48 Comments on “USBC: MORE STORM/900/ROTO BANS! | NATIONAL TOURNEMENT EXCLUSION RULE ONLY | STILL USBC APPROVED?!?”

  1. The balls are essentially illegal. They’re USBC approved but can’t be sold anymore? Ok. I’m trading all of them in.

  2. Imagine you replace your Spectre with the Wolverine… just to now have the Wolverine listed as the new prohibited ball… wow

    1. @Willie Young or how about just not buying a Storm ball until this debacle is resolved. Last I checked there are 7 companies under the Brunswick umbrella.

    2. @Dattebayo it’s either Storms manufacturing issue or the USBCs testing procedure. Storm might not recover. The USBC will be bankrupt if they lose a lawsuit of this magnitude.

    3. @Cardinal Copium
      I agree. No offense, I was just trying to understand this from all spectrum. Just from my personal opinion. I thought USBC have failed. I get it they want to create a fair playing field, but these balls should’ve never made it out for commercial sale and use.
      In the end, we the people suffer, whether its storm, USBC, or both. We the people suffer.

    4. @Dattebayo None taken. I don’t think the dust has settled yet. Regardless I don’t think the USBC should be changing rules in the middle of competition even if their testing is correct.

  3. I read a statement from Belmonte today that USBC said that they wanted to test his bag of balls. He asked if he could observe them doing the tests and they said “No.”. He said that he would not submit his balls for testing if he could not watch. Later on their blog, Brad Miller said that their equipment had to be tested as well. It does appear to be aimed at Storm. There are other guys in the “House” and they haven’t mentioned the testing.

    1. Brad specifically mentioned that they were testing urethane, but none of the balls being punished are urethane. And in Belmonte’s photo, you can see Motiv and Columbia 300 bags sitting next to the curtains.

    2. If we know some balls of company A are illegal and know that all balls of company B are legal, why would we be testing balls from company B?? Why wouldn’t we want to know if these are some of the legal or some of the illegal from company A?

    3. Just because motive and Columbia 300 bags are sitting by the curtain mean that their getting tested that could be where bowlers just rest there equipment the usbc needs to be investigated as far as I’m concerned

  4. storm/900/roto need to come up with some replacements quickish because most of the current list are what the pro’s are actually using to bowl the tournaments. the wolverine was the recommended replacement to the spectre in alot of reviews and now that’s getting discontinued. so even though most of us wont have to replace the balls on that list they wont be for sale either. this is going to leave a lot of performance gaps in the current lineup.

  5. Best part of this post! “You’ve got that other manufacturer you know that can’t make a flyer to save their life because someone’s color blind and only develops in Word.” LOL curious who this company might be, Ha!

  6. Something smells really fishy about all this. Whether it’s fishy on storm or USBC, I don’t know. How the hell do you expect to ban 6 balls in 1 day (some of them released several months ago) and expect to move on just like that?

    1. Usbc director work for ebi has some against storm. ? 1 howd did these pass for approval then fail. I see court case down the road. Who monitors usbc. An the equipment they use. When was it Is calibrated last. And derometers depending on which ones you have say right on their plus or -3 . .the hole thing seems fishy.

    2. The denominator here is the implementation of Storm’s pearl cover, whether it being hybrid. Doesn’t appear to affect the solid line. If you’re not getting an edge on other MFGs then you’re not winning or making sales. Good thing for Storm is that they can raise the price $10 per ball going forward and recoup their losses.

  7. “Storm is Happy ! lol , sounds like someone holding a gun . All these balls have already been approved by the same org that is now banning them. I could go on a huge rant about usbc right now.

    1. @Remo Evans that’s the point , the rules in place already approved them. and now testing behind curtains and a day into the masters these are the steps they are taking. it just stinks.

  8. This is the messed up part. USBC now declaring these balls illegal for the Masters 1 day after Masters started. Many of these bowlers are amateurs that may have flown in with a limited arsenal. So it’s not like these bowlers can get stuff replaced at a moments notice. So what if their bag has just about everything on the banned list? So then what do they use. And if they buy another ball there it may not be easy for them to get it home. This is a heck of a time to make a ruling like this!

    1. I feel like they should test individual peoples bowling balls and if they pass the test it should be able to be used. I don’t think they should just ban all these great balls in general.

