BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: 12XSECH on March 23, 2016, 03:42:06 PM
-
The info for the jackals was supposed to be up today...just checked and nothing.
-
Check now...they have an update. Or just read the topic showing new info.
-
It's not tomorrow yet is it?
-
This is the statment made by MOTIV and will be posted on their website.:
At MOTIV, we are always focused on our customers and working hard to give bowlers the opportunity to reach their full potential on the lanes. As you are no doubt aware, the USBC made a ruling on March 15, 2016 to immediately revoke the approval previously granted to the Motiv Jackal Carnage and original Jackal balls, stating they determined the balls do not comply with current USBC specifications and requirements. We are in the process of requesting more information from the USBC and wanting to ask them many questions so that we can better understand the details behind their decision and determine the next steps to address this situation.
We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and trouble that this situation has caused so many of you, our loyal and valued customers, and we want you to know that we are working diligently around the clock to arrive at a fair and reasonable resolution. We sincerely appreciate the huge outpouring of support for Motiv and your belief in us.
We understand that people want answers and action now, and please understand that it is our objective to get this situation addressed as soon as possible. We believe that both balls should be reinstated on the USBC Approved Ball List, and we are reaching out to the USBC to have meaningful, effective dialogue to resolve this matter together in a manner that is best for all those affected by the USBC's decision and ruling, especially you the bowlers, pro shops, bowling alleys, and enthusiasts. Therefore, we ask for your patience as we continue to work toward this goal.
Understandably, pro shops and bowlers are asking for specific answers about a ball replacement process. Please understand that we cannot provide those details yet as we hope to communicate directly with the USBC as well as finish reviewing each country's legislation and consider the proper procedure for each. Once we have further information and details, which we expect very soon, we will let everyone know and provide you with details on how to proceed.
In the meantime, please hold onto your Jackal and/or Jackal Carnage bowling ball. Do not destroy, discard, or damage the ball in any way.
Thank you very much for your support, patience, and understanding during this very difficult time.
-
I can't WAIT for them to come to an agreement to grandfather the Jackals in and cease production until the core can be retooled, and hear all the people upset they aren't getting a new ball for free now because they couldn't use their Jackal for a couple weeks . .
-
I can't WAIT for them to come to an agreement to grandfather the Jackals in and cease production until the core can be retooled, and hear all the people upset they aren't getting a new ball for free now because they couldn't use their Jackal for a couple weeks . .
This would be my favorite outcome. Nothing else in Motiv's lineup cleanly fits something that's missing in my bag. I've never actually thrown my Carnage either, it had just gotten drilled the Friday before the announcement and I was going to try it out in league that Tuesday night. :(
-
If the Jackals are consistently testing out at greater than .060 diff for both models, I don't think grandfathering is the right call.
However, on the other hand, I would rather be able to use my Jackals in sanctioned play than get replacement balls and then either have to pay to get the replacement balls drilled or have a PSO give labor and/or product away for free.
-
I can't WAIT for them to come to an agreement to grandfather the Jackals in and cease production until the core can be retooled, and hear all the people upset they aren't getting a new ball for free now because they couldn't use their Jackal for a couple weeks . .
That's what should happen. We hope against hope it will happen, but both you and I know the USBC will never recant. Again, just like the Glenn Allison case.
-
OMG...This is beginning to sound like the run-a-round. the usbc will not reapprove these balls....Do they want to look dumber then they already look. Might as well just throw them in the trash...the word "dialog" means forever in legal terms.
-
The tolerance used to be .080, and when it was reduced to .060, all balls now illegal were grandfathered in, so there are balls still in use out there with differentials in the .070s. Whether by change of rules, or mistake or oversight by USBC, the Jackals were approved originally. It's such a slight and marginal difference that is literally not noticeable. What if it turns out USBC didn't do their due diligence in approval? The original Jackals were testing out a full thousandth higher than the Carnages, so if the Jackals have been coming out over spec, how on earth did the Carnage get approved in the first place? Same core, same core molds. If the Jackals were over, the Carnages HAD to have been also.
If the Jackals are consistently testing out at greater than .060 diff for both models, I don't think grandfathering is the right call.
However, on the other hand, I would rather be able to use my Jackals in sanctioned play than get replacement balls and then either have to pay to get the replacement balls drilled or have a PSO give labor and/or product away for free.
-
True, but there may be a legal precedent here. If USBC was negligent and approved balls that were in fact illegal because they weren't doing their due diligence, or their processes were unfair, or unlawful, they may in turn be held liable for the cost of all the replacements. If all the sudden USBC gets the bill for 1 million plus, it may be a VERY different story.
