Any ball listed with a diff of 0.060 if tested across a series of product will fail. Manufacturers know this, USBC knows this. That's what makes this a bad decision by usbc.

No....it is a bad decision by a manufacturer to produce a product that sits on the line of max allowed and does not allow for any tolerance. If you, as a manufacturer cannot ensure that there will not be any tolerance exceeding a rule, then you should not produce whatever it is at that level. As we have all said....01 diff means what...nothing, right? Well, maybe an inch. Maybe. So if that is true, and as a Motiv owner/manager, if you know your cores can create a finished product variance of +/- .015...then shoot for a target of .058, which means the finished product could be anywhere from .0595 at a max to .0565 at a min. Then you have not exceeded the rules and regs set in place and the ball reaction diff is basically nil.

Oh wow if manufacturers knew then yea should most definitely hang out in a safer number to avoid penalties.

I am with wowzers on this.

take the Americans with disabilities Act (ADA).  ADA prescribes for sidewalks and sidewalk ramps maximum grade and cross slope.  For example, a sidewalk ramp down to the cross walk can slope down to the cross walk at a grade not exceeding 2%.

at 2.01%, you are illegal.  by federal law.  no person, regardless of their physical abilities, will ever know the difference between 2% and 2.01% and about the only way to know it is with digital smart levels.  2.01% is still illegal and will be removed and the ramp replaced, as many times as it takes to meet the spec set forth.

I have no sympathy for Motiv; their lack of QA/QC in manufacturing lead to this.

I do have sympathy for the bowlers, they didn't create this mess.  But banning the balls is correct decision. 

if you are not going to enforce the rule, then don't have the rule.

USBC had no other choice. The balls were found to be out of spec by a percentage that was too large to ignore, and the balls HAD to be banned. PERIOD.

 Everybody needs to understand that if the USBC failed to ban the non-conforming equipment, after being made proveably aware of both its existence AND its illegality, they open themselves up to lawsuits by the other manufacturers.

 I believe that USBC's hands were tied in all this. They have a concrete rule that sets the limit for manufacturing standards. They could've made it softer by having it worded differently, but it isn't. In the rule, there is no allowance for tolerances above the absolute limit, nor are there any time limits set for it to fall into a statute of limitations type category either. Theoretically, the USBC could go back and do testing on ANY ball, from ANY time period, and revoke the certification if that ball model does not meet the specs for balls manufactured at that time.

 Could they have softened the blow considerably by exploring their alternatives for enforcement? Possibly.

 Were they obligated to do so?  Absolutely not.

 I used to be a machinist. I understand exactly how small a variance of .ooo4 and .oo16 are. I am also a practical human, and as such, realize that there are NO humans alive that are capable if discerning a difference that small by ANY purely physical/tactile means. Humans are just not that capable. Not only that, but the difference would be so negligible that the Throbot wouldn't even be able to make that much difference count, and you can tune that thing to the nth degree.

 It isn't about whether .ooo4 or .oo16 makes any practical difference though, it is about a concrete rule that the manufacturer was WELL aware of, and one that they decided to push to the limit as best they could. Sadly, their best wasn't quite good enough, and the limit was breached, and the rule was broken. It didn't HAVE to be broken, but that was a risk the manufacturer took. They gambled with a product, and they lost.

 The LAW is concrete. You get found in violation of the law, doesn't matter by how much, only that you were past the limit. Even ignorance of said limit is not an excuse, and MOTIV can't even claim that.

 If the USBC failed to enforce their own rules against a manufacturer for creating products out of spec, and allowed continued use and manufacture of said out of spec products, they open themselves up to multiple lawsuits from every competing manufacturer in that market.

 The USBC, I believe, cannot, must not, and will not change this ruling. If they were to do so, much/most of your sanction money will go to court costs, trying to defend themselves in the resulting lawsuits.

 I REALLY HATE THIS FOR MOTIV. And I hate it for the people out there who have purchased this ball in good faith, and now are not able to use it "legally" in sanctioned competition, but that is the way it is, and the way it should be.

 There are not now, nor will there be, any winners in this for the involved parties. The USBC will be seen as tyrannical because of its ruling, MOTIV will be seen as untrustworthy and irresponsible, and the bowlers will see themselves as the scapegoats in all of this.

 The only winner/s in this are the other manufacturers, and I'm pretty sure this was brought to the light by one of them in the first place. You can call it "dirty pool" if you want to, but if I was another manufacturer and had found out about it, I would've done EXACTLY the same thing.

 And so would the rest of you, and you know it.  It's a cutthroat world out there, and you have to step up and take responsibility for you and your actions. Motiv's actions were lacadaisical towards their quality control, and now they must take full responsibility for that.

USBC had no other choice. The balls were found to be out of spec by a percentage that was too large to ignore, and the balls HAD to be banned. PERIOD.

 Everybody needs to understand that if the USBC failed to ban the non-conforming equipment, after being made proveably aware of both its existence AND its illegality, they open themselves up to lawsuits by the other manufacturers.

 I believe that USBC's hands were tied in all this. They have a concrete rule that sets the limit for manufacturing standards. They could've made it softer by having it worded differently, but it isn't. In the rule, there is no allowance for tolerances above the absolute limit, nor are there any time limits set for it to fall into a statute of limitations type category either. Theoretically, the USBC could go back and do testing on ANY ball, from ANY time period, and revoke the certification if that ball model does not meet the specs for balls manufactured at that time.

