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?

I would have disallowed the balls at the end of the 2015-16 season. Now you have tournaments that go on for an extended period of time where the two balls were used prior to the date that it was declared illegal for use.

I would have required from Motiv a full list, by serial number, of all Jackal and Carnage balls manufactured on or before March 15th for both domestic and international markets.  Those balls would be grandfathered.  Any honor scores submitted to USBC moving forward shot with any of those models would be cross referenced against the serial number list to verify the ball used was on the grandfathered list.   

Motiv would have been required to cease production of ALL Jackal models immediately (domestic and international) and they would have been fined the obligatory fine.  They also would have been required to retire the "Jackal" name moving forward to avoid any future confusion. 

Any new ball created by Motiv using that core design would require Motiv to ship to the USBC the initial test balls and the first 100 mass production units to ensure total compliance to specs.  No shipping to distributors would occur until all balls were spun.  All testing would be at the expense of Motiv since it would require so many sample units be tested.  If even one of the 100+ samples failed, the ball would not be approved.  This process would continue for that core design until Motiv achieves 100% compliance (or elects to retire that core design altogether.)  When the balls are approved and go on sale to the public, Motiv would be required over the next year to randomly pick four units off the line each month and send to the USBC for testing to prove the balls are remaining within spec.

Clearly, we are all entitled to our own opinions on this, but, personally, I think that USBC acted exactly as it should've. While it isn't the bowlers' fault that they were in possession of non-conforming equipment, the fact remains that the equipment is non-conforming. Now that that has been established, I think that taking the balls out of play immediately is appropriate.

Obviously, bowlers are going to be mad, and I don't blame them, but I think that anger needs to be directed at Motiv for its errors, not at USBC for enforcing rules that have been on the books for a long time now. It should be on Motiv to scramble and bend over backwards to fix the situation so that affected bowlers can get things squared away as quickly as possible.

As for the idea of grandfathering, I understand where that idea would come from, but imagine the can of worms that would open. Let's say they grandfather those balls in, and then someone uses one or both of them to beat your team for a league title, win a local tournament, or clean up in brackets and post an Eagle-worthy score at the Open Championships. Can you imagine how many people would cry foul that a ball known to be illegal was used to do those things?

One of USBC's core functions is to enforce the rules, not to make sure that bowlers aren't inconvenienced. In this case, from where I sit, Motiv is the party that caused the inconvenience, not USBC. Again, while I feel badly for the bowlers impacted by this (and I'd be miffed too if I were one of them), I think USBC did exactly what it needed to do here.

I think there were many alternatives, but the formula should start with one question. How can we address this in a manner that minimizes the impact to members? I don't believe that criteria was considered when ultimately determining the course of action, otherwise there would have some grace period or grandfather clause that would have given the manufacturer time to remediate the issue for current owners of these products. With that said, each organization, professional, amateur or international can further define what makes sense from a ban perspective within the confines of the broader USBC ruling similar to what Sweden chose to impose.

Looking at this more broadly, I see little impact from ball motion perspective for these types of rules governing static weights, differential, etc. Maintaining some level of scoring integrity went out the window a long time ago and restricting differential isn't going to have a material impact in the grand scheme of things.

You could be correct Milo.

If USBC had been the ones in error, then I would agree that the inconvenience to bowlers should have been a top priority; however, since USBC wasn't the cause of the problem, I don't think that that should've been its first priority. Its first priority needed to be getting the illegal gear off of the playing field, which is what they did. In my world, Motiv is the one that needs to be bending over backwards to give affected bowlers a quick, appropriate resolution to this.

I don't recall the situation with the original Gamebreaker, Milo. Can you fill me in on that one?