I can't WAIT for them to come to an agreement to grandfather the Jackals in and cease production until the core can be retooled, and hear all the people upset they aren't getting a new ball for free now because they couldn't use their Jackal for a couple weeks . .
That's what should happen. We hope against hope it will happen, but both you and I know the USBC will never recant. Again, just like the Glenn Allison case.
-
I just looked on motivbowling.com and didnt see an update...Did they take it down already?
-
Hopefully Motiv sues the usbc and wins...This smelled like crap from day 1. BUT that being said....I think we can forget about replacement balls...
-
No. It's still there. They're taking e-mail addresses to send updates.
-
12XSECH, there's a lot more to this than just a couple of balls being out of spec and yeah it really stinks.
-
What page on their site is it on?
-
What page on their site is it on?
It's the same slide on their home page as what they put up last week, it just brings you to a different news announcement. Otherwise you can go to the news and events link under the Motivnation area at the top of the page.
-
Hopefully Motiv sues the usbc and wins...This smelled like crap from day 1. BUT that being said....I think we can forget about replacement balls...
If that happens, the geniuses in Arlington will probably raise sanctioning to $30....lmao.
-
IT
Somewhere I had said it is legal for me to buy an AMB Centaur (any of the 3) a Super Carbide Bomb, Immortal, and drill any or all of them up and be legal, and they all have a diff greater than .060, it is just that they were all approved and produced under the old rules.
-
IT
Somewhere I had said it is legal for me to buy an AMB Centaur (any of the 3) a Super Carbide Bomb, Immortal, and drill any or all of them up and be legal, and they all have a diff greater than .060, it is just that they were all approved and produced under the old rules.
Isn't that so twistedly ironic, like to a serious degree???
Funny, I just sold an old, New-in-box Visionary AMB Centaur Solid 16 lb. to a friend who tells me it flares a TON!
-
Exactly CharlesT.
-
Sound like Motiv's lawyers plans to fight the USBC based on past ball grandfathering approvals that have previously been mentioned many times on various forums.
Personally I suspected Motiv wasn't going to take a $1M+ hit without a fight.
Does not mean they will be successful, but I applaud them for not rolling over. The illegal spec. difference is minute and did not result in any significant performance advantage. I wish the USBC and Motiv could have worked out an agreement/solution prior to going public, but I guess the USBC wanted to quickly show they sanctioned member they were doing their job to justify sanction fees, even though they could have picked a better situation to bury the axe in.
It will be interesting to see how this develops and what the final outcome is. Just hope it does not hold the effected bowlers hostage indefinitely.
-
We are hostages. It's coming to the end of the season...position weeks coming up etc...if you can't use your #1 ball, your at a disadvantage.
-
Not a lawyer but do t think they have a chance on the grandfathering. Different situation. The balls grandfathers were already approved and in production when they lowered the limit.
The limit was already in place for these.
Have a chance on the procurement and testing side. Where did the balls come from and how big was the sample size. Things like that.
-
Not a lawyer but do t think they have a chance on the grandfathering. Different situation. The balls grandfathers were already approved and in production when they lowered the limit.
The limit was already in place for these.
Have a chance on the procurement and testing side. Where did the balls come from and how big was the sample size. Things like that.
And variance of the testing method since most of it relies on procedures done by hand, with measurements no where near as fine as 10000ths of an inch.
-
Aircraft parts have a variance in specs....but with the usbc 1/1000 off calls for ban.....it just proves that they are as underhanded as our government. Backdoor bribes, payoffs, shady deals etc....Dont be shocked if this is the beginning or the end for these morons. At this point I dont care if I get a replacement ball, I want Motiv to go after them with all they got. The usbc has to show a precedence of this kind of ruling and I dont think they can.
-
Not a lawyer but do t think they have a chance on the grandfathering. Different situation. The balls grandfathers were already approved and in production when they lowered the limit.
The limit was already in place for these.
Have a chance on the procurement and testing side. Where did the balls come from and how big was the sample size. Things like that.
And variance of the testing method since most of it relies on procedures done by hand, with measurements no where near as fine as 10000ths of an inch.
The only problem with your logic is that every manufacturer's bowling balls are measured using the same, industry accepted, way. That sets a standard. It is also in the rules that USBC has the right to make this determination.
-
Not a lawyer but do t think they have a chance on the grandfathering. Different situation. The balls grandfathers were already approved and in production when they lowered the limit.
The limit was already in place for these.