 Could they have softened the blow considerably by exploring their alternatives for enforcement? Possibly.

 Were they obligated to do so?  Absolutely not.

 I used to be a machinist. I understand exactly how small a variance of .ooo4 and .oo16 are. I am also a practical human, and as such, realize that there are NO humans alive that are capable if discerning a difference that small by ANY purely physical/tactile means. Humans are just not that capable. Not only that, but the difference would be so negligible that the Throbot wouldn't even be able to make that much difference count, and you can tune that thing to the nth degree.

 It isn't about whether .ooo4 or .oo16 makes any practical difference though, it is about a concrete rule that the manufacturer was WELL aware of, and one that they decided to push to the limit as best they could. Sadly, their best wasn't quite good enough, and the limit was breached, and the rule was broken. It didn't HAVE to be broken, but that was a risk the manufacturer took. They gambled with a product, and they lost.

 The LAW is concrete. You get found in violation of the law, doesn't matter by how much, only that you were past the limit. Even ignorance of said limit is not an excuse, and MOTIV can't even claim that.

 If the USBC failed to enforce their own rules against a manufacturer for creating products out of spec, and allowed continued use and manufacture of said out of spec products, they open themselves up to multiple lawsuits from every competing manufacturer in that market.

 The USBC, I believe, cannot, must not, and will not change this ruling. If they were to do so, much/most of your sanction money will go to court costs, trying to defend themselves in the resulting lawsuits.

 I REALLY HATE THIS FOR MOTIV. And I hate it for the people out there who have purchased this ball in good faith, and now are not able to use it "legally" in sanctioned competition, but that is the way it is, and the way it should be.

 There are not now, nor will there be, any winners in this for the involved parties. The USBC will be seen as tyrannical because of its ruling, MOTIV will be seen as untrustworthy and irresponsible, and the bowlers will see themselves as the scapegoats in all of this.

 The only winner/s in this are the other manufacturers, and I'm pretty sure this was brought to the light by one of them in the first place. You can call it "dirty pool" if you want to, but if I was another manufacturer and had found out about it, I would've done EXACTLY the same thing.

 And so would the rest of you, and you know it.  It's a cutthroat world out there, and you have to step up and take responsibility for you and your actions. Motiv's actions were lacadaisical towards their quality control, and now they must take full responsibility for that.

In the absence of facts, people will make up their own. For me, the fundamental problem here is lack of transparency which speaks volumes about the certification and field testing process...or lack there of. Again, this core has been in production for over 4 years across different balls and the field testing process never found balls out of compliance? So now I question the integrity of the organization that took the most damaging penalty possible for their members and Motiv and has provided no quantitative facts about the process other than balls were over the limit. I do think there were other options available that would have resulted in a better outcome for membership while holding Motiv accountable, but again we don't have all the facts because the USBC is not transparent with the members it claims to serve.

Morph...

The reason (my opinion) people did not care about the core previously, or the balls that had the core, is because no Motiv ball won 2 consecutive PBA Majors.

2 BIG wins, draws more attention, more companies try to imitate what you are doing to be successful.

Just like Ebo did with the Track Heat in the 90s, I bet the other companies bought some Carnages to put them through a test to see what they could figure out, saw the ball exceeded USBC regs, and we are now where we are.

I would wager that if the Carnage did not win, or maybe won just one of the 2 Majors, we would still be using our Jackals today. 

If what you say is true, they're applying the rules selectively rather than in a uniform way across all manufacturers. So taking that to its natural conclusion, how many other balls were out of spec that were either never field tested or swept under the rug? If there aren't sufficient facts to support a fair and unbiased certification process, including field testing, then Motiv has an extremely good case in a court of law.

Personal opinion, we don't know how many other times other companies have complained about a ball being out of spec, but, given that no other ball has ever been removed, no company has ever been caught producing a ball out of spec after it had submitted a ball conforming to the specs.

The ONLY way to guarantee every ball conforms to USBC specs, is to field test every ball. Considering the charge is someone had to send a case (or whatever) of Jackals to the USBC to get this moving, I think we can all agree there is no field testing of any ball.

I think there needs to be field testing of every ball from every company. But, that will cost money, and are we, as sanctioned bowlers of the USBC, ready to hand over an extra $X to the USBC just to field test bowling balls?

 

You don't have to test every ball, but there should be a documented uniform process applied to any ball within a certain range of the specifications outlined by the USBC so all manufacturers are treated fairly. If it turns out that balls anonymously arrived at their door with a note,  that's an indictment of the current process which leads me to believe there is no uniform field testing process calling into question the credibility of the certification process as a whole. I'm sure Motiv is exploring it's legal options, but would likely have to go to court to discover the facts and demand records for all field testing.

Kid,

if the balls tested by USBC were slightly over the 0.060 and allowed to pass, that would have been a USBC failure.

but isn't it just as likely that the balls Motiv sent to USBC for certification were meticulously crafted and inspected to ensure they met the spec?  that they were 'perfect'?

When a burger chain shows us an ad on TV for their newest offering, do any of the ones we buy look like the one on TV?  The answer would be no.  They take extra care making the one for the ad to showcase the burger.