3 balls fail testing before the show and the lane man fired after the show

PBA just put out a notice, all pre 2020 Urethane balls are not allowed.

There is talk that more rules are to follow, but it's been communicated to national PBA members and all signed up to WSOB if your urethane is from before 2020, you can't use it.

Quote from: themagician on March 02, 2022, 08:53:38 PM

PBA just put out a notice, all pre 2020 Urethane balls are not allowed.

There is talk that more rules are to follow, but it's been communicated to national PBA members and all signed up to WSOB if your urethane is from before 2020, you can't use it.

The questions to ask:

• Is this is based off of manufacturer's date, URD, or USBC Approved list date? That will make a difference as to what could be used.
• Is this a rolling two years, or a static two years? In 2024, will this ban effect balls (based on #1 above) made/released in 2022?
• If this is based on hardness, will balls made prior to 2020 that pass the hardness test still be banned? Read: old school Fab Hammers, Rhinos, U2, U-Dots, etc.
• will the USBC also adopt this change? If so, overseas balls will be affected.
  
• This is currently main tour. will this be going blanket across all PBA tours (PBA50, PBA60, PBA Juniors, etc.)?

Lots of questions here that do not have any answers yet, and hopefully they get clarified. Otherwise, this could be a rather nasty slippery slope that could limit most people to catalog balls and nothing OEM/overseas/limited stock.

BL.

So initial rule is balls manufactured before 2020. The verbiage sounds like moving forward would be any urethane ball that's 2 years old or more won't be allowed, and it is based on manufactured date. Other than that I got nothing, this is just PBA National tour for now.

I sure am glad I sold all my inventory last spring. 

Unless they are trying to get rid of urethane as suggested, why make this difficult?  There is a hardness spec.  If a ball fails, it can't be used, period.  In the past the guys used to drill a bunch of new balls each week.  If their current urethane balls fails, drill up another.  If it's not available, tough.  Why have a rule and allow some to skirt past it?  Lots of people have had balls be declared unusable at the ABC/USBC nationals tournament, usually for static weights.

I didn't know that.  I wonder why they started recently?  If it were only for the majors, why didn't they test those in past years?  Anyway, if it's a rule and a ball failed, it shouldn't have allowed to be used, period.  Either enforce the rule or get rid of it (or change it), but until you do, it should be enforced.

This issue was discussed thoroughly on last night's Sweep the Rack podcast.  Some very interesting things came out of that discussion.

1. The three Purple Hammers that failed the hardness test were "Kentucky" balls from 2016/2017.  When they failed, they were confiscated.

2.  Mitch Beasley posted on Facebook that there was a batch of Kentucky Purple Hammers in a specific serial number range that were manufactured too soft, and tested in the 60's for hardness.  Due to the actions of a "bad employee", they made it out of the factory and were shipped.  Mitch also alleges that there are bowlers that actively seek out balls that fall in the serial number range so they can have the softer covers.

Now, getting back to the USBC's latest statement which was not mentioned on the podcast (the urethane ball study was, however.)  The USBC has been aware that urethane softens over time, but then stabilizes after a certain amount of time.  If the USBC is aware of this, and knows that all urethane balls soften to a level well below the minimum hardness requirement when new, why would they continue to approve any urethane ball?  If that is the case, the argument could easily be made that balls should not be deemed illegal simply because of age.  Are we going to reach a point in USBC competition where a urethane ball tests at 68D, but is still legal due to age?  The USBC's statement seems to condone the softening below minimum due to age.

Increasing the minimum hardness spec to 73D as of 8/1/22 doesn't do anything to address the issue.  If 72D urethane balls are already dropping below 70D due to age, increasing the starting hardness to 73D isn't going to stop that from happening.

Ultimately this whole issue is just pointless.  A human still has to be able to accurately and consistently throw a ball.  As they say, "it isn't the ball, it's the bowler."  If these urethane balls were really causing that much havoc on tour, you would be seeing bowlers every week winning the championship using urethane.  I don't see urethane winning each and every week.  It may be in the hands of people in match play, but it isn't in the champion's hand every week.

The PBA made the best decision they could to address the problem.  It simply means that Simo won't be using his Roto Grip Grenade any longer.  The Kentucky Purple Hammers are out of play.  No more Hot Cells, early Mixes, Pitch Blacks or Pitch Blues, etc.  Tommy Jones was using a U-Motion for spares in the ToC.  That is still legal but only by a couple of months.  The PBA equipment truck is going to be really busy the next couple of tournaments.  Hope the ball companies get it stocked up with fresh urethane

This isn't a urethane issue, it's a purple hammer issue.  The way I see it is the problem is the company that is the biggest supporter of competitive bowling, Storm, doesn't have a ball that matches up against the purple hammer.