Have a chance on the procurement and testing side. Where did the balls come from and how big was the sample size. Things like that.
And variance of the testing method since most of it relies on procedures done by hand, with measurements no where near as fine as 10000ths of an inch.
The only problem with your logic is that every manufacturer's bowling balls are measured using the same, industry accepted, way. That sets a standard. It is also in the rules that USBC has the right to make this determination.
Fair enough....then let them show the field testing done on the Hammer Taboo series. Or the Raptor series. Or provide the validation report on the sensitivity testing of their method.
If you pulled random samples of any bowling ball, there will be the same variance, yet they get to claim the number on the box. in front of a judge, they will not be able to demonstrate the accuracy of their measurement (i.e., sensitivity).
Selective enforcement does not fly. It is arbitrary and capricious. And with an inability to demonstrate VALIDATED sensitivity to the levels being discussed, then they would have a problem. This is why EVERY manufacturing industry has an allowable range of variance in products manufactured; including heavily regulated industries.
-
It is readily apparent that NOTHING that ANY entity does will ever appease the OP's incessant need to complain about how something gets handled. It was apparent in the thread about lane certification when they chose not to respond to a pointed question regarding WHY they believed the lanes to be non-compliant. And now we see they are upset because an entity wants to actually make sure they have the t's crossed and the lower-case j's dotted properly...such is the way of life in the corporate world when something occurs. In a non-litigious society, you might have seen a different outcome on the Motiv side of the equation...but with the too-easy access to frivolous litigation, companies, especially SMALL companies, are going to measure words carefully and with more precision than was apparently used in checking tolerances on the product they sold.
-
>> We are hostages. It's coming to the end of the season...position weeks coming up etc...if you can't use your #1 ball, your at a disadvantage.
The Motiv Revolt Vengeance is more than good enough to be your #1 bowling ball for your Typical House Shot (THS) lane pattern. Using a Jackal or Carnage on THS is not a necessity. I use my Revolt Vengeance in three different THS leagues each with a slightly different THS lane pattern and that ball works great.
-
If you test many balls, it should be apparent that variations of the magnitude at issue are pretty common in the production run of any company. Rules are rules, but even in the most absolute sense there should be a materiality consideration. It would be interesting to see the minimum amount of change in differential that would produce a change in measurable track flare when thrown by a test machine. My guess is that it would be significantly more than the variances in production balls manufactured to a targeted specification.
-
If the balls being tested are illegal, no matter by how much, they have to be removed from competition immediately. If I foul by 1/1000 of an inch is it ok? Clearly there would be no advantage gained by doing so. If my ball is 1/8th of an ounce over 16 pounds is it ok? Clearly that 1/8th of an ounce would be of no advantage. You see where I'm going with this, there are hard numbers that need to be followed, not almost followed.
-
If the balls being tested are illegal, no matter by how much, they have to be removed from competition immediately. If I foul by 1/1000 of an inch is it ok? Clearly there would be no advantage gained by doing so. If my ball is 1/8th of an ounce over 16 pounds is it ok? Clearly that 1/8th of an ounce would be of no advantage. You see where I'm going with this, there are hard numbers that need to be followed, not almost followed.
If you foul by 1/1000 of an inch (a Jackal) and it is a foul but the guy next to you fouls by 1 inch but isn't a foul (any OTHER ball with a DIFF over .060 that is "Grandfathered in") how is it fair that your foul counts and his doesn't?
Yes, dumb argument but considering these two have been banned but others with the same core (Jackal Pro, Sapphire Jackal, Raptor Series) are still allowed completely baffles me.
-
Mike: How about if you foul by .001 inch and your foul light detects it, while the guy on the also fouls by .001 inch and his foul light doesn't detect it. Not visually verifiable on either case but you get the foul.
-
If the balls being tested are illegal, no matter by how much, they have to be removed from competition immediately. If I foul by 1/1000 of an inch is it ok? Clearly there would be no advantage gained by doing so. If my ball is 1/8th of an ounce over 16 pounds is it ok? Clearly that 1/8th of an ounce would be of no advantage. You see where I'm going with this, there are hard numbers that need to be followed, not almost followed.
If you foul by 1/1000 of an inch (a Jackal) and it is a foul but the guy next to you fouls by 1 inch but isn't a foul (any OTHER ball with a DIFF over .060 that is "Grandfathered in") how is it fair that your foul counts and his doesn't?
Yes, dumb argument but considering these two have been banned but others with the same core (Jackal Pro, Sapphire Jackal, Raptor Series) are still allowed completely baffles me.
