Author Topic: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals? (Read 21824 times)

Juggernaut · « **on:** March 17, 2016, 08:01:32 AM »

OK, lets put ourselves in the USBC's shoes.

Bowling manufacturers are more than well aquainted with the regulations concerning any bowling equipment they manufacture. They know the upper limits at which they are allowed to go, and are aware that nothing beyond that point is acceptable.

Pushing the upper limits is a manufacturing choice a private company makes.

Then, you get an "anonymous" package from someone. In this package are products from that private company that have previously been approved, but a note contained in the package leads you to believe that someone has found out that not all those previously approved products are being made within those accepted limits. This leads to you testing the products to either confirm the "allegation", or deny it.

After quite thorough testing, you find the "allegation" to have merit, and products have been found that are above the acceptable limits, at too high a percentage to simply ignore.

NOW WHAT?

Comparisons have been made to other situations, but many of those really don't work here at all. Take the speed limit one for instance.

If the speed limit is 60mph, and you are doing 61mph, you probably aren't getting ticketed, simply because there are lots of others going far further past the limit than you are.

BUT, what if EVERYONE ELSE is going 60mph or less? Then, you stand out as the lone person breaking the rules, and are far more likely to be picked out and ticketed, right?

Motiv broke the rules. I believe it was inadvertently, but that is also irrelevant as it doesn't matter why, or how, the rules were broken, only that they were.

USBC is a rule making, rule enforcing, governing body, who's job it is to ensure those rules are being followed, and enforce them when they are not.

So really, HONESTLY, what were their options? And, what would you have done if YOU were the sole entity in charge of making sure EVERYBODY follows ALL the rules to the letter?

morpheus · « **Reply #31 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:12:27 PM »

Seems like the USBC chose a nuclear response to a minor skirmish. I think most would agree there were other options that would have resulted in a more positive experience for membership.

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #32 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:39:03 PM »

Any bowler that would blame an opponent's bowling ball for a loss is overstating their own talent and underestimating the talent of their opponent. The ball doesn't throw itself.
[/quote]

I agree with you, but can you keep a straight face while telling me that it doesn't happen all of the time? lol

As for your comment about variance, I think that USBC's position would be that manufacturers need to account for that on their end during design and for quality control. If you're not sure you can get close to the line without going over, don't go so close to the line in the first place.

avabob · « **Reply #33 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:41:34 PM »

Agree. Motive deserves penalties for non compliance even if it was inadvertent, but bowlers should not be punished for having a ball that is giving them no competitive advantage based on the amount the rg diff is above tolerances. Balls already sold should be grandfathered in until Motiv can replace them with their customers.

Just as a side note, the last thing I ever want on a tournament patterns is a max diff layout. I think the vast majority of competitive bowlers would agree with me.

morpheus · « **Reply #34 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:48:05 PM »

Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2016, 12:12:27 PM

Seems like the USBC chose a nuclear response to a minor skirmish. I think most would agree there were other options that would have resulted in a more positive experience for membership.

Correction: MOST RATIONAL PEOPLE would agree there were other options...

milorafferty · « **Reply #35 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:53:22 PM »

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on March 17, 2016, 11:08:46 AM

Milo-Thanks for the link/info, but I'm still a bit unclear on a couple of things. Are you saying that the Gamebreaker was illegal the whole time, or are you referring to the point in time when these new limits were put into place? I think I was there when those specs were put on the books, and the policy stated that balls produced prior to the deadline would be grandfathered, but all runs after that must conform to the new numbers. Are you trying to say that you are under the impression that USBC allowed Ebonite to keep making Gamebreakers outside of the specs AFTER the rule was put into place? If that's the case, that's news to me.

Yea, the V2 core was grandfathered in when the new USBC specs came out. The original Gamebreaker was already in production at the time. Then Ebonite discontinued the Gamebreaker. Around 2011 or so, as I understand the situation, Ebonite was allowed one more production run of the original Gamebreaker with the V2 core.

Perhaps I didn't have the correct information, but that was my understanding of it.

milorafferty · « **Reply #36 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:57:18 PM »

Quote from: tkkshop on March 17, 2016, 11:30:34 AM

Quote from: milorafferty on March 17, 2016, 10:40:50 AM
Quote from: amyers2002 on March 17, 2016, 10:35:15 AM
I was under the impression the Ebonite altered the core in those runs to make it legal but you may be more informed than me.

