Board index » General Forums » Ball Talk




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:34 am Post Number: #1 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: April 4, 2011
Posts: 2983
Location: Michigan
Reputation: 259
Reputation Power: 3
My PSO was telling me today that there is a new rule being considered to lower the Max Differential for the balls.

Anybody else hear anything like this?

_________________
Eric Hartwell

Right Handed
PAP 4.75" up 1/2"
45* rotation
12* tilt
330 rev rate
15 mph off hand


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:38 am Post Number: #2 Post
Online
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2007
Posts: 3976
Location: Malta, NY
Reputation: 873
Reputation Power: 9
EricHartwell wrote:
My PSO was telling me today that there is a new rule being considered to lower the Max Differential for the balls.

Anybody else hear anything like this?


And considering on limiting coverstock aggressiveness, announcement due in January.

_________________
Please press the Image button if you feel I've been helpful.

“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:52 am Post Number: #3 Post
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: July 9, 2012
Posts: 1133
Location: Central Florida
Reputation: 372
Reputation Power: 4
The 11th Frame: Looming new ball technology limits from USBC could ignite industry war
https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/9896/Looming-new-ball-technology-limits-from-USBC-could-ignite-industry-war

(the new specification would dial back the maximum differential for balls from 0.060 to around 0.045, sources told 11thFrame.com )

The 11th Frame: Proposed USBC oil absorption test for balls ‘not scientifically valid’ in current form, technical experts say
https://www.11thframe.com/news/article/9899/Proposed-USBC-oil-absorption-test-for-balls-not-scientifically-valid-in-current

USBC Chad Murphys Facebook post about the Jeff Richgels articles.

https://www.facebook.com/USBCChadMurphy/posts/818683678308781

For those that don't facebook

Attachment:
Chad Murphy facebook post The word “war and its meaning.pdf


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Click my green + rep button if this helps!
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:26 am Post Number: #4 Post
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: July 9, 2012
Posts: 1133
Location: Central Florida
Reputation: 372
Reputation Power: 4
According to the JR article, sounds like Chad might try to limit layouts too!!

From the Looming article
"But I've also heard that the new rules may include drilling limits that will limit the ability to increase differential"

_________________
Click my green + rep button if this helps!
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:11 am Post Number: #5 Post
Online
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: April 26, 2007
Posts: 3976
Location: Malta, NY
Reputation: 873
Reputation Power: 9
bowl1820 wrote:
According to the JR article, sounds like Chad might try to limit layouts too!!

From the Looming article
"But I've also heard that the new rules may include drilling limits that will limit the ability to increase differential"


Limiting core shape. I hope he has X-Ray vision!

_________________
Please press the Image button if you feel I've been helpful.

“When you prepare for everything, you’re ready for anything.” - Bill Walsh


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:34 pm Post Number: #6 Post
Offline
Pro Shop
User avatar

Joined: January 26, 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Richmond, VA
Reputation: 17
Reputation Power: 1
A civil and reasoned discussion among USBC and Manufacturers could lead to some very intelligent changes and rule out some less intelligent changes.

_________________
=======================================================
RevZ


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:16 pm Post Number: #7 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: June 5, 2010
Posts: 856
Reputation: 77
Reputation Power: 1
Things are always evolving and we need to make adjustments along the path. Is it easier to regulate ball dynamics vs. regulating oil patterns? If there is still a funnel to the pocket what does it really change? I'm not for or against changes that I don't even know about I'm just asking the first questions that popped into my head.

_________________
* MPH @ aarows
* RPM
AR *
AT *
PAP 3 3/4"
(* rebuilding)

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:02 pm Post Number: #8 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: October 22, 2010
Posts: 511
Location: Cleveland, OH
Reputation: 59
Reputation Power: 1
.45 diff restriction will have no effect on high rev/high speed power players. That much diff is more than enough for a high rev player to create area and shoot huge scores. My house shot arsenal only has 1 ball above that line anyway.

Low rev/low speed bowlers will lose some of the power the balls create for them. Honor scores probably will decrease overall because of this - but it will be a big drop off in one group and no drop off in the other.

USBC needs to consider whether the “scores are too high” complaint really means “there are too many 300s” or if it means “I can’t compete anymore”. I personally think it’s the latter, and these rule changes should only widen that gap.

Not a fan.

_________________
PAP- 4 1/8 over, 3/4 up
Speed - 17-18 monitor
Rev Rate - 475
Rotation - 65
Tilt - 12


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:20 pm Post Number: #9 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: August 31, 2014
Posts: 583
Location: Tucson, AZ
Reputation: 113
Reputation Power: 2
(Podcast) Mo Pinel on the proposed rules: http://above180.com/2017/12/mo-pinel-on-possible-usbc-changes/

_________________
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

RH
PAP: 5.625" x 0
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 7º


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:43 pm Post Number: #10 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: August 31, 2014
Posts: 583
Location: Tucson, AZ
Reputation: 113
Reputation Power: 2
How could the layout be determined by an inspector, without knowing the PAP?