    2. @red cat!! They tried that… but Belmo didn’t like their process. So USBC dropped the hammer :)) Also, the balls are still technically on the approved list and non-national tournaments listed can allow them if they’d like.

  9. Most pros are using at LEAST one of these this week at the Gold Coast. This is truly shocking. So many great and popular balls on this list. The Altered Reality? Really? Thanks for sharing this news, Beans.

    1. dude i just bought the altered reality. I really hope this just stays a tourney thing. I’d be pissed if it got banned for league use.

  10. Few weeks ago, i made a joke thinking about the UFO Alert going to be tested by the USBC after Prather won the world championship and Belmo in the Scorpion in WSOB….then this happened SMH 🤦‍♂️

    I got a UFO alert last year and a Phaze 4 last month.

    The only thing positive that i see in this is that at least they’re still approved though(at some point).

  11. USBC has several hardness reports posted on their website from the past field investigations. I expect the report from the latest data will take a few months to come out. The earlier reports had multiple manufacturers tested but they are blind coded in the reports. Storm may have been playing too close to the hardness limit and process variability pushed them over too often, had an incorrectly calibrated master durometer, and/or were checking the ball hardness with the wrong process. The fact that Storm is not suing says they were probably convinced the balls are out of spec. The big question is did Storm do it on purpose to try and sell more balls.

  12. I like that leagues will have options they have since most are concluding in a few weeks. This allows for the happy medium. However, the replacement ball for the Spectre was the Wolverine! 🤦🏾‍♂️ That makes it a little awkward…

  13. I have a couple things. 1) it does seem like a witch hunt on Storm products. You don’t hear any other non-Storm bowlers talk about their equipment being tested. 2) Is the USBC certification process flawed? One ball maybe, but 6. and finally 3) In this pandemic there has been a shortage of epoxies and other materials. Could in the rush to fill the need the manufactures of these materials are putting out inferior product?

  14. You hit the nail on the head. We need transparency. Without it we will continue to question the process and credibility behind these decisions.

  15. Great Video: I sent an Email to the USBC Marketing Manager about this. Why a bowler can not be present during a Ball Inspection ?
    Whom is watching to make sure the Bowling Ball does not get damaged ?
    What happens if a Bowling Ball gets damaged during a inspection ?
    How can you be sure the integrity of the inspection ?

    I would hate to hear a bowler was disqualified, did not make the cut, withdraw
    because of the damage to all the urethane bowling balls and TV because the damage
    to their bowling balls during inspection. I think, the bowler has every right to be present
    or a Tournament Director could Lie and DQ a bowler because the Director does not like
    that bowler or may have Gambled for a certain bowler to win.

    Integrity in our Sport of Bowling needs to be Transparent from the Bowlers and
    Officials.
    Paul Klanecky

  16. The part I don’t like is doing it in the middle of tournaments for the open people have already used them and for round 1 of the masters and now amateurs have to scramble to find replacements seems like a mess to me

    1. @jim
      Newton test have shown a corked bat doesnt give an advantage but maybe alittle faster swing. No affect on the ball flying further. Theres a test on YouTube. Now a bouncy ball filled bat, different story

  17. So this is my question. Let’s take the phaze 4. The core has been used and the cover R2S Pearl used. Why now does it fail? If it’s a cover issue does this mean the hyroad pearl is also bad?

  18. So, at this point I can see A LOT of people that will demand their money back vs an exchange. Its clear either storm has a manufacturing issue or unethical leadership. Just got 3 new balls delivered yesterday..2 of them are on this list. And, tbh, I dont really want an “exchange”..

  19. USBC needs to test all bowling balls prior to approval. Once approved USBC will need to prove and show proof of why a ball is now found to be not compliant. I believe a waive should be issue for the remaining 2022 season. If USBC wishes to pull the approval of any ball they should allow the ball to be used for the remainder of the season before disallowing its use.
    Testing criteria also needs to be looked at. If a ball is approved for USBC use and than found to be not compliant later, an investigation needs to happen to find out why the ball no longer meets specifications. It could be a problem with ball manufacturing and the problem needs to address what batch of balls are affected. To take an approved ball and make it illegal to use in National play in the middle of the bowling season is a big mistake.

Leave a Reply to Paul’s Online Solutions Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.