You are right, BAN them all!!!
-
You can't compare a foul to a manufacturer issue. Is every foul called in the NBA? All manufacturers have a variance in products. 1/1000th is almost not measurable. It's less then the thickness of a human hair. Remember...the Usbc are the ones who gave the approval in the first place.
-
If you foul by 1/1000 of an inch (a Jackal) and it is a foul but the guy next to you fouls by 1 inch but isn't a foul (any OTHER ball with a DIFF over .060 that is "Grandfathered in") how is it fair that your foul counts and his doesn't?
Your analogy is flawed because its based on the guys playing side by side which would mean they are playing under the same rules. Which is not the case with the balls.
The old balls were grandfathered in because the rules were changed after they had been approved, So were not penalized for violating a rule that didn't exist at the time.
The Jackals were banned because they violated the existing rules.
-
Mike: How about if you foul by .001 inch and your foul light detects it, while the guy on the also fouls by .001 inch and his foul light doesn't detect it. Not visually verifiable on either case but you get the foul.
A foul is a foul, if the foul lights are not operating properly and you foul it is still a foul, obviously someone would have to see it to call it and there might be an argument but it should still be a foul. Unless you are of the opinion that "he only fouled by a little bit, why should that be enforced, there was no advantage gained".
-
If you foul by 1/1000 of an inch (a Jackal) and it is a foul but the guy next to you fouls by 1 inch but isn't a foul (any OTHER ball with a DIFF over .060 that is "Grandfathered in") how is it fair that your foul counts and his doesn't?
Your analogy is flawed because its based on the guys playing side by side which would mean they are playing under the same rules. Which is not the case with the balls.
The old balls were grandfathered in because the rules were changed after they had been approved, So were not penalized for violating a rule that didn't exist at the time.
The Jackals were banned because they violated the existing rules.
Tell me every other ball in the Jackal and Raptor line with the same core was produced after the rule chage right? Why are those legal and these two not? Also, who cares if the older balls are ok because they are "grandfathered in" name another sport tha has a rule change for equipment specifications but still allows that equipment specification to be broken just because it was produced earlier.
My point here is that the USBC made a poor choice. Motiv is in the wrong don't twist my words but tell does the average bowler need to suffer because of a companies issue? Especially when said specification does not give any kind of competitive advantage.
-
Tell me every other ball in the Jackal and Raptor line with the same core was produced after the rule chage right?
Yes
Why are those legal and these two not?
Because those balls weren't brought into question and retested, They may well be retested in the future, they may not. But until that happens they are still approved for use.
Also, who cares if the older balls are ok because they are "grandfathered in"
Who cares about the older "grandfathered in" balls, you do. You brought them up in your analogy.
name another sport tha has a rule change for equipment specifications but still allows that equipment specification to be broken just because it was produced earlier.
As for other sports, it doesn't matter what they do. Bowling operates under bowling rules.
My point here is that the USBC made a poor choice. Motiv is in the wrong don't twist my words but tell does the average bowler need to suffer because of a companies issue? Especially when said specification does not give any kind of competitive advantage.
As for whether the USBC and Motiv made good or bad choices, everyone has a different opinion and time will tell if the decisions made were the right ones.
As for the average bowler "suffering" from this, unless that was the only ball a bowler had their not suffering squat.
The average bowler has multiple balls and if the Jackals specification does not give any kind of competitive advantage. Then any comparable ball can be use in place of the Jackals.
-
The usbc is like a paper tiger...For years they have done next to nothing except lose millions of sanctioned bowlers. They fine the most minuscule "violation" and they jump on it faster then hillary clinton can tell another lie. Their true colors are finally being shown. And who is paying for it? Us, the bowlers. I have a non usbc sanctioned tournament coming up...I'm using the Jackal.....F the usbc.
-
The usbc is like a paper tiger...For years they have done next to nothing except lose millions of sanctioned bowlers. They fine the most minuscule "violation" and they jump on it faster then hillary clinton can tell another lie. Their true colors are finally being shown. And who is paying for it? Us, the bowlers. I have a non usbc sanctioned tournament coming up...I'm using the Jackal.....F the usbc.
Out of curiosity, are you going to get a sanction card next season?
-
If you foul by 1/1000 of an inch (a Jackal) and it is a foul but the guy next to you fouls by 1 inch but isn't a foul (any OTHER ball with a DIFF over .060 that is "Grandfathered in") how is it fair that your foul counts and his doesn't?