_________________
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

RH
PAP: 5.625" x 0
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 7º


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:11 pm Post Number: #11 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: August 11, 2014
Posts: 454
Reputation: 69
Reputation Power: 1
snick wrote:
How could the layout be determined by an inspector, without knowing the PAP?


Everybody gets the same layout, no exceptions! ;) (I know some pro shops that will like that...)

One thought, restrict CG placement to limit balance hole options. I think this was discussed a few years back.

I understand the desire to reign in ball dynamics, but would rather see 4:1 challenge shots become the league standard. Can't imagine the ball companies are going to like the former...

Steve

_________________
18-19 mph (15.5-16.5 on monitor), 375 rpm, PAP 5 1/2 x 3/8 up, AT: 12*, AR: 45*


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:51 am Post Number: #12 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: June 5, 2010
Posts: 856
Reputation: 77
Reputation Power: 1
stevespo wrote:
I understand the desire to reign in ball dynamics, but would rather see 4:1 challenge shots become the league standard.
Steve


I agree but then the USBC would have to be the ones responsible for all sanctioned centers which would make their jobs more challenging and individuals would have to be trained in many areas of the country to carry out these certifications. To time consuming and to expensive in the eyes of the USBC I would guess.

_________________
* MPH @ aarows
* RPM
AR *
AT *
PAP 3 3/4"
(* rebuilding)

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:22 am Post Number: #13 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: April 4, 2011
Posts: 2983
Location: Michigan
Reputation: 259
Reputation Power: 3
Attendance at the National tournament is going down. State tournament attendance is down. League membership is down.
Restrictive rules isn't going to help this.

The majority of bowlers buy a ball and use it for many years.
Now the USBC is telling them they have to buy a new ball or they can't bowl. That is B.S.

A 5 year grandfather rule? I have 2 balls in my arsenal that are older than that and I have no intention of retiring them any time soon. Both of which will not be legal under the proposed rules.

Bowling center proprietors need to speak up. Rules like what is being proposed is going to hurt their bottom line. They are going to lose more bowlers and leagues.
To combat these rule changes I see the the bowling centers offering non-sanctioned leagues and tournaments.

There is very little to no benefit for the average bowler to be a member of the USBC.
Why continue to pay sanction fees every year when you get nothing for it. Wait, you get to buy a new ball.
Even the above average bowler, once you shoot an honor score and get a ring, that's it. You are not going to get another one.

It seems to me that the USBC wants to have an elite, small group of bowlers that aspire to be professional bowlers.

_________________
Eric Hartwell

Right Handed
PAP 4.75" up 1/2"
45* rotation
12* tilt
330 rev rate
15 mph off hand


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:45 pm Post Number: #14 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: February 28, 2011
Posts: 505
Location: Houston, TX
Reputation: 88
Reputation Power: 1
EricHartwell wrote:
Attendance at the National tournament is going down. State tournament attendance is down. League membership is down.
Restrictive rules isn't going to help this.

The majority of bowlers buy a ball and use it for many years.
Now the USBC is telling them they have to buy a new ball or they can't bowl. That is B.S.

A 5 year grandfather rule? I have 2 balls in my arsenal that are older than that and I have no intention of retiring them any time soon. Both of which will not be legal under the proposed rules.

Bowling center proprietors need to speak up. Rules like what is being proposed is going to hurt their bottom line. They are going to lose more bowlers and leagues.
To combat these rule changes I see the the bowling centers offering non-sanctioned leagues and tournaments.

There is very little to no benefit for the average bowler to be a member of the USBC.
Why continue to pay sanction fees every year when you get nothing for it. Wait, you get to buy a new ball.
Even the above average bowler, once you shoot an honor score and get a ring, that's it. You are not going to get another one.

It seems to me that the USBC wants to have an elite, small group of bowlers that aspire to be professional bowlers.


Not sure there would be a grandfather timeframe. It should be no different than the last time USBC limited differential. A bowler can still use a Visionary Immortal at 0.078". Previously approved balls are approved.

And I can't see how this rule will mean more unsanctioned leagues. There won't be any leagues full of 0.060" cored balls. Manufacturers are not going to continue to make balls with differentials above whatever limit that might be implemented. All new balls will be manufactured to the new spec and that is what will be available for everyone. Those who quit over this possible new rule are looking for a reason to quit.

You want bad.... my son plays little league baseball. The new rule this year is your bat must have a USA Baseball sticker on it. If not, it isn't allowed for games or practice. So all of little league must go out and buy new bats and basically throw away the rest. Even the stores aren't caught up yet since some are still carrying old stock at normal prices.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:38 pm Post Number: #15 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: April 4, 2011
Posts: 2983
Location: Michigan
Reputation: 259
Reputation Power: 3
I guess I misunderstood the 5 year thing.
Would that be for the manufacturers to deplete sock and retool?

I understand the frustration of the approved bat lists. My daughter was involved in a big change over with the bats in softball. In 2012 the same thing happened needing the 2012 sticker. On top of that when playing in different tournaments sponsered by diffrent organizations, USSSA, NSA, ASA etc. all of which have their own approved stickers/labels. The when going off to college the NCAA has another list of approved bats.

