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.
