win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification  (Read 19729 times)

morpheus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
#AFutureForMembership #WhoDoesUSBCWorkFor

 

JustRico

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2652
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #46 on: March 20, 2016, 11:35:29 AM »
It's wreaks of conspiracy
If it hadn't of started out by a mysterious case of balls showing up at USBC with a note - spin these - attached, it may be easier to 'accept'.
At the point of how this evolved USBC should've taken a different rode as there was never precedence of this previously...other than them grand fathering the original Game Breaker core...
USBC did have a decision to make here...I believe they choice the wrong way, in many ways, to deal with this
Co-author of BowlTec's END GAMES ~ A Bowler's COMPLETE Guide to Bowling; Head Games ~ the MENTAL approach to bowling (and sports) & (r)eVolve
...where knowledge creates striking results...
BowlTEc on facebook...www.iBowlTec.com

WOWZERS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #47 on: March 20, 2016, 11:36:43 AM »
Considering the ball companies send the samples to the USBC for testing, and not the USBC randomly selects ball X and ball Y for initial certification, the ball company controls the process and the ball company can control what balls are sent, so there is a real possibility that any ball company is knowingly sending a ball that they know will pass.

I hear ya on no exacts, but show me in the USBC rule book that states a lane has to have oil from board 10 to 10, or has to have X units of oil across X number of boards. There isn't, but there is a rule about what a ball can have for an undrilled diff, a specific amount.

Just because the PSA is not 6 3/4 on every Crux does not mean that it is illegal. Just because a mass bias spot is mismarked does not make the ball illegal, or a mismarked pin, cg, or a "pro pin" or a pro cg"...but a ball with undrilled diff of .060 or greater is illegal.

MI 2 AZ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8160
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #48 on: March 20, 2016, 12:29:21 PM »
I don't believe this is the first time a ball that was approved was moved to the unapproved list.

Wasn't the Bonanza II out on the market for several months before it was made illegal?  Bowlers who had bought the ball suddenly found out that they could not use it in sanctioned competition. 

« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 12:32:53 PM by MI 2 AZ »
_________________________________________
Six decades of league bowling and still learning.

ABC/USBC Lifetime Member since Aug 1995.

WOWZERS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #49 on: March 20, 2016, 12:44:27 PM »
The problem with the Bonanzas when Columbia was producing them was we found out that not every Bonanza had the same core and some had different covers. The Bonanzas were essentially balls that Columbia had extra coverstock material or extra cores laying around that was not going to be used, so they threw them on the line and poured them. No way to know what you were getting from one ball to the next. AMF Changelings were the same way.

kidlost2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5789
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #50 on: March 20, 2016, 12:48:20 PM »
If the averages stated by usbc for the jackal and carnage are correct then I have no doubt the ones usbc tested were either over or under or both. No chance of be exact.
…… you can't  add a physics term to a bowling term and expect it to mean something.

Juggernaut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • Former good bowler, now 3 games a week house hack.
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #51 on: March 20, 2016, 12:50:47 PM »
 The Bonanza balls were fine, it was the Bonanza II that wasn't.

 The Bonanza was merely a second quality ball due to some factor, and was always the proper core/cover.

 The Bonanza II was known to have mix matched core/cover combos at times that had never been approved together as a unit.
Learn to laugh, and love, and smile, cause we’re only here for a little while.

tburky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #52 on: March 20, 2016, 01:12:35 PM »
Probably what the usbc should have done was contact motiv and say hey this what we got. Usbc should have went to the warehouse and should have picked out any ball and checked. If out of speck they should have said produce no more until the balls are back in specs. Everything made up to that point be allowed. Instead motiv is going to be probably take a $2 million hit. The thing that sucks is usbc allows centers to have no oil outside of 10 which is not legal but is allowed. Usbc needs to do their job across the board instead of selectively.

t1buck

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #53 on: March 20, 2016, 01:40:39 PM »
From board 2 to 2 must have at least 3 units of oil an that is in the USBC Spec for certification.  Sorry they have a rule for that to. Motiv screw up and know has to pay the penalty. An it would not surprise to see a few more companies get in trouble by someone sending balls to USBC.

morpheus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #54 on: March 20, 2016, 01:44:24 PM »
From board 2 to 2 must have at least 3 units of oil an that is in the USBC Spec for certification.  Sorry they have a rule for that to. Motiv screw up and know has to pay the penalty. An it would not surprise to see a few more companies get in trouble by someone sending balls to USBC.


So we depend on anonymous individuals to police our sport...tell me again what the USBC does as the governing body of bowling?
#AFutureForMembership #WhoDoesUSBCWorkFor

JamminJD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #55 on: March 20, 2016, 01:48:13 PM »
It's wreaks of conspiracy
If it hadn't of started out by a mysterious case of balls showing up at USBC with a note - spin these - attached, it may be easier to 'accept'.
At the point of how this evolved USBC should've taken a different rode as there was never precedence of this previously...other than them grand fathering the original Game Breaker core...
USBC did have a decision to make here...I believe they choice the wrong way, in many ways, to deal with this


Agreed

WOWZERS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #56 on: March 20, 2016, 01:50:01 PM »
Without going to every ball company website, what other balls still in production have an advertised diff of or near .060?

Conspiracy: sure. Someone reported the ball exceeded allowable regulations.

Still illegal, regardless of who reported it, how they reported it, when they reported it, and how it was handled (poorly).

JustRico

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2652
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #57 on: March 20, 2016, 01:59:43 PM »
My comment references the penalty not the offense...
If it was a normal checking procedure I'd see if differently but due to the circumstances I think it's BS
Co-author of BowlTec's END GAMES ~ A Bowler's COMPLETE Guide to Bowling; Head Games ~ the MENTAL approach to bowling (and sports) & (r)eVolve
...where knowledge creates striking results...
BowlTEc on facebook...www.iBowlTec.com

morpheus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #58 on: March 20, 2016, 02:09:43 PM »
Without going to every ball company website, what other balls still in production have an advertised diff of or near .060?

Conspiracy: sure. Someone reported the ball exceeded allowable regulations.

Still illegal, regardless of who reported it, how they reported it, when they reported it, and how it was handled (poorly).

I have never questioned the legality, there was clearly an infraction. If they are going to be the authoritative source for rules and certification then the USBC cannot appear to be biased in the way testing methodologies are applied. If you want to deal in absolutes, then there should be defined field testing criteria for all manufacturers requiring random tests. Again, you don't have to test every ball, but if a violation is found, I would expect an escalation process requiring a statistically relavant sample size. The issue for me has more to do with a uniform testing process applied equally and if that's not happening has Motiv been singled out and treated differently?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2016, 02:26:13 PM by morpheus »
#AFutureForMembership #WhoDoesUSBCWorkFor

WOWZERS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #59 on: March 20, 2016, 03:22:36 PM »
I guess we do not know if the USBC has treated Motiv differently. Has anyone ever sent the USBC balls before and asked them to recheck them? If yes, and the USBC found the balls to exceed the allowable diff or any other rule, then yes, Motiv has been singled out.
If no, then anyone has to ASSUME that in the future, if any illegal balls are found like this, USBC will treat that ball and that company the same as the Jackals and Motiv was treated here.

morpheus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
Re: USBC Petition for Jackal Recertification
« Reply #60 on: March 20, 2016, 03:40:12 PM »
I think you're missing the point...if the USBC claims they do random field testing and cannot backup that claim with historical proof, then I think that's problematic because that same core had been in various balls for more than 4 years. And if the field testing isn't applied uniformly, then how can the certification process have any credibility?
#AFutureForMembership #WhoDoesUSBCWorkFor