So what does this all boil down to?
There is cheating in every sport and if there isn't a governing body to enforce the rules people will take advantage whenever they can.
I say this because of the lanee conditions, ex. easy THS.
Is this not a form of cheating? The USBC needs to regulate the lane conditions so the bowling centers aren't cheating for the bowlers.

_________________
Eric Hartwell

Right Handed
PAP 4.75" up 1/2"
45* rotation
12* tilt
330 rev rate
15 mph off hand


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:25 pm Post Number: #16 Post
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: July 9, 2012
Posts: 1133
Location: Central Florida
Reputation: 372
Reputation Power: 4
EricHartwell wrote:
I guess I misunderstood the 5 year thing.
Would that be for the manufacturers to deplete sock and retool?


The 5 year timeframe would be for the mfg. to retool and start producing balls under the new specs And for the players to get rid of the out of spec balls and get new ones.

The thing is if you listen to Mo in the podcast, he says 5 years is too long! It will put a bunch of companies out of business, because people won't buy new balls during that 5 year period.

he says it should be only 2-3 years (the same as a balls warranty basically), that way people will have to buy new balls sooner.

_________________
Click my green + rep button if this helps!
"REMEMBER, it isn't how much the ball hooks, it's where."


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:52 pm Post Number: #17 Post
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: December 28, 2010
Posts: 381
Location: Canton, Ohio
Reputation: 14
Reputation Power: 1
spmcgivern wrote:

Not sure there would be a grandfather timeframe. It should be no different than the last time USBC limited differential. A bowler can still use a Visionary Immortal at 0.078". Previously approved balls are approved.

And I can't see how this rule will mean more unsanctioned leagues. There won't be any leagues full of 0.060" cored balls. Manufacturers are not going to continue to make balls with differentials above whatever limit that might be implemented. All new balls will be manufactured to the new spec and that is what will be available for everyone. Those who quit over this possible new rule are looking for a reason to quit.

You want bad.... my son plays little league baseball. The new rule this year is your bat must have a USA Baseball sticker on it. If not, it isn't allowed for games or practice. So all of little league must go out and buy new bats and basically throw away the rest. Even the stores aren't caught up yet since some are still carrying old stock at normal prices.


At least safety is the concern for the USA Bats... Some of the USSSA Bats are mortar launchers and i am surprised more kids have not been seriously injured using them. I have a 13yr old on my sons team who is 6' 175. When i pitch him BP i stand at 70' because he scares the hell outta me :)

The Diff rule in my opinion will change nothing.. Bowlers will adjust and scores will stay up.

_________________
** UPDATED STATS AS OF 6-06-14 **
Right Hand
PAP 4 1/2-> 3/4 up
ROTATION 20 - 30
TILT 11.5*
MPH 16.7 MONITOR
RPM 350-375
http://WWW.VisionaryBowling.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lQgu7EqML0 Raven Attack


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:14 pm Post Number: #18 Post
Offline
BCU Graduate Layouts
User avatar

Joined: August 31, 2014
Posts: 583
Location: Tucson, AZ
Reputation: 113
Reputation Power: 2
So if they reduce the max diff to 045, bowling centers can simply modify the house shot to create more friction/help/hold. If the USBC actually wants to accomplish something with these rule changes, they would have to standardize (and check regularly) the oil patterns as well.

_________________
Benchmark Bowling Pro Shop
Byron

RH
PAP: 5.625" x 0
REVRATE: 360
SPEED: 17mph at release
AR: 55º
AT: 7º


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:24 pm Post Number: #19 Post
Offline
Pro Shop
User avatar

Joined: January 26, 2010
Posts: 260
Location: Richmond, VA
Reputation: 17
Reputation Power: 1
I wish there was an accurate measure of oil absorption so it could be reigned in. I think league bowlers would be happier if a pattern could hold up longer.

_________________
=======================================================
RevZ


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Proposed rule changes
 Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:28 pm Post Number: #20 Post
Offline
Member

Joined: December 29, 2017
Posts: 31
Location: Denver-ish, Colorado
Reputation: 0
Reputation Power: 1
Quote:
You want bad.... my son plays little league baseball. The new rule this year is your bat must have a USA Baseball sticker on it. If not, it isn't allowed for games or practice. So all of little league must go out and buy new bats and basically throw away the rest. Even the stores aren't caught up yet since some are still carrying old stock at normal prices.


Yep, my husband and I are the Pres and Sec of our local LL.
We had planned to allow last years bats for most of the upcoming spring season, but our District guy said that we cannot. So, our league is buying new bats for each team, two bats per team in different weights so that those kids whose parents cannot afford to buy yet another new bat will have something to swing. Tom gets calls most every day about it, grandparents bought kids last years bats for Christmas and the kids cannot us it in play. Our league is shelling out $6000 for bats for the league. And we have to contend with higher fees for field space as well. So, in this I feel your pain.


Top 
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » General Forums » Ball Talk


 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: