Author Topic: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals? (Read 23162 times)

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?

milorafferty · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2016, 10:33:29 AM »

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on March 17, 2016, 10:24:52 AM

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

amyers2002 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2016, 10:35:15 AM »

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.

milorafferty · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2016, 10:40:50 AM »

Quote from: amyers2002 on March 17, 2016, 10:35:15 AM

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.

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.

morpheus · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2016, 10:44:33 AM »

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on March 17, 2016, 10:13:05 AM

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.

trash heap · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2016, 10:50:02 AM »

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.

avabob · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2016, 10:53:02 AM »

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.

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2016, 11:08:46 AM »

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.

morpheus · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2016, 11:15:50 AM »

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.

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #24 on:** March 17, 2016, 11:24:22 AM »

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.

tkkshop · « **Reply #25 on:** March 17, 2016, 11:30:34 AM »

Quote from: milorafferty on March 17, 2016, 10:40:50 AM

Quote from: amyers2002 on March 17, 2016, 10:35:15 AM
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.

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.

Bowler19525 · « **Reply #26 on:** March 17, 2016, 11:32:16 AM »

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.

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #27 on:** March 17, 2016, 11:35:31 AM »

Quote from: Bowler19525 on March 17, 2016, 11:32:16 AM

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.

michelle · « **Reply #28 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:01:23 PM »

Quote from: Bowler19525 on March 17, 2016, 09:25:16 AM

Quote from: WOWZERS on March 17, 2016, 09:11:45 AM
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.

Bowler19525 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:02:32 PM »

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on March 17, 2016, 11:35:31 AM

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.

Bowler19525 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:04:33 PM »

Quote from: michelle on March 17, 2016, 12:01:23 PM

Quote from: Bowler19525 on March 17, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
Quote from: WOWZERS on March 17, 2016, 09:11:45 AM
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.

Author Topic: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals? (Read 23162 times)

Juggernaut

If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

milorafferty

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

amyers2002

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

milorafferty

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

morpheus

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

trash heap

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

avabob

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

Gene J Kanak

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

morpheus

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

Gene J Kanak

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

tkkshop

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

Bowler19525

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

Gene J Kanak

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

michelle

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

Bowler19525

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

Bowler19525

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?