I doubt that, I'm not even more informed than any non-bowler.

Just going by what Ebonite has listed on their website. Perhaps Ebonite did raise the low RG of that last run, but then it would be a different ball, wouldn't it?

They do have a Gamebreaker 2 out now, so that would have different specs I guess.
The Gamebreaker remake from a few years ago was a limited run remake of the original ball. It was grandfathered in and allowed to be made for a certain amount of time. Once production stopped, Ebonite could not make anymore. Which is why we have the GB2 now. It posses a different core than the original and the original remake.

But it was a limited run remake of a ball using a core that no longer was legal by USBC specifications. The core was legal when it was originally poured, but not when it was used in the remake.

tkkshop · « **Reply #37 on:** March 17, 2016, 01:01:59 PM »

Quote from: milorafferty on March 17, 2016, 12:57:18 PM

Quote from: tkkshop on March 17, 2016, 11:30:34 AM
Quote from: milorafferty on March 17, 2016, 10:40:50 AM
Quote from: amyers2002 on March 17, 2016, 10:35:15 AM
I was under the impression the Ebonite altered the core in those runs to make it legal but you may be more informed than me.

I doubt that, I'm not even more informed than any non-bowler.

Just going by what Ebonite has listed on their website. Perhaps Ebonite did raise the low RG of that last run, but then it would be a different ball, wouldn't it?

They do have a Gamebreaker 2 out now, so that would have different specs I guess.
The Gamebreaker remake from a few years ago was a limited run remake of the original ball. It was grandfathered in and allowed to be made for a certain amount of time. Once production stopped, Ebonite could not make anymore. Which is why we have the GB2 now. It posses a different core than the original and the original remake.

But it was a limited run remake of a ball using a core that no longer was legal by USBC specifications. The core was legal when it was originally poured, but not when it was used in the remake.

100% agree. It was illegal based upon 2011 specs.

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #38 on:** March 17, 2016, 01:09:52 PM »

Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2016, 12:48:05 PM

Quote from: morpheus on March 17, 2016, 12:12:27 PM
Seems like the USBC chose a nuclear response to a minor skirmish. I think most would agree there were other options that would have resulted in a more positive experience for membership.

Correction: MOST RATIONAL PEOPLE would agree there were other options...

For those unfamiliar with his posts, rational = like-minded people who believe that the USBC is the Antichrist and that anyone who doesn't puke coathangers when discussing the dues increase is a fool.

Rational? Do you want to play the role of the pot or the kettle, Morpheus? Good lord.

morpheus · « **Reply #39 on:** March 17, 2016, 01:24:06 PM »

raÂ·tionÂ·al
adjective
Based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Are able to consider an idea that didn't come from the USBC?

bambalam · « **Reply #40 on:** March 17, 2016, 01:35:20 PM »

When the specs changed and made the Gamebreaker and other balls fall outside the spec, all existing balls were grand fathered in. This was for actually released balls, meaning the core, cover, color and finish. All manufacturers were given a window of a year I think to continue to manufacture the balls then they had to stop. Any Gamebreakers with the original core were produced and sold in this window. After that date, there have been no balls outside the current specs sold.

Also, it is lesser known, but 2 or 3 years ago the USBC changed how they defined the upper limit of 0.060 differential. Previous to the change, if a ball averaged 0.060 or less, then it was legal. As many have pointed out, a ball that is close to the limit on average would with manufacturing variation have balls in the field over the limit. To address this, the USBC changed the definition and in effect lowered the upper limit by doing so.

Now, if a new design is over a number (I believe it is around 0.053 or so), additional samples have to be sent in. If the average of these sample is over a different threshold, somewhere around 0.056 or so, then the manufacturer has to demonstrate that their process will produce balls that will not exceed 0.060 at some percentage. This is done by extra sampling by the manufacturer. Only then will the ball be approved.

The cores in question must have been approved under these more stringent standards, so the fact that in the field they are averaging over 0.061 is significant.

Gene J Kanak · « **Reply #41 on:** March 17, 2016, 01:42:12 PM »

Good try, Morph, but, yes, unlike many, I listen to arguments from all sides and then make my own decision based upon the evidence provided in that case. I don't decide that I love (or in your case hate) someone or something and then approach every future situation with bias.

To be transparent, I'm a former USBC employee who was let go during the company's first budget-forced layoffs. That happened a little over a year and a half after the company said that I was the No. 1 PR prospect that they wanted to bring in, which convinced me to have my wife leave a respected teaching job and transplant our family 900 miles from home. I am and always will be bitter against USBC for that. So I ask you, who should have a bigger axe to grind with that organization, me, the one who lost his job and had to figure out what do with family 900 miles from home, or you, the guy who feels that his $18 annual contribution isn't being used to the fullest?

As I've said in our previous conversations, you clearly hate USBC, and you have that right, but that doesn't make you right when you bash them for everything they do. They've done some good things, and they've done some bad things. I give them credit when I feel it's due, and I criticize them when I feel it is warranted. You criticize them for not doing their jobs, and then when they perform one of its core functions, you criticize their approach to doing it. Just admit it, buddy, to you, the organization can and never will do anything right. If that's how you feel, own up to it, but just because you're biased beyond reason doesn't mean that all of us are!

ThomasBowling · « **Reply #42 on:** March 17, 2016, 01:48:57 PM »

I'd raise the limit to 1.00 xD
That'd make it very interesting to see what kind of balls we'd get in the future from all the companies.
Just imagine the insane hook we'd get

Though I'd raise it before this happened. To me with such a low rev and high speed, 0.60 is clearly not enough

I'm joking, I would've done the same.

Edit: I'd do something similar, but let the 2015-16 season end first.

morpheus · « **Reply #43 on:** March 17, 2016, 01:49:38 PM »

Quote from: Gene J Kanak on March 17, 2016, 01:42:12 PM

Good try, Morph, but, yes, unlike many, I listen to arguments from all sides and then make my own decision based upon the evidence provided in that case. I don't decide that I love (or in your case hate) someone or something and then approach every future situation with bias.

To be transparent, I'm a former USBC employee who was let go during the company's first budget-forced layoffs. That happened a little over a year and a half after the company said that I was the No. 1 PR prospect that they wanted to bring in, which convinced me to have my wife leave a respected teaching job and transplant our family 900 miles from home. I am and always will be bitter against USBC for that. So I ask you, who should have a bigger axe to grind with that organization, me, the one who lost his job and had to figure out what do with family 900 miles from home, or you, the guy who feels that his $18 annual contribution isn't being used to the fullest?

As I've said in our previous conversations, you clearly hate USBC, and you have that right, but that doesn't make you right when you bash them for everything they do. They've done some good things, and they've done some bad things. I give them credit when I feel it's due, and I criticize them when I feel it is warranted. Just because you're biased beyond reason doesn't mean that all of us are!

So what you're saying is there was no other option in this case that might have resulted in a better outcome for our members while still holding Motiv accountable?

bcw1969 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 17, 2016, 01:55:18 PM »

Although it is a different situation with different circumstances, couldn't they have made an exception in this case, and treated it like they did with The Visionary immortals. They received approval before the rule change, but didn't get released until after that point. Visionary Had a point in time where they were told they couldn't produce any more of them.

Brad

skizzle · « **Reply #45 on:** March 17, 2016, 03:33:15 PM »

To start, i personally have no Motive (products) hahaha...so no bias in that sense.

So, many people complain that we pay our sanction dues to usbc and don't get much in return. Now when the usbc makes a ruling that some may not agree with, we complain again. You can't have it both ways. I believe that the usbc in this case is trying to maintain the integrity of the game and was in a tough spot. It is not the usbc's fault, it is motiv's. Motiv is responsible for their manufacturing process and should be held accountable. Just like any other product, if the product is not compliant with the rules, the manufacturer will recall the product. I don't think many of us blame the FDA, USDA, NHTSA, etc for trying to protect the consumer.

That said, I do feel that the people that own the ball are also put in a tough spot by Motiv's error. A possible solution would be to let those people exchange their defective ball (or receive credit) toward the purchase of another Motiv ball.

All in all, we need a ruling body to help maintain and uphold the integrity of the game/sport. If we don't then why have a sanctioning body at all.

Author Topic: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals? (Read 21824 times)

Juggernaut

If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

morpheus

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

Gene J Kanak

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

avabob

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

morpheus

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

milorafferty

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

milorafferty

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

tkkshop

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

Gene J Kanak

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

morpheus

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

bambalam

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

Gene J Kanak

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

ThomasBowling

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

morpheus

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

bcw1969

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?

skizzle

Re: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals?