The info for the jackals was supposed to be up today...just checked and nothing.

 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.

 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.

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.

I have always supported (voted) to keep the three winter leagues I bowl in sanctioned.
Not sure anymore.

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.

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?

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.