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.

I'll play devils advocate for a bit.

What's the point of the rule, or any rule, if you're not going to enforce it?

Would be ok if a company got a ball approved at .054, then changed the cores to .080?

Should those balls be banned? Grandfathered in since there are balls in the past .080 that were?.

At what point do you go from grandfathering in to banning? .010 over limit? .005?

If you don't ban the balls, what would be an acceptable punishment to the manufacturer? You need some kind of a penalty if you break the rules, don't you?

A fine dollar amount derived from the number of balls sold by something?

Again this hypothetical situation does not apply.  If you submit a ball for testing and get it certified, then change it later you are no longer producing the design that was approved. The ball would be illegal not just because the specs were out of range but it was an unapproved design.  That's not what happened in this situation.  In your scenario that manufacturer would have no legs to stand on and would have to replace the balls sold.

 Totally different situation than here, where the balls were not changed from approval but a mystery number of balls from a mystery location were tested and were out of spec by a miniscule amount. 

The most glaring issue to me is that simply put the USBC discredited it's own rule.  If you allow balls with a differential of .08 to stay in competition after placing a hard limit of .06, you cannot say that a Jackal that is at .0601 is a competitive advantage and the ball must be banned 

The USBC should have never allowed people to continue to use balls over the limit they set. 

All the more reason given the lack of clarity of the whole situation to issue a temporary grandfathering of the two Jackals with an agreed upon timeline that replacements from Motiv must start and be completed by.

Quote

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.

So the USBC knew that the Jackals were out of spec at that time.  Why would they allow the ball to be used at Nationals then?  Nationals didn't start until March 5th.

In any case, I'd like to see how the tests were done and it's important that as much information comes out as possible. 

Careful with statements like that sir  , the USBC's mission here is to protect the integrity of the game and it's National Tournaments.  I can only assume some USBC employees were bowling that first weekend and wanted to use their Jackals 

Careful with statements like that sir  , the USBC's mission here is to protect the integrity of the game and it's National Tournaments.  I can only assume some USBC employees were bowling that first weekend and wanted to use their Jackals 

USBC employees can bowl the tournament but cannot win money or awards

Quote from: chucksta29 on March 25, 2016, 05:43:40 PM

Quote from: psycaz on March 25, 2016, 05:27:29 PM

I'll play devils advocate for a bit.

What's the point of the rule, or any rule, if you're not going to enforce it?

Would be ok if a company got a ball approved at .054, then changed the cores to .080?

Should those balls be banned? Grandfathered in since there are balls in the past .080 that were?.

At what point do you go from grandfathering in to banning? .010 over limit? .005?

If you don't ban the balls, what would be an acceptable punishment to the manufacturer? You need some kind of a penalty if you break the rules, don't you?

A fine dollar amount derived from the number of balls sold by something?

Again this hypothetical situation does not apply.  If you submit a ball for testing and get it certified, then change it later you are no longer producing the design that was approved. The ball would be illegal not just because the specs were out of range but it was an unapproved design.  That's not what happened in this situation.  In your scenario that manufacturer would have no legs to stand on and would have to replace the balls sold.

 Totally different situation than here, where the balls were not changed from approval but a mystery number of balls from a mystery location were tested and were out of spec by a miniscule amount. 

The most glaring issue to me is that simply put the USBC discredited it's own rule.  If you allow balls with a differential of .08 to stay in competition after placing a hard limit of .06, you cannot say that a Jackal that is at .0601 is a competitive advantage and the ball must be banned 

The USBC should have never allowed people to continue to use balls over the limit they set. 

All the more reason given the lack of clarity of the whole situation to issue a temporary grandfathering of the two Jackals with an agreed upon timeline that replacements from Motiv must start and be completed by.

At what point over spec would they be too far over then?

If it were me, based off the current rule I would change it to something like this.  Any ball submitted for approval to the USBC may not have a differential higher than .58, but in order to allow for manufacturing variances when the balls are field tested they cannot average out to a differential higher than .06

While this is not a completely scientific analysis, I would venture to think the .02 would be enough to cancel out the human factor when testing balls.  This testing process also should be clearly defined to make the process as consistent and repeatable as possible.

If a manufacturer were to violate this rule as written it would be either an intentional violation or bad quality control.  I still believe the best situation to not hurt the bowler is a temporary grandfathering of a ball that fails inspection, and establishing a timeline those balls are to be replaced.  At the end of the timeline the failed ball should then be banned from competition, and there should be an obvious distinction between a replacement ball and the banned ball.

 Almost everyone has 20/20 hindsight.

 Once mistakes are made and aired out in public, there come many opinions and options that may not have occured to people originally.

 Motiv, I'm sure, now knows that it should've either designed the balls at a lower diff number, or had much tighter QC on the product. They didn't however, and now it has caused a problem.

 USBC may have had other, milder options available to them (I do not know), but didn't know they could, or decided not to, follow those paths. They may have possibly been able to give a temporary permit for those balls and give Motiv the time it needs to get the problem fixed, or that may have been totally out of the question. I do not know if this was an option, and probably very few here would actually know either.

 Bottom line: Motiv products went out of spec by a % that was too big to ignore. That is not the fault of you, me, OR the USBC.

