In light of recent public statements on the topic, I want to take this opportunity to provide some of the background regarding USBC’s decision to revoke its approval of two Motiv brand bowling balls. This won’t be a Q&A session so I will not be responding to comments as I have on occasion in the past.

To begin, I want to acknowledge Motiv’s Silver-level sponsorship of USBC. The Motiv brand is a registered product on both the PBA and PWBA Tours. They have been good partners of bowling and we have always worked diligently to be good partners with them in return.

USBC first contacted Motiv on February 26 and notified them about the specification issue. This was more than two weeks before the revocation decision was announced. Statements suggesting that USBC had not communicated with Motiv, or that its decision was intended to blindside them without warning, simply are not true.

USBC’s responsibility to the sport in this situation is clear. We are the National Governing Body for bowling. Part of our role in that capacity is to provide a level playing field for all the equipment used at USBC certified events. We do this through uniform and transparent specifications. When a product exceeds one or more of those specifications, a risk of competitive imbalance occurs both for manufacturers and bowlers alike. This is where USBC must step in. Indeed, this is why sports like bowling have a National Governing Body. 

Our spot checking test process is straightforward and described in detail in the USBC Equipment Specifications and Certifications Manual. USBC periodically obtains ball samples through the normal chains of distribution and they are tested. When there is a concern, the number of balls tested is statistically significant. Here, many Jackal and Jackal Carnage balls were obtained from distribution points across the country and tested. USBC took the additional step of consulting with an independent Six Sigma "black belt" with expertise in manufacturing variance in order to confirm the sample size of the balls we were testing was an accurate representation of these products on the overall market.

The specification rules in the USBC Equipment Specifications and Certifications Manual state: The maximum differential radius of gyration standard specification is 0.060". The maximum percentage of non-conforming balls USBC will allow in the manufacturing process for approval is 0.6%.

Prior to its most recent news release, Motiv had publically acknowledged that our USBC spot check tests showed, “There was an average differential of .0604 on the Jackal Carnage and .0616 on the original Jackal.” While this is true, it is not the only relevant data point. The percentage of balls on the market that are out of compliance also must be considered. Based upon USBC’s testing, the percentage of non-conforming balls exceeded the 0.6% standard.

As noted above, USBC shared this data with Motiv before announcing the revocation of approval for the two balls in issue. In my personal conversations with Motiv, no one ever questioned the validity of USBC’s data or claimed that our specifications were in any way unclear. In the past, USBC has stated in writings to Motiv and to other manufacturers: “Balls that are found to be outside of USBC specifications will result in the approval status of that ball being revoked.” 

Thus, given our testing results and the clear specification parameters in our written policy, USBC’s responsibility to the sport of bowling is clear. As a National Governing Body we have a duty to enforce the rules of the sport as stated. Because an unacceptably high number of the Jackal and Jackal Carnage balls exceed the allowable maximum differential radius of gyration standard specification, their approval status has been revoked.

Motiv then published an official statement on its website taking a very different tone than its representatives did in my personal conversations with them about this issue. They state: “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.”

USBC is open to a dialogue with Motiv, but our decision here was driven by data, not dialogue. Absent valid data to the contrary, there is no basis upon which USBC’s policies or rules contemplate reinstatement of approval for these balls. The data indicating an unacceptably high percentage of the balls are non-compliant, determines the outcome.

In closing, I remind everyone of USBC’s responsibility here. It is found in our mission statement: “The USBC is the National Governing Body for bowling. Our mission is to provide services, resources and standards for the sport.” When our standards have been exceeded, we have a duty to act. And that is exactly what we have done here.

Motiv took the link off the front page of their website.  You now have to hunt for it! http://www.ballreviews.com/Smileys/default/huh.gifhttp://www.ballreviews.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif

There's a small orange button on the home page that says Jackal Approval which takes you to their news announcement. It's under the buttons/links for their Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. They also took the Jackal Carnage picture off of the ball guide link in the bottom center of the page. The information pages for the Jackal and Jackal Carnage are still up though.

d. Differential radius of gyration – for brand new core designs only
i. Eight additional balls must be submitted (specific weight to be determined by
USBC) for balls with a measured differential radius of gyration between 0.050’’
and the 0.061’’.
ii. The average differential radius of gyration of all samples of similar weight must be
no, higher than 0.055’’ for the ball to be approved without participation in the
optional supplemental testing process.
iii. If through the supplemental testing process it can be proven that balls are not
designed above the maximum specification of 0.060’’ and have less than 0.6% rate
of non-conforming balls, the ball will be approved.


I notice in the approval spec it said this:

for brand new core designs only

Isn't the core in the Jackals a old design they've been using for a few years now?

I believe that verbiage about "new corer designs" is because of the previous grandfathered core designs that are well above .060 diff..the verbiage is poorly written today, should state any core in production since X date (whenever the USBC changed the rule). Because the old cores had to cease production at a particular time, USBC should really use a date there or at least revisit and update the rulebook to remove vague verbiage.

The rule is straightforward and there is stipulation for the design-

iii. If through the supplemental testing process it can be proven that balls are not
designed above the maximum specification of 0.060’’ and have less than 0.6% rate
of non-conforming balls, the ball will be approved.

So what Chad has stated is number of nonconforming balls is above the .6% failure rate.

Yes, this.  I wonder how many they tested and how many tested above.  This is conveniently omitted. 

Anyway, this is officially a soap opera.  I'll just sit back and see what happens.  My son has no immediate need for a replacement.  He can make his Havoc and surface adjusted Vengeance work for those tournaments with heavier volume.

Hopefully, Motiv decides to replace the balls soon for everyone before this starts to drag on and people will start getting impatient with them. Whether it was intentional or purely an accidental error during production, Motiv should have known the risk of designing the Jackal and Carnage like that from day one. I throw Motiv and have the Jackal, so it was disappointing to hear about that. Luckily for me, I have other Motiv balls that I can tweak the surface in place of it but I feel bad for the bowlers going to Nationals that were really looking forward to use those balls or only travel with 2 or 3 balls in their bag. Not everyone can buy a new ball a moment's notice. Just wished that we would have gotten some prior notice that the USBC were looking into this weeks ago. I'm not quick to switching to using a different ball company since I really like Motiv. But it's not looking good for them at the moment.

It will not be a quick process to replace these balls, if they can't get them recertified. It will be a nightmare for them processing and validating every return request, and then filling each request with a different ball.   My hope is they had something designed already that they could put into production to replace the two jackals and also go right on the market for purchase to help ease the hit they would take if they have to replace these balls.  I would imagine they had another Jackal in development with a different coverstock variation, probably a hybrid to fit in between the two.  They could tweak the predator core if they didn't already obviously. 

I did not purchase either Jackal, due to having a heavy oil option already (albeit not a good one, I do not like my Crux).  I would gladly purchase a new Jackal replacement and sell my Crux to support the company though. 

I have to agree bradl. I think there would have been much less angst against Motiv for any reason if Motiv was seen as proactive rather than reactive.

It would seem to me that USBC should not have grandfathered in the .08 diff balls if there was so much damage to the integrity of the game.  They are protecting me from bowling against a guy with a Jackal at .0614, but not from competing against a guy smart enough to buy a ball at .08 when that was legal. 

When ABC put in the hardness rule almost 40 years ago, they did not grandfather my Sur D that I bought while it was legal.