BallReviews
Equipment Boards => Motiv => Topic started by: tburky on March 24, 2016, 06:11:20 PM
-
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.â€
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.â€
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.
-
Interesting If it was really known on February 26th
-
Interesting If it was really known on February 26th
and interesting that if it was known and communicated in February.
-
I like double butter on my popcorn please.
-
I like double butter on my popcorn please.
Movie theater style
-
Yep and if its warm enough mix in a box of snowcaps so it melts throughout the popcorn. Didn't expect to have any until I went to see Batman v Superman Saturday...but I guess I can have some a couple days early...
-
I like double butter on my popcorn please.
+1000
Movie theater style
-
Rule says .060 as the limit.. .0601 is permitted in every industry, just basic numbers, the rules includes 3 digits after the decimal point, technically the JC is legal...
Thats why the rule should say .060 with a std dev of .0001 or just no variation at all
-
God dammit sorry boys gotta break my promise and say woooo juicyyyy.
-
Interesting twist to things that's for sure. Ball is clearly in Motiv's court now.
-
Rule says .060 as the limit.. .0601 is permitted in every industry, just basic numbers, the rules includes 3 digits after the decimal point, technically the JC is legal...
Thats why the rule should say .060 with a std dev of .0001 or just no variation at all
(https://www.ballreviews.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv168%2F218bee%2Fresized_tommy-boy-meme-generator-tommy-likey-tommy-want-wingy-c4649c_zpsqo65utwh.jpg&hash=12b635f12fdad746b17e9f8ea5b5b23f13a4c79e)
-
Doesn't sound like the USBC is too interested in reversing their decision, more along the lines of Motiv stalling for time.
-
Rule says .060 as the limit.. .0601 is permitted in every industry, just basic numbers, the rules includes 3 digits after the decimal point, technically the JC is legal...
Thats why the rule should say .060 with a std dev of .0001 or just no variation at all
Azaelv, You have to be that guy! the rule is a maximum allowable limit. NOT a maximum allowable limit +/- a little if it works for you!!!!!!! The balls have been banned, get over it and hope that Motiv starts replacing them!!!
-
Doesn't sound like the USBC is too interested in reversing their decision, more along the lines of Motiv stalling for time.
+1
-
Would love to see it go to court...the rule is not written to the level of accuracy being defined in the violation. If I had to guess, they probably already got a legal opinion before starting down this path.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Yep. About 5 years and 5 different balls.
-
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.
-
Rule says .060 as the limit.. .0601 is permitted in every industry, just basic numbers, the rules includes 3 digits after the decimal point, technically the JC is legal...
Thats why the rule should say .060 with a std dev of .0001 or just no variation at all
Azaelv, You have to be that guy! the rule is a maximum allowable limit. NOT a maximum allowable limit +/- a little if it works for you!!!!!!! The balls have been banned, get over it and hope that Motiv starts replacing them!!!
Oh I really dont care if my JC is banned, I'm just stating a point, in every industry there is a tolerance as nature of a mfg process, so the rules must be clear for everyone to follow them, doesnt make sense to say .6% of the total population bla bla. Rules must be applied withing the mfg processes and their natural variance, not because "Joe" thought that way about the rule, cant mix apples with oranges ma friend
-
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.
-
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 just have to ask.
If what is mentioned in the OP is correct and this was known back in February, if Motiv knew this and voluntarily issued recall of the Jackals and Carnages, would everyone be talking about this now?
Because if what is in the OP is true, Motiv would not lose face in their reaction, whether the product was legal or illegal, and the USBC's credibility regarding this issue would not be in question.
BL.
-
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.
-
"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."
OK so the USBC says they let Motiv know two weeks before they revoked their certification that there was a specification issue. What I want to know is did the USBC tell Motiv upfront that they planned on revoking certification? If they did, was Motiv given all the information it needed to rectify the situation?
It doesn't make sense that Motiv knew for two weeks in advance they were going to lose certification and they did nothing to prepare for it. It sounds like they knew there was an issue and before they could get all the information the USBC went ahead and went public with the revocation of the two Jackals.
Obviously it is possible Motiv just sat on this, but I have a hard time believing that to be the case. Must be part of the reason they are choosing to push for recertification.
-
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.
-
"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."
OK so the USBC says they let Motiv know two weeks before they revoked their certification that there was a specification issue. What I want to know is did the USBC tell Motiv upfront that they planned on revoking certification? If they did, was Motiv given all the information it needed to rectify the situation?
It doesn't make sense that Motiv knew for two weeks in advance they were going to lose certification and they did nothing to prepare for it. It sounds like they knew there was an issue and before they could get all the information the USBC went ahead and went public with the revocation of the two Jackals.
Obviously it is possible Motiv just sat on this, but I have a hard time believing that to be the case. Must be part of the reason they are choosing to push for recertification.
Glad someone else was paying attention. Someone should send the press release back to the USBC with a note that says "spin me".
-
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?
-
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 :o :o :o :o
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.
-
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.
-
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 :-X, 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 :o 8) ;D
-
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 :o :o :o :o
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?
-
Careful with statements like that sir :-X, 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 :o 8) ;D
USBC employees can bowl the tournament but cannot win money or awards
-
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?
I think the point is being missed here is that the specification of .060 only pertains to new undrilled balls.
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 :o :o :o :o
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?
-
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 :o :o :o :o
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.
-
There is already additional testing required for cores measuring over .055 during testing.
If you are going to produce a product that pushes allowable limits you need to have very tight manufacturing processes and exceptional quality control. Motiv didn't.
-
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.
-
There is already additional testing required for cores measuring over .055 during testing.
If you are going to produce a product that pushes allowable limits you need to have very tight manufacturing processes and exceptional quality control. Motiv didn't.
I know that, but it doesn't change my suggestion. IF you were to submit a ball with a differential of .055 or higher it is subjected to additional testing, however the ball cannot exceed .058 for approval. During field testing the allowable limit would be .06, the .02 cushion should cover normal manufacturing variances, meaning a violation of the rule would be from carelessness or intentional manipulation.
-
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.
-
There are couple of thing at least I know for sure
1. Rules seemed to be written by a monkey
2. The extra diff is unnoticeable even for pros like ITZPS stated at a different thread, but hey, monkey rules are monkey rules
3. Motiv had a poor QC
4. This is daaamn interesting and I really want motiv to take legal actions against USBC because they have a nice case and might as well teach the usbc a lesson
5. Someone from a different brand blew the whistle, makes no sense to re inspect a ball approved long time ago, plus motiv was noticed feb 23, just 5 days after Graham's win? Thats waaaaay to fishy
Not a motiv fan here, as I mentioned before, I could care less if my JC is banned, theres a big market out there where I can buy more balls.
-
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.
-
For the folks wanting Motiv to sue the USBC.. Who do you think pays to defend a lawsuit? We do! For people complaining about where their dues go now wait until USBC has to defend a lawsuit for enforcing the rules.
This an unfortunate situation. Quality control problems, indifference whatever. You want a ball to be USBC certified then you adhere to the rules. I expect what will ultimately happen is Motiv files for bankruptcy protection and then as unsecured creditors you guys stuck with these balls will get nothing.
-
Haven't caught up yet, but a couple of points.
1. The USBC Ball Manufacturing Specifications states that Differential radius of gyration will be from a minimum of NONE (0.000) to a maximum of 0.060. Could that not be considered as saying you are allowed 0.030 plus or minus 0.030? So you are not allowed to exceed 0.060 period.
2. Arguing that some balls were grandfathered in with a higher upper limit. Some are saying that those should have been banned too. USBC also grandfathered in all balls WITHOUT the USBC engraving that were made prior to the rule change. Should they not have done that?
Now to catch up.
-
For the folks wanting Motiv to sue the USBC.. Who do you think pays to defend a lawsuit? We do! For people complaining about where their dues go now wait until USBC has to defend a lawsuit for enforcing the rules.
This an unfortunate situation. Quality control problems, indifference whatever. You want a ball to be USBC certified then you adhere to the rules. I expect what will ultimately happen is Motiv files for bankruptcy protection and then as unsecured creditors you guys stuck with these balls will get nothing.
Motiv owners are swimming and whiping their butts with money, thats how rich they are
-
Motiv's owners might be rich, but if the company is set up as an LLC or some other sort of business that protects the assets of the owner(s), it really doesn't matter how much money the owner(s) have, if the company is bankrupt, the company is bankrupt. That is for any company in any business. Trying to pierce the corporate veil is very difficult in most court cases.
-
Motiv's owners might be rich, but if the company is set up as an LLC or some other sort of business that protects the assets of the owner(s), it really doesn't matter how much money the owner(s) have, if the company is bankrupt, the company is bankrupt. That is for any company in any business. Trying to pierce the corporate veil is very difficult in most court cases.
That's why llc is good thing, to protect the people personal assets that own the company in case they are sued. Good point.
-
It doesn't matter how much money the owners have, or are worth. What matters is if they have any integrity, and how they feel about whether they are responsible for this situation or not.
It truly is sad that it has devolved to the stage it has. Especially when all this could've been avoided so easily.
The balls had to be banned. By what means, and on what time frame I don't know, but it had to happen.
Since they have been, and it is clearly Motiv's fault, they are the ones who should bear the nurden of making it right.
C'mon guys, get your heads together and figure out how to get it done. You have customers out here who you owe it to. They bought a product from you that was GUARANTEED to be free of defects in workmanship, but they were not.
Make good on that guarantee.
-
They are starting the process of getting them exchanged. Form is ready but software needs to be implemented to track data for the replacement process.
-
So as a complete newb and new bowler I read this statement and wonder with so many numerical quotes...
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.
What is this 'significant' number? What constitutes 'many'? They should have an 'exact' number, a 'significant' number, being such a prestigious organization whom I didn't even know of before I started looking up ball reviews here. 'Many' and 'significant' should be at least 25% of balls sold?
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
.
Again with the vagueness? Why? What is the 'unacceptably' high number... EXACTLY? 50, 100, 101??? They should know, down to the ball.
USBC is open to a dialogue with Motiv, but our decision here was driven by data, not dialogue.
And what is this data USBC has completely failed to provided to the public other than their completely vague and empty terminology like 'many', 'high', 'significant', etc. etc.
The data indicating an unacceptably high percentage of the balls are non-compliant, determines the outcome.
Again, where is the actual data? The numbers, the facts, the figures, not conjecture which is all we're left with, without the actual numbers.
“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.
Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I know from watching your videos, they haven't been any help, unless I want to watch a guy and gal talk about everything they know without demonstrating or providing anything useful. Of course my coach is my main source of information so maybe I am naive to what you really have to offer, but at this point I doubt it.
-
So as a complete newb and new bowler I read this statement and wonder with so many numerical quotes...
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.
What is this 'significant' number? What constitutes 'many'? They should have an 'exact' number, a 'significant' number, being such a prestigious organization whom I didn't even know of before I started looking up ball reviews here. 'Many' and 'significant' should be at least 25% of balls sold?
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
.
Again with the vagueness? Why? What is the 'unacceptably' high number... EXACTLY? 50, 100, 101??? They should know, down to the ball.
USBC is open to a dialogue with Motiv, but our decision here was driven by data, not dialogue.
And what is this data USBC has completely failed to provided to the public other than their completely vague and empty terminology like 'many', 'high', 'significant', etc. etc.
The data indicating an unacceptably high percentage of the balls are non-compliant, determines the outcome.
Again, where is the actual data? The numbers, the facts, the figures, not conjecture which is all we're left with, without the actual numbers.
“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.
Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I know from watching your videos, they haven't been any help, unless I want to watch a guy and gal talk about everything they know without demonstrating or providing anything useful. Of course my coach is my main source of information so maybe I am naive to what you really have to offer, but at this point I doubt it.
You are asking your questions in the wrong place. This is a ball review site, you need to go to www.bowl.com the home of the USBC and ask them.
You will find their email address on their site.
-
Motiv just needs to buck up and give all these people there replacements. Over the limit is over the limit any way you look at it, even if it's just 1 ball or 5000. They are going to lose more valued customers by dragging this out instead of just doing what has to be done. My opinion is that they will make that money back with this new venom and paranoia. Suck it up, do what's right and keep producing great products just like before and all will be OK.
-
For those wondering how many balls were or should be tested and the such. Remember, there is a spec USBC has for the number of balls that can be out of spec in regards to differential before they determine the line of balls illegal.
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%.
So if there are 10,000 Jackals in the market place then 60 balls or less must be out of spec to be legal. Any more than 60 and the balls are illegal. So if USBC finds 61 of the first 100 balls they tested failed the test, then they don't have to test any more. It could mean 60% of all balls would fail or it could mean USBC got the 61 that did fail early and the rest are compliant. It doesn't matter, too many were out of spec and the balls are illegal. The number of balls tested is irrelevant.
-
For those wondering how many balls were or should be tested and the such. Remember, there is a spec USBC has for the number of balls that can be out of spec in regards to differential before they determine the line of balls illegal.
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%.
So if there are 10,000 Jackals in the market place then 60 balls or less must be out of spec to be legal. Any more than 60 and the balls are illegal. So if USBC finds 61 of the first 100 balls they tested failed the test, then they don't have to test any more. It could mean 60% of all balls would fail or it could mean USBC got the 61 that did fail early and the rest are compliant. It doesn't matter, too many were out of spec and the balls are illegal. The number of balls tested is irrelevant.
Well said.
-
https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/8315
-
You beat me to it on the analysis article on 11thframe.
-
https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/8315
If you're not a subscriber of the 11th frame...you should be! Riggs did an excellent job on the articles he wrote explaining the situation at hand with motiv as well as explaining the processes involve in statistics, determining differential, etc. Great reading in my book!
-
https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/8315
If you're not a subscriber of the 11th frame...you should be! Riggs did an excellent job on the articles he wrote explaining the situation at hand with motiv as well as explaining the processes involve in statistics, determining differential, etc. Great reading in my book!
I agree. He is an excellent journalist. I usually have a difficult time explaining hard mathematics concepts like probability in laymans terms. But Jeff asked me the right questions that got the answers in an easy to understand way.
-
>>If you're not a subscriber of the 11th frame...you should be!
I won't subscribe. The guy has never seen anything bad come out of the USBC or PBA with his rose colored glasses. He refuses to criticize either organization. To me that is not professional journalism.
-
>>If you're not a subscriber of the 11th frame...you should be!
I won't subscribe. The guy has never seen anything bad come out of the USBC or PBA with his rose colored glasses. He refuses to criticize either organization. To me that is not professional journalism.
He definitely loves him some Chad Murphy!
-
As much as I do respect Jeff, he is part of the .5% that is sending the USBC down the drain.
-
This letter sounds like ass covering time.
-
Stop, or Jeff will call you "haters". Nothing like a middle aged white guy from Wisconsin calling people "haters" when he has no idea what the word means.
-
Stop, or Jeff will call you "haters". Nothing like a middle aged white guy from Wisconsin calling people "haters" when he has no idea what the word means.
It's what you put in your ice fishing tent to keep you warm, right?