 The balls got banned and removed from the approved equipment list. That was the doing of the USBC, but was not the FAULT of the USBC.

 Ultimately, the fault lies with Motiv.  I am not a Motiv hater, nor am I against anyone who has bought and owns a jackal or carnage. I actually feel bad for everyone involved in this unfortunate situation, but my sympathy doesn't change anything.

 MOTIV is responsible. They, unfortunately, made some bad choices which seem to have been compounded by poor QC on the production line, and have ended up with a situation of their own creation.

 You can be mad at everybody else involved, but the ultimate blame for the entire situation lies with MOTIV.  If you want to be mad at the USBC, at least blame them for the things they get wrong (which are plentiful), not the things they do by following the rules that EVERYONE has to, or is supposed to, go by.

Almost everyone has 20/20 hindsight.

 Once mistakes are made and aired out in public, there come many opinions and options that may not have occured to people originally.

 Motiv, I'm sure, now knows that it should've either designed the balls at a lower diff number, or had much tighter QC on the product. They didn't however, and now it has caused a problem.

 USBC may have had other, milder options available to them (I do not know), but didn't know they could, or decided not to, follow those paths. They may have possibly been able to give a temporary permit for those balls and give Motiv the time it needs to get the problem fixed, or that may have been totally out of the question. I do not know if this was an option, and probably very few here would actually know either.

 Bottom line: Motiv products went out of spec by a % that was too big to ignore. That is not the fault of you, me, OR the USBC.

 The balls got banned and removed from the approved equipment list. That was the doing of the USBC, but was not the FAULT of the USBC.

 Ultimately, the fault lies with Motiv.  I am not a Motiv hater, nor am I against anyone who has bought and owns a jackal or carnage. I actually feel bad for everyone involved in this unfortunate situation, but my sympathy doesn't change anything.

 MOTIV is responsible. They, unfortunately, made some bad choices which seem to have been compounded by poor QC on the production line, and have ended up with a situation of their own creation.

 You can be mad at everybody else involved, but the ultimate blame for the entire situation lies with MOTIV.  If you want to be mad at the USBC, at least blame them for the things they get wrong (which are plentiful), not the things they do by following the rules that EVERYONE has to, or is supposed to, go by.

IF the USBC was completely open during the process and gave Motiv all the information they needed and notified them in advance of the pending revocation then yes kudos to the USBC and shame on Motiv.

However, that's not how this situation is playing out and that's where I take issue.  The USBC, being the governing body of our sport and supposed to have the interest of all the bowlers in mind, should be much more forthcoming about why exactly they are taking away a piece of equipment bowlers paid for.  We still don't know all the details outside of their "test" results, which showed a very miniscule infraction.  We pay them, there should be no withholding of information. 

However, that's not how this situation is playing out and that's where I take issue.  The USBC, being the governing body of our sport and supposed to have the interest of all the bowlers in mind, should be much more forthcoming about why exactly they are taking away a piece of equipment bowlers paid for.  We still don't know all the details outside of their "test" results, which showed a very miniscule infraction.  We pay them, there should be no withholding of information.

 How best is the USBC supposed to serve ALL bowlers?  By following a set of rules that benefit EVERYONE, or by ignoring their own rules to the benefit of a few?

 And the assertion that the USBC "owes" us some explanation? That's ridiculous. The USBC is the rule making/enforcing body of the sport. How much explanation do you need when they ban a piece of equipment which has been thouroughly tested, and found to now be non-compliant? USBC owes you nothing, except what you pay for, and that is for them to govern and regulate the sport while enforcing the rules. That's exactly whar they've done.

 Some infractions, as all things in life, can truly be trivial. Others, irregardless of magnitude, cannot be considered trivial.

 In this case, Motiv was only slightly over the limit. Go over the speed limit, even by a little, and you are guilty. The officer stopping you may, or may not, decide to write you a ticket. IF HE DOES, it isn't his fault, it was your fault. YOU left the decision in his hands by breaking the rules, and he chose the ticket.

 MOTIV left the choice in the hands of other people, the USBC.  The USBC's loyalty is not to a company, nor is it to a small faction of disgruntled, it is to their ENTIRE membership as a whole.  That's exactly what they've done.

 No, USBC isn't some all knowing, all seeing oracle that always does the right thing, but, in THIS event, they have done all that is required of them, and they have done it by the rules. Rules that ALL the manufacturers are held to.

 Your problem should be with Motiv, and why they let things get this point in the first place. They (Motiv) had control. They (Motiv) had already gotten approval to make this product. They (Motiv) gave up that control by either not caring enough, or not being thourough enough, to maintain that control to within acceptable limits.

 I guess I just fail to understand how the USBC failed in this instance. The rules were in place, and had been so for a while. Everybody involved was well aware of them, and had bern able to stay within them on many previous products. It is unfortunate that they weren't able to do that with this one as well.

 The blame falls on Motiv, as should ANY resolution of this problem. ANYTHING USBC does would only be a concession on their part, and might open themselves up for litigation by all the other manufacturers for showing "partiality" to a competitor by allowing them permission to continue to "break the rules", so to speak.