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!

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: ITZPS on March 18, 2016, 12:15:32 PM

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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