Your analogy is flawed because its based on the guys playing side by side which would mean they are playing under the same rules. Which is not the case with the balls.
The old balls were grandfathered in because the rules were changed after they had been approved, So were not penalized for violating a rule that didn't exist at the time.
The Jackals were banned because they violated the existing rules.
Tell me every other ball in the Jackal and Raptor line with the same core was produced after the rule chage right? Why are those legal and these two not? Also, who cares if the older balls are ok because they are "grandfathered in" name another sport tha has a rule change for equipment specifications but still allows that equipment specification to be broken just because it was produced earlier.
My point here is that the USBC made a poor choice. Motiv is in the wrong don't twist my words but tell does the average bowler need to suffer because of a companies issue? Especially when said specification does not give any kind of competitive advantage.
I'm sure if those other ball lines were still actively produced, they would have been rechecked.
As to the overseas versions, they've addressed that I believe. Their stance is that there aren't enough in the US distribution system to acquire to get accurate testing on those.
Would it be better if they just banned those too without ever testing them?
Motiv and the USBC are going to have to fight this out. Both sides better be able to justify their actions completely to the bowlers, who are definitely the losers in this.
If either side comes out of this looking as if they were in the wrong for fighting this, they will be made to pay by the bowlers.
-
They fine the most minuscule "violation" and they jump on it faster then hillary clinton can tell another lie.
And if they hadn't everyone would be saying how the USBC doesn't enforce the rules and/or are dragging their feet.
The USBC can't win no matter what they do.
-
Next year the league I'll be in will be NON usbc sanctioned.
-
Next year the league I'll be in will be NON usbc sanctioned.
Though we disagree, kudos to you for voting w/your wallet. If you did bash the USBC constantly like you do then join a sanctioned league that would be weak AF.......but I have to give credit where it's due to you for voicing your displeasure w/your wallet.
-
I don't agree with everything the USBC does. In fact, I think they do some not so well thought out things at times.
BUT............
How do any of you people put the "blame" for this situation on the USBC?
Y'all claim that the USBC "blindsided" Motiv by banning the two balls with no notice, yet the USBC has said that they were in contact with Motiv as far back as Feb. 26th, and Motiv has yet to refute that.
Some of you yell about "Why can't the USBC allow for manufacturing tolerances?", but that is not the USBC's problem OR responsibility. The tolerance is built in by allowing manufacturers to produce ANY differential up to, BUT NOT EXCEEDING, .060. It is not the USBC's fault OR problem that a ball manufacturer decided to push the limit so hard that they broke through. It was a manufacturing choice that MOTIV made.
The argument has also been made about how can they be "illegal" when older balls, that were approved when the standards were different, are considered "legal" while being well over the current limits. That's like asking how it is still legal to drive a polluting car from the 1950's, 60's or whenever, when we ALL know those cars would not pass todays modern standards, and would not be "legal" if produced today by today's standards, yet we CAN still drive them, even though they are outside of the current limits.
Motiv should have either decided to run the balls at .059 to allow for manufacturing error, or had a MUCH tighter control in place to make sure they stayed within the USBC limits. Many have claimed that 1/1000 doesn't make enough difference to notice, so balls made at .059 are only 1/1000 different than .060, meaning Motiv could've done that and nobody would be able to tell the difference. That would've prevented this situation from ever happening.
If I had a jackal or a carnage, I would be quite aggravated too, so I get where the anger is coming from. I just don't see how you can continue making accusations against the USBC for enforcing well known and accepted rules, and excuses for a manufacturer that either didnt care about the product or the customers who would buy it enough to ensure that the product was everything they said it was.
Now, Motiv has decided to try to get the balls re-approved instead of replacing them like they originally stated they were going to do. How long will that take, and what will they do if those efforts are unsuccessful?
If you are going to be mad at somebody, or place blame on someone, be mad at and blame the entity that created the situation by either having shoddy quality control, or just basically ignoring the set limits and leaving the end consumers holding the bag.
-
Okay, then why wasn't the announcement made on February 26th then, which was a week prior to the beginning of Nationals?
Once again, that would make too much sense.
-
Okay, then why wasn't the announcement made on February 26th then, which was a week prior to the beginning of Nationals?
Once again, that would make too much sense.
Maybe they wanted to have that "dialogue" that Motiv mentioned, and give them a chance to explain any circumstances that might have made this incident a remote accident or a limited fluke in the process. How long did that process get dragged out before the USBC was finally forced to act?
The USBC could not allow the national tournament to start with people using KNOWN non-conforming equipment, and waited for an acceptable explanation as long as they possibly could.
