Author Topic: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals? (Read 22050 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?

Jorge300 · « **Reply #106 on:** March 22, 2016, 11:38:04 AM »

I am late to this party, as always it seems, but let me add my .02:

The USBC did what it had to do. The balls tested as illegal, and had to be removed from competition. That is what a governing body does. The NASCAR example is spot on. NASCAR is a governing body. They spot check cars to make sure they meet spec. If a car is out of spec, it is fixed or removed from competition. And just like in the Motiv case, sometime is it "anonymous" tips that points NASCAR to look at specific teams, think back a year or two when someone told NASCAR about the rear-end gears being out of spec on the Penske cars. NASCAR pulled them out and checked them, found them to be out of tolerance and made them replace them. Unfortunately, with bowling balls, you can't "repair" an out of spec core, so the equipment must be removed. In NASCAR if you can't fix the problem, the car is impounded and removed from competition. NASCAR doesn't care about the feelings of the owner of that car, it is illegal and removed. Just like the USBC shouldn't care about the owners of the balls, they are illegal and should be removed. The people upset should be upset at Motiv, they sold the faulty product, not at the USBC for upholding the rules.

Now, just another point. We have heard people say that the difference in differential doesn't give anyone a performance advantage. How can you so sure? Couldn't this difference do this: The added differential could allow the ball to start it's hook 1/2 or 1/4 second before a legal ball, that small added difference could allow that ball to enter the pocket different from a legal ball. And that difference in entering the pocket could be difference between a solid 10 (or solid 8 ) and a strike. And that tap could be the difference between winning and losing( a tournament, between finishing in the money and out of the money, or between finishing at a higher prize spot or a lower prize spot). How can anyone say for 100% certainty that the illegal ball will not gain someone that one shot advantage that could make a difference?

spmcgivern · « **Reply #107 on:** March 22, 2016, 01:17:55 PM »

In my opinion, the reason there is a rule on non-drilled equipment is because it is the easiest way to test for compliance. USBC would only have to check the provided balls from a company to determine if the balls are within the rules. USBC can't check every ball off the line, but as we see now, they can spot check some balls already on the market for compliance. Whether the balls are checked or not, all equipment must pass the rules.

Trying to implement a post-drilling rule on equipment would be near impossible, especially for something the customer has no control over like the construction of the core in this case. However, post-drilled equipment still has rules to follow, but now the ball is in the hands of a pro shop. It is their responsibility to ensure each ball that comes out of their shop is legal. USBC relies on these pro shops to uphold the post-drilling rules since it would cost millions to have USBC check each and every ball. Even then, drillers can still circumvent the rules until checked at an event where balls are inspected post-drilling.

Jorge300 · « **Reply #108 on:** March 23, 2016, 12:24:14 PM »

spmc,
I agree there is no way to test post drilling on every ball. Plus, something you must consider, many people bowl in unsanctioned leagues now. So if they don't go to the USBC Open (Nationals), don't bowl anything PBA related, and don't bowl in any sanctioned leagues....there is no reason their ball has to meet USBC post drilling standards. Plus, this person can continue to throw their Jackal and Jackal Carnage if they so choose. So, since a PSO can't know what a person is doing with their ball, all they can do is suggest things to make the ball legal, but if the customer doesn't want that done, there is nothing the PSO can do. They drill the ball as the consumer wants, illegal or not. They can continue to remind the customer that this ball is not legal for sanctioned competition, but that is about it.

avabob · « **Reply #109 on:** March 23, 2016, 12:41:10 PM »

The USBC uses post drilling, not undrilled specs for static weight, why not dynamic weight. You can use pin placement to keep a high diff ball below .06 just as you can control top and side weights with movements around the label.

