
Trying to implement a post-drilling rule on equipment would be near impossible, especially for something the customer has no control over like the construction of the core in this case. However, post-drilled equipment still has rules to follow, but now the ball is in the hands of a pro shop. It is their responsibility to ensure each ball that comes out of their shop is legal. USBC relies on these pro shops to uphold the post-drilling rules since it would cost millions to have USBC check each and every ball. Even then, drillers can still circumvent the rules until checked at an event where balls are inspected post-drilling.
-
spmc,
I agree there is no way to test post drilling on every ball. Plus, something you must consider, many people bowl in unsanctioned leagues now. So if they don't go to the USBC Open (Nationals), don't bowl anything PBA related, and don't bowl in any sanctioned leagues....there is no reason their ball has to meet USBC post drilling standards. Plus, this person can continue to throw their Jackal and Jackal Carnage if they so choose. So, since a PSO can't know what a person is doing with their ball, all they can do is suggest things to make the ball legal, but if the customer doesn't want that done, there is nothing the PSO can do. They drill the ball as the consumer wants, illegal or not. They can continue to remind the customer that this ball is not legal for sanctioned competition, but that is about it.
-
The USBC uses post drilling, not undrilled specs for static weight, why not dynamic weight. You can use pin placement to keep a high diff ball below .06 just as you can control top and side weights with movements around the label.
It is too bad that USBC didn't delve into surface prep and lay down some rules in this area such as all balls should come from the factory with at least a 2000 final grit surface, and no alterations should be allowed. This would have a more beneficial impact on the game than laying down esoteric rules on differential.
-
I can only imagine the usbc attempting to check the grit on a ball. Lol
-
The USBC uses post drilling, not undrilled specs for static weight, why not dynamic weight. You can use pin placement to keep a high diff ball below .06 just as you can control top and side weights with movements around the label.
It is too bad that USBC didn't delve into surface prep and lay down some rules in this area such as all balls should come from the factory with at least a 2000 final grit surface, and no alterations should be allowed. This would have a more beneficial impact on the game than laying down esoteric rules on differential.
avabob,
There are no rules for post drilling dynamic specs. So why check it? The pre-drilling dynamic rules were set-up to regulate the balls. It still allows for innovation in weight blocks, such as the ones from Radical for example, that allow for much higher post drilling dynamic specs. Whether or not these rules were needed or were helpful is debatable. But rules are rules.
And the surface prep rule is asking for trouble. Not all bowlers have the same style. Why would handicap bowlers who happen to be speed dominant and/or lower rev players by saying they can't lower the grit below 2000. For your game, that may be fine. But I can tell you for a fact there have been times I have used balls at 1000 grit and even 500 grit. I didn't do it to screw up a line, I did it because there was that much oil I needed to. So why should I be handicapped now to 2000 grit?
-
I can only imagine the usbc attempting to check the grit on a ball. Lol
It can be done, not sure how quickly or easily it can be done. RaiderH20boy who has a pro shop in the SF Bay Area has a machine that can check the actual grit of a ball. But I don't know the details of how it works, how time consuming it is, and how hard it is to do it.
-
I can only imagine the usbc attempting to check the grit on a ball. Lol
It can be done, not sure how quickly or easily it can be done. RaiderH20boy who has a pro shop in the SF Bay Area has a machine that can check the actual grit of a ball. But I don't know the details of how it works, how time consuming it is, and how hard it is to do it.
No doubt it can be done....just thinking how long the check in process at Nationals would be.
-
I understand the issues on surface prep, but I do bring it up because super aggressive surface prep has a much bigger impact on scoring and on damage to lane surfaces than miniscule dynamic balance issues.
-
Personally I would have nipped this reactive resin thing in the bud, back in the early 90's.
Protecting the integrity of the sport means not allowing any changes that drastically alter the balance between skill and scoring.
Using whatever the equivalent to the throw bot was back then, you can determine if the ball scores higher while making the bot less consistent with t's accuracy.
The same for allowable oil patterns.
Improvements in scoring that come from humans using better techniques is acceptable.
Improved scoring strictly from technology, is not acceptable, it leads to an arms race, which is not in the best interest of the bowler.
In my opinion reactive resin balls are a cancer on the sport of bowling, and the ball manufacturers are bowling's equivalent of tobacco companies.
Reactive resin balls brought along more oil on the lane allowing the oil to guide the ball, which brought cores that flare to allow the ball to hook when it exits the oil, and cover stocks to absorb the oil the ball picks up because the bowler is too lazy to wipe the ball off.
Even if the USBC wanted to crack down on oil patterns, the reactive resin balls do so much "damage" to the oil pattern, the inspection process would be hard pressed to determine if the lane was originally oiled in compliance.
I would like to see the sport of bowling as opposed to the game of bowling (i.e. the THS) go to less oil on the lane, so the oil doesn't guide the ball, rather than the current sport patterns which reduce scores by flooding the lanes so most people can't achieve any back end motion, and therefore have no interest in bowling sport conditions.
The benefits of less oil, is reduced costs for the proprietor, less costs for the bowlers because the ball needed for less oil is the less expensive ball, the lower end balls don't eat up the oil pattern so the shot isn't changing every 10-15 minutes, and finally if you want to improve, there isn't a "magic ball", you need to go out and practice, which again benefits the proprietor.
The average Joe can get back end reaction, but getting it to the pocket without the guiding oil takes more skill.
The result is, scores return to being correlated to skill, and spare shooting becomes an important part of the game again.
-
Trust this ICDM, we ain't going back.
Resin should have never happened. You don't need resin to strike, and you don't need resin to score. Bowlers have been convinced otherwise though.
I would agree with you in a heartbeat, but "we" are few and far between anymore I believe.
Thing is, we're really not talking about that so much right now, just exploring the options the USBC might've taken instead of the one they did in this particular case. What the ABC/USBC should've done 25 years ago doesn't really matter now.
-
ICDM their are many millions of past sanctioned bowlers who agree with your statement. They have spoken by not participating in sanctioned events. But, as the USBC is lost. Those that matter are the ones still paying for a card and keep their mouths shut. The USBC lost sight of what the bowlers wanted. It's like putting out those cards that say "HOW CAN WE BETTER SERVE YOU" then toss them in the trash without reading. Millions of bowlers tossed away because those running the show saw reactive resin as the EVOLUTION of bowling.
It's basically like a political group. Give the symbolic handshake to reach those who crowd around you and promise to take care of them. The ABC used to be an Organization for the bowlers. Now it is USBC. A business for the "1" percent of bowlers. As long as reactive resin is still being promised as the evolutionary savior of bowling it will become game of Pharaohs. And where are they now. :o :o :P
-
Here is why USBC didn't outlaw resin when it first came in. Resin was only an additive to the basic urethane cover stock that did not cause a difference in hardness or any other measurable physical attribute at the time. Contrary to popular opinion resin does not reward more errant, or less consistent shots. Lane conditioning procedures do that, not balls.
So why does resin score higher? It is because resin allows urethane to absorb oil and track through it rather simply pushing the oil down the lane the way non resin urethane does. As a result the resin enhanced ball stores rotational energy for release at a more optimum point down the lane. More energy release at the optimum point means less deflection for any given rev rate, and thus fewer ten pins on half pocket hits.
The above characteristics became readily apparent to me the very first time I threw an Excaliber in 1992. The house shot was about 34 feet with a big wall at 7 board. I was bowling a step ladder final night rolloff in my singles league. I led the late shift league averaging 225 with a blue hammer for the season. This roll off was on fresh oil. When I went to the practice pair, I initially had free back end with my Hammer. However within 5 or six shots the carrydown started killing my reaction. I kept moving right, but it was getting tougher and tougher to get the hammer to face up as the oil moved off the heads and down to the back end. I eventually pulled out the Excaliber, and immediately went back to where I started with the Hammer. Excaliber didn't read the carrydown, and gave me a reasonable shot to the pocket. Down on the rolloff pair, none of the right handers had resin, and they were shooting 150-175 but couldn't stay with a poor lefty who came from the 5 spot. I took my excaliber down to the pair and won with a little 200 game over the lefty.
Bottom line resin changed the game by allowing us lower rev guys to play in the oil and open up the track like we did with plastic years earlier rather than chasing a back end reaction. The power guys hated it at first until they learned how to jack up their ball speeds, and follow the oil way in to angles they wouldn't have thought of playing with urethane.
-
Trust this ICDM, we ain't going back.
I don't want everyone to be forced to "go back"
I would prefer to see USBC create something similar to sports league, but rather than concentrate on increasing the minimum amount of oil on the lane compared to a THS, just reduce the ratio requirement, and bring back, the awards for bowling on the more difficult pattern.
I bowled in a sports league. The problem was it was at 8 am on a Sunday morning about 30 minutes from my house. I'm not a morning person, and the approaches didn't seem to be cleaned after the moonlight bowling Saturday night.
On days I could slide, using the few modern balls I had (Storm Byte, Marvel-S) I would achieve too much back end reaction, and on days I couldn't slide, I had to walk so slow, I had to essentially throw my spare ball release at the pocket and pray for lucky strikes.
-
Personally I would have nipped this reactive resin thing in the bud, back in the early 90's.
Protecting the integrity of the sport means not allowing any changes that drastically alter the balance between skill and scoring.
Using whatever the equivalent to the throw bot was back then, you can determine if the ball scores higher while making the bot less consistent with t's accuracy.
The same for allowable oil patterns.
Improvements in scoring that come from humans using better techniques is acceptable.
Improved scoring strictly from technology, is not acceptable, it leads to an arms race, which is not in the best interest of the bowler.
In my opinion reactive resin balls are a cancer on the sport of bowling, and the ball manufacturers are bowling's equivalent of tobacco companies.
Reactive resin balls brought along more oil on the lane allowing the oil to guide the ball, which brought cores that flare to allow the ball to hook when it exits the oil, and cover stocks to absorb the oil the ball picks up because the bowler is too lazy to wipe the ball off.
Even if the USBC wanted to crack down on oil patterns, the reactive resin balls do so much "damage" to the oil pattern, the inspection process would be hard pressed to determine if the lane was originally oiled in compliance.
I would like to see the sport of bowling as opposed to the game of bowling (i.e. the THS) go to less oil on the lane, so the oil doesn't guide the ball, rather than the current sport patterns which reduce scores by flooding the lanes so most people can't achieve any back end motion, and therefore have no interest in bowling sport conditions.
The benefits of less oil, is reduced costs for the proprietor, less costs for the bowlers because the ball needed for less oil is the less expensive ball, the lower end balls don't eat up the oil pattern so the shot isn't changing every 10-15 minutes, and finally if you want to improve, there isn't a "magic ball", you need to go out and practice, which again benefits the proprietor.
The average Joe can get back end reaction, but getting it to the pocket without the guiding oil takes more skill.
The result is, scores return to being correlated to skill, and spare shooting becomes an important part of the game again.
You forgot to tell everyone to get of your lawn also.
I find it amazing there are still people who feel bowling is better off in the stone ages. And besides, what makes "your" view of what bowling should be the standard? No resin??? In that case, lets go to shellac. Lets go to wooden bowling balls. Let's go to pinboys and get rid of automatic pinsetters.
It is unrealistic to expect a sport to stop in its tracks technology-wise, I dare you to name any other sport that has done so.
-
You forgot to tell everyone to get of your lawn also.
I find it amazing there are still people who feel bowling is better off in the stone ages. And besides, what makes "your" view of what bowling should be the standard? No resin??? In that case, lets go to shellac. Lets go to wooden bowling balls. Let's go to pinboys and get rid of automatic pinsetters.
It is unrealistic to expect a sport to stop in its tracks technology-wise, I dare you to name any other sport that has done so.
In most sports the advances come from technology used in training the athlete, not in the technology in the equipment used.
What equipment technology is used in Baseball to improve their performance?
Are the infields made different so it's easier to run the bases?
Does the modern glove make it easier to catch balls now?
How about Basketball?
Did they increase the size of the hoop to make shooting easier?
Did they lower to rim, so more Spuds can dunk?
It's fine if scores go up because athletes improve technique.
When everyone from juniors to seniors averages goes up, thats not improved technique, thats softer conditions.
-
this has gotten off topic. Time to lock the topic.
-
this has gotten off topic. Time to lock the topic.
Yeah it's off topic, mainly because the topic itself didn't have legs.
Change the topic, or fork it into a different thread.
Locking the thread is like telling people to shut up... it's plain rude.