Granted, there are always two sides to every story, and things were NOT handled well by EITHER party involved, but the situation originates with the manufacturer, not the governing body in this instance. At least thats my take on this.
-
Rules are rules and laws are laws. Except in the law there is a difference between a felony and misdemeanor based on the severity of the crime.
USBC could have, and should have given a grace period for the balls at issue based on the hardship imposed on the innocent bowlers compared to minimal negative impact. USBC set a precedent when it grandfathered in the high diff balls from prior to the rule change. Note that this was not necessary. Rather it clearly reflected the USBC's apparent opinion that the continued use of the high diff balls already in use did not pose a serious danger to the integrity of the game. When the soft balls from Columbia were outlawed by the ABC there was no grandfathering, because it was readily apparent that the soft balls gave a considerable advantage to those who had purchased them while they were legal.
-
ps...I'll also be bowling in 2 summer leagues this summer...Neither one will be a sanctioned league. The winter league I bowl in now is sanctioned....Next year we have voted to drop the sanction as a league. So obviously I'm not the only usbc hater. and its NOT the 21 dollars. UBA is not a usbc sanctioned org and neither is the bowling federation as far as I know.
-
ps...I'll also be bowling in 2 summer leagues this summer...Neither one will be a sanctioned league. The winter league I bowl in now is sanctioned....Next year we have voted to drop the sanction as a league. So obviously I'm not the only usbc hater. and its NOT the 21 dollars. UBA is not a usbc sanctioned org and neither is the bowling federation as far as I know.
Considering that the amount the USBC collected in sanction fees went down $9.2 million from 2013 to 2014, you are not alone. And I'm almost convinced that you can add another $3700 to the till when my league votes against sanctioning as well.
I'm just waiting for the brain trust in Arlington to vote on stop bonding of the prize fund. Anyone with a brain knows that's coming next.
-
I have always supported (voted) to keep the three winter leagues I bowl in sanctioned.
Not sure anymore.
-
I have always supported (voted) to keep the three winter leagues I bowl in sanctioned.
Not sure anymore.
I was the same way until about 18 months ago.
-
I am not arguing for or against anyone to sanction, as I have said before, but trust me, if you decide to not sanction, make sure there are sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure someone does not run away with the prize money for the league. The USBC does provide insurance to replace stolen funds. Without sanction, you lose this insurance.
-
I am not arguing for or against anyone to sanction, as I have said before, but trust me, if you decide to not sanction, make sure there are sufficient checks and balances in place to ensure someone does not run away with the prize money for the league. The USBC does provide insurance to replace stolen funds. Without sanction, you lose this insurance.
And that's the next step for the USBC while they go down their road to oblivion. Wouldn't be surprised if they found a way to stop bonding the prize fund in the very near future.
All they care about is the top .5% and no one else. It just took a while for people to realize that.
In a strange way, the USBC is not that different from Wall Street. Except that Wall Street will still be around in five years. Will the USBC? Not if they keep losing sanction fees at nearly a 40% rate.
-
Rules are rules and laws are laws. Except in the law there is a difference between a felony and misdemeanor based on the severity of the crime.
USBC could have, and should have given a grace period for the balls at issue based on the hardship imposed on the innocent bowlers compared to minimal negative impact. USBC set a precedent when it grandfathered in the high diff balls from prior to the rule change. Note that this was not necessary. Rather it clearly reflected the USBC's apparent opinion that the continued use of the high diff balls already in use did not pose a serious danger to the integrity of the game. When the soft balls from Columbia were outlawed by the ABC there was no grandfathering, because it was readily apparent that the soft balls gave a considerable advantage to those who had purchased them while they were legal.
I believe the ball manufacturers had a say I how the limit was put in place and how the balls that were currently available would be handled.
They could just have easily said they wanted them banned.
These rules were not just posted one day out of the blue and forced upon the manufacturers. They had an input into them. Now Motiv may not have been a ball manufacturer at the time the rules were established, but they started producing balls knowing what the limits were.
The argument about the prior high RG balls in my opinion doesn't hold water. These are the rules EVERYONE, both the USBC and the manufacturers, settled upon.
Discussing whether there should be a grace period is fine. It's a valid point. I'm not sure if anyone has posted if the penalties for a ball being tested out of spec after certification are defined.
If not defined, then open for negotiation. But if they spell out that certification of the ball is to be revoked and the ball banned, then what should happen?
-
As to precedent, they set the precedent that balls manufactured or being manufacturered at the time of the rule implementation would be grandfathered.
This is setting the precedent of what happens if a ball goes out of spec during its production run under these rules.
-
Why do you guys keep quoting the rules? Do you work for UBSC? This core has been in production for 5 years, has been approved 5 times by USBC. No one's arguing about the rules. What happened that they are suddenly illegal? Who sent these supposed balls that said "spin me". Were these balls tampered with? Lots of questions, no answers and all we can do is sit back and see what happens.
-
Al.
There are several benefits the USBC provides, but if the USBC ever stops bonding, that would be the final death knell in my opinion.
-
Why do you guys keep quoting the rules? Do you work for UBSC? This core has been in production for 5 years, has been approved 5 times by USBC. No one's arguing about the rules. What happened that they are suddenly illegal? Who sent these supposed balls that said "spin me". Were these balls tampered with? Lots of questions, no answers and all we can do is sit back and see what happens.
Actually they are. Pointing to the balls that were grandfathered when the limit was reduced is talking about the rules.
As to why the balls went out of spec, that is for Motiv to determine.
-
Why do you guys keep quoting the rules? Do you work for UBSC? This core has been in production for 5 years, has been approved 5 times by USBC. No one's arguing about the rules. What happened that they are suddenly illegal? Who sent these supposed balls that said "spin me". Were these balls tampered with? Lots of questions, no answers and all we can do is sit back and see what happens.
Because this is a discussion forum, where we are discussing what happened. If you would like to sit back and see what happens go ahead. Nothing wrong with some of us discussing the issue. Seems kind of arbitrary to come onto a discussion forum to discourage people from discussing something :o
To your other point that rule is why this whole situation occurred, so why wouldn't we talk about it.
-
What happened that they are suddenly illegal? Who sent these supposed balls that said "spin me". Were these balls tampered with? Lots of questions, no answers and all we can do is sit back and see what happens.
The assumption is something in motiv's manufacturing process changed which led to the balls being out of spec. Even if those select balls were tampered with, which I don't know how you could, USBC pulled more samples from distributors
-
Al.
There are several benefits the USBC provides, but if the USBC ever stops bonding, that would be the final death knell in my opinion.
If they cut other things out that have been around for several generations, what would stop them from doing that?
-
12...sorry to say but I have been but any system can be beat, and I have seen this occur with a similar set-up as you describe. Just because 2 people are not on the same team does not mean that they are not friends and collude, and also does not mean someone from the house cannot collude with one or both of them. I worked in a pro shop at a bowling alley that touted using the bowling alley as a way to keep the money, and not use a bank, etc. Bowling alley makes the deposit, nobody needs to risk running to the bank, safety of someone hiding stuff....well...at the end of the year, the assistant manager that had access to all of the bowling's accounts drained every account and took off. Authorities found him months later, but there was NO money at the banquet and no bonding for a reason I forget. Further, because the asst manager drained all the bank accounts, the alley owner didn't have any funds to "replace" the money that was stolen, but there was no agreement for him to replace any missing funds either even if he had the money.
I would still advise insurance or bonding of some type, regardless. If someone wants something bad enough, he/she will take it.
-
In the leagues that will be non sanctioned...The house will be the treasurer and will need 2 league member who are not house employees or relatives to sign checks or make withdrawls. 1 signature belongs to the house, the other 2 signatures are league members who are not on the same team and are not related. Its actually very simple. The usbc is NOT needed to protect league money as long as precautions are put in place. If someone bowls their 1st 300 or 800, they can buy their own ring if they want to. Far to many people think the usbc is the lordship of bowling. They are shit, plain and simple...who are they and who put them in charge? F the usbc and all their shady deals.
And when someone from the house runs off with your money, the house is NOT obligated to take money out of its own pocket put it back into your prize fund. Yes, the USBC would if the rules were followed. I won't bowl in an unsanctioned league. Too many crooks, druggies and gamblers these days looking to steal money. I read about it all the time.
-
Exactly right AMF...and the problem is, we have no idea who might or will be the next one to make the news. It does happen WAY too often, and I am not willing to take that risk.
I have read at the minimum of 2 articles a week about someone getting charged with embezzlement from work, from the local school, the PIE (parents in education) fund at the school, whatever. It happens ALL the time. Systems get beat all the time. New systems can be beat. Unless there is insurance, why take a risk?
-
In the leagues that will be non sanctioned...The house will be the treasurer and will need 2 league member who are not house employees or relatives to sign checks or make withdrawls. 1 signature belongs to the house, the other 2 signatures are league members who are not on the same team and are not related. Its actually very simple. The usbc is NOT needed to protect league money as long as precautions are put in place. If someone bowls their 1st 300 or 800, they can buy their own ring if they want to. Far to many people think the usbc is the lordship of bowling. They are shit, plain and simple...who are they and who put them in charge? F the usbc and all their shady deals.
While I agree with a very large portion of what you say, there is one area that the USBC is protecting the game.
If you left everything up to the owners, you could have things like pins being spotted closer together in increase scoring, gutter at the pin deck being so shallow that everything the hits the side boards comes back into play.
Making the lane less flat to guide even grandma's ball to the center of the lane.
Pretty soon, they've turned it into the equivalent of miniature golf.
-
IC, The lanes will still be up to standards. There are other leagues that will be sanctioned there...The house will not adjust pinsetters just to increase scores....As far as the money goes...If enough precautions are put in place the money cannot be stolen. If it means there has to be 6 different signatures then thats what it will be... If all 6 people have to show up at the bank at the same time with photo ID to withdraw money...Thats what it will have to be. I'm not a bonding agent but if that has to be done, Im sure it can be done. Ask the UBA and Federation bowlers how many times they have been ripped off...I dont think at all, not that I heard about anyway. The usbc does not own bowling. They are a crooked establishment with no transparency.
-
So someone at the bank couldn't collude with someone from the bowling alley or the league to go around the need for extra signatures, because you are placing your faith in the bank to ensure they get those signatures.
I can answer that as I am a Risk Manager at a major national bank.
The answer is yes. We have prosecuted tellers who looked the other way or was in on the heist and went around the asks of the account.
So go ahead and set it up with EVERYONE in the league needing to sign. All it takes is for one person at the bank to "look" past this requirement and all the security measures in the world DO NOT MATTER.
Unless you have insurance of course.
I never said you should use or have to use the USBC. All I have stated is if you go the route to not use the USBC, make sure you get insurance or bonding or whatever is needed to ensure the league gets the money back in the event someone steals the $$.
-
IC, The lanes will still be up to standards. There are other leagues that will be sanctioned there...The house will not adjust pinsetters just to increase scores..
Really - True story - several years ago, I had to take a business trip to PA. I took 2 balls and shoes with me as I was bowling nationals the following week and wanted to practice since I was out of town all week. I looked up the nearest bowling alley in the phone book which was a small town about 20 miles away from where I was staying. (Not a big metro city). Drove there and walked into a nice old school 12 lane house. Got a lane and threw a ball (lefty). The ball immediately hooked into the gutter. The owner who was bowling league at the other end of the house walked over and said, oh, didn't realize you were a lefty. We don't have any lefties in town so I don't oil the left side to save money. I asked where the next closest bowling alley was. He said an hour south.
I have bowled in bowling alley's where the oil man cut the buffer on the machine so it oiled 10-10 (old century machine).
In small town America, it's not so plain and simple as you want to make it out to be.
-
I live in "Big city" America...Long Island...Oiling half of the lane has never happened here and will never happen...Although I can see that in some small rural area....The Bank....Just like a credit card, the bank is responsible if a teller "looked the other way". Its called theft if that happens fdic insurance or bank bonding etc will cover that. Its the same as if I lost a blank check and someone signed my name..I'm not responsible for that...The bank is. If the only thing the usbc is good for is bonding prize funds, then they are not doing much. The 2 million or so bowlers that avg between 120 and 170 get nothing for their sanction...But this debate can go on for ever....
-
The money should be covered, eventually. After this and after that. But regardless, you are still acting as if everything is covered. It's not. And if you don't think the bank will try to wiggle out of it every way possible and put off any settlement, you are completely wrong.
It is that type of attitude when these things exactly occur, but by then, it is too late and now we have the next example of what to do instead of what was done.
-
IC, The lanes will still be up to standards. There are other leagues that will be sanctioned there...The house will not adjust pinsetters just to increase scores....As far as the money goes...If enough precautions are put in place the money cannot be stolen. If it means there has to be 6 different signatures then thats what it will be... If all 6 people have to show up at the bank at the same time with photo ID to withdraw money...Thats what it will have to be. I'm not a bonding agent but if that has to be done, Im sure it can be done. Ask the UBA and Federation bowlers how many times they have been ripped off...I dont think at all, not that I heard about anyway. The usbc does not own bowling. They are a crooked establishment with no transparency.
If everyone agreed the USBC was a crooked establishment, what leagues would still be sanctioned there? If none, there is no reason for annual inspections.