It is too bad that USBC didn't delve into surface prep and lay down some rules in this area such as all balls should come from the factory with at least a 2000 final grit surface, and no alterations should be allowed. This would have a more beneficial impact on the game than laying down esoteric rules on differential.

skizzle · « **Reply #110 on:** March 23, 2016, 12:48:30 PM »

I can only imagine the usbc attempting to check the grit on a ball. Lol

Jorge300 · « **Reply #111 on:** March 23, 2016, 12:49:08 PM »

Quote from: avabob on March 23, 2016, 12:41:10 PM

The USBC uses post drilling, not undrilled specs for static weight, why not dynamic weight. You can use pin placement to keep a high diff ball below .06 just as you can control top and side weights with movements around the label.

It is too bad that USBC didn't delve into surface prep and lay down some rules in this area such as all balls should come from the factory with at least a 2000 final grit surface, and no alterations should be allowed. This would have a more beneficial impact on the game than laying down esoteric rules on differential.

avabob,
There are no rules for post drilling dynamic specs. So why check it? The pre-drilling dynamic rules were set-up to regulate the balls. It still allows for innovation in weight blocks, such as the ones from Radical for example, that allow for much higher post drilling dynamic specs. Whether or not these rules were needed or were helpful is debatable. But rules are rules.

And the surface prep rule is asking for trouble. Not all bowlers have the same style. Why would handicap bowlers who happen to be speed dominant and/or lower rev players by saying they can't lower the grit below 2000. For your game, that may be fine. But I can tell you for a fact there have been times I have used balls at 1000 grit and even 500 grit. I didn't do it to screw up a line, I did it because there was that much oil I needed to. So why should I be handicapped now to 2000 grit?

Jorge300 · « **Reply #112 on:** March 23, 2016, 12:50:56 PM »

Quote from: skizzle on March 23, 2016, 12:48:30 PM

I can only imagine the usbc attempting to check the grit on a ball. Lol

It can be done, not sure how quickly or easily it can be done. RaiderH20boy who has a pro shop in the SF Bay Area has a machine that can check the actual grit of a ball. But I don't know the details of how it works, how time consuming it is, and how hard it is to do it.

skizzle · « **Reply #113 on:** March 23, 2016, 12:55:12 PM »

Quote from: Jorge300 on March 23, 2016, 12:50:56 PM

Quote from: skizzle on March 23, 2016, 12:48:30 PM
I can only imagine the usbc attempting to check the grit on a ball. Lol

It can be done, not sure how quickly or easily it can be done. RaiderH20boy who has a pro shop in the SF Bay Area has a machine that can check the actual grit of a ball. But I don't know the details of how it works, how time consuming it is, and how hard it is to do it.

No doubt it can be done....just thinking how long the check in process at Nationals would be.

avabob · « **Reply #114 on:** March 23, 2016, 01:11:47 PM »

I understand the issues on surface prep, but I do bring it up because super aggressive surface prep has a much bigger impact on scoring and on damage to lane surfaces than miniscule dynamic balance issues.

ICDeadMoney · « **Reply #115 on:** March 27, 2016, 03:21:40 AM »

Personally I would have nipped this reactive resin thing in the bud, back in the early 90's.

Protecting the integrity of the sport means not allowing any changes that drastically alter the balance between skill and scoring.

Using whatever the equivalent to the throw bot was back then, you can determine if the ball scores higher while making the bot less consistent with t's accuracy.

The same for allowable oil patterns.

Improvements in scoring that come from humans using better techniques is acceptable.

Improved scoring strictly from technology, is not acceptable, it leads to an arms race, which is not in the best interest of the bowler.

In my opinion reactive resin balls are a cancer on the sport of bowling, and the ball manufacturers are bowling's equivalent of tobacco companies.

Reactive resin balls brought along more oil on the lane allowing the oil to guide the ball, which brought cores that flare to allow the ball to hook when it exits the oil, and cover stocks to absorb the oil the ball picks up because the bowler is too lazy to wipe the ball off.

Even if the USBC wanted to crack down on oil patterns, the reactive resin balls do so much "damage" to the oil pattern, the inspection process would be hard pressed to determine if the lane was originally oiled in compliance.

I would like to see the sport of bowling as opposed to the game of bowling (i.e. the THS) go to less oil on the lane, so the oil doesn't guide the ball, rather than the current sport patterns which reduce scores by flooding the lanes so most people can't achieve any back end motion, and therefore have no interest in bowling sport conditions.

The benefits of less oil, is reduced costs for the proprietor, less costs for the bowlers because the ball needed for less oil is the less expensive ball, the lower end balls don't eat up the oil pattern so the shot isn't changing every 10-15 minutes, and finally if you want to improve, there isn't a "magic ball", you need to go out and practice, which again benefits the proprietor.

The average Joe can get back end reaction, but getting it to the pocket without the guiding oil takes more skill.

The result is, scores return to being correlated to skill, and spare shooting becomes an important part of the game again.

Juggernaut · « **Reply #116 on:** March 27, 2016, 05:11:27 AM »

Trust this ICDM, we ain't going back.

Resin should have never happened. You don't need resin to strike, and you don't need resin to score. Bowlers have been convinced otherwise though.

I would agree with you in a heartbeat, but "we" are few and far between anymore I believe.

Thing is, we're really not talking about that so much right now, just exploring the options the USBC might've taken instead of the one they did in this particular case. What the ABC/USBC should've done 25 years ago doesn't really matter now.

noslouch · « **Reply #117 on:** March 27, 2016, 12:56:03 PM »

ICDM their are many millions of past sanctioned bowlers who agree with your statement. They have spoken by not participating in sanctioned events. But, as the USBC is lost. Those that matter are the ones still paying for a card and keep their mouths shut. The USBC lost sight of what the bowlers wanted. It's like putting out those cards that say "HOW CAN WE BETTER SERVE YOU" then toss them in the trash without reading. Millions of bowlers tossed away because those running the show saw reactive resin as the EVOLUTION of bowling.
It's basically like a political group. Give the symbolic handshake to reach those who crowd around you and promise to take care of them. The ABC used to be an Organization for the bowlers. Now it is USBC. A business for the "1" percent of bowlers. As long as reactive resin is still being promised as the evolutionary savior of bowling it will become game of Pharaohs. And where are they now.

avabob · « **Reply #118 on:** March 27, 2016, 01:30:40 PM »

Here is why USBC didn't outlaw resin when it first came in. Resin was only an additive to the basic urethane cover stock that did not cause a difference in hardness or any other measurable physical attribute at the time. Contrary to popular opinion resin does not reward more errant, or less consistent shots. Lane conditioning procedures do that, not balls.

So why does resin score higher? It is because resin allows urethane to absorb oil and track through it rather simply pushing the oil down the lane the way non resin urethane does. As a result the resin enhanced ball stores rotational energy for release at a more optimum point down the lane. More energy release at the optimum point means less deflection for any given rev rate, and thus fewer ten pins on half pocket hits.

The above characteristics became readily apparent to me the very first time I threw an Excaliber in 1992. The house shot was about 34 feet with a big wall at 7 board. I was bowling a step ladder final night rolloff in my singles league. I led the late shift league averaging 225 with a blue hammer for the season. This roll off was on fresh oil. When I went to the practice pair, I initially had free back end with my Hammer. However within 5 or six shots the carrydown started killing my reaction. I kept moving right, but it was getting tougher and tougher to get the hammer to face up as the oil moved off the heads and down to the back end. I eventually pulled out the Excaliber, and immediately went back to where I started with the Hammer. Excaliber didn't read the carrydown, and gave me a reasonable shot to the pocket. Down on the rolloff pair, none of the right handers had resin, and they were shooting 150-175 but couldn't stay with a poor lefty who came from the 5 spot. I took my excaliber down to the pair and won with a little 200 game over the lefty.

Bottom line resin changed the game by allowing us lower rev guys to play in the oil and open up the track like we did with plastic years earlier rather than chasing a back end reaction. The power guys hated it at first until they learned how to jack up their ball speeds, and follow the oil way in to angles they wouldn't have thought of playing with urethane.

ICDeadMoney · « **Reply #119 on:** March 27, 2016, 10:42:15 PM »

Quote from: Juggernaut on March 27, 2016, 05:11:27 AM

Trust this ICDM, we ain't going back.

I don't want everyone to be forced to "go back"

I would prefer to see USBC create something similar to sports league, but rather than concentrate on increasing the minimum amount of oil on the lane compared to a THS, just reduce the ratio requirement, and bring back, the awards for bowling on the more difficult pattern.

I bowled in a sports league. The problem was it was at 8 am on a Sunday morning about 30 minutes from my house. I'm not a morning person, and the approaches didn't seem to be cleaned after the moonlight bowling Saturday night.

On days I could slide, using the few modern balls I had (Storm Byte, Marvel-S) I would achieve too much back end reaction, and on days I couldn't slide, I had to walk so slow, I had to essentially throw my spare ball release at the pocket and pray for lucky strikes.

spmcgivern · « **Reply #120 on:** March 28, 2016, 08:24:07 AM »

Quote from: ICDeadMoney on March 27, 2016, 03:21:40 AM

Personally I would have nipped this reactive resin thing in the bud, back in the early 90's.

Protecting the integrity of the sport means not allowing any changes that drastically alter the balance between skill and scoring.

Using whatever the equivalent to the throw bot was back then, you can determine if the ball scores higher while making the bot less consistent with t's accuracy.

The same for allowable oil patterns.

Improvements in scoring that come from humans using better techniques is acceptable.

Improved scoring strictly from technology, is not acceptable, it leads to an arms race, which is not in the best interest of the bowler.

In my opinion reactive resin balls are a cancer on the sport of bowling, and the ball manufacturers are bowling's equivalent of tobacco companies.

Reactive resin balls brought along more oil on the lane allowing the oil to guide the ball, which brought cores that flare to allow the ball to hook when it exits the oil, and cover stocks to absorb the oil the ball picks up because the bowler is too lazy to wipe the ball off.

Even if the USBC wanted to crack down on oil patterns, the reactive resin balls do so much "damage" to the oil pattern, the inspection process would be hard pressed to determine if the lane was originally oiled in compliance.

I would like to see the sport of bowling as opposed to the game of bowling (i.e. the THS) go to less oil on the lane, so the oil doesn't guide the ball, rather than the current sport patterns which reduce scores by flooding the lanes so most people can't achieve any back end motion, and therefore have no interest in bowling sport conditions.

The benefits of less oil, is reduced costs for the proprietor, less costs for the bowlers because the ball needed for less oil is the less expensive ball, the lower end balls don't eat up the oil pattern so the shot isn't changing every 10-15 minutes, and finally if you want to improve, there isn't a "magic ball", you need to go out and practice, which again benefits the proprietor.

The average Joe can get back end reaction, but getting it to the pocket without the guiding oil takes more skill.

The result is, scores return to being correlated to skill, and spare shooting becomes an important part of the game again.

You forgot to tell everyone to get of your lawn also.

I find it amazing there are still people who feel bowling is better off in the stone ages. And besides, what makes "your" view of what bowling should be the standard? No resin??? In that case, lets go to shellac. Lets go to wooden bowling balls. Let's go to pinboys and get rid of automatic pinsetters.

It is unrealistic to expect a sport to stop in its tracks technology-wise, I dare you to name any other sport that has done so.

Author Topic: If you were the USBC, what would you have done with the Jackals? (Read 22050 times)

Juggernaut

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

Jorge300

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

spmcgivern

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

Jorge300

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?

skizzle

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

Jorge300

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

Jorge300

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?

avabob

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

ICDeadMoney

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

Juggernaut

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

noslouch

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?

ICDeadMoney

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

spmcgivern

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