Update June 8, 2020: USBC announced in this news release that based upon comments it was taking from manufacturers through June 1, it will extend the implementation timeline: Manufacturers will be granted ball approval at the current 72D limit through Dec. 31, and will be required to discontinue additional production of models previously approved below 73D by July 31, 2022.

Based on everything we’ve learned about the hardness of plain and blended urethane balls with USBC’s data gathering this year, I have no problem with their proposal to almost leave the rule alone by merely increasing the minimum hardness from 72D to 73D.

If you were living under a rock and have no clue about any of this, I wrote three lengthy stories on the topic with these headlines:

It's a 'baseless claim' to say illegal PURPLE HAMMERs are being used on the PBA Tour, PBA Commissioner Tom Clark says

Video of a 7 series PURPLE HAMMER testing illegally soft illustrates why USBC urethane ball hardness tests are needed — and where it goes from here

Update: USBC report shows urethane ball hardness issue much wider than PURPLE HAMMER, even though only 2 illegal balls were that model

I also did this Q&A with former World Bowling and USBC executive and technical expert Neil Stremmel looking at the issues.

To understand what follows and why USBC’s minimal rule change proposal detailed in this news release makes sense, you really should have read all of that coverage.

USBC also said it will maintain the requirement preventing bowlers from altering ball hardness as listed in the Equipment Specifications manual and in the USBC Rulebook (Rule 17a. Unfair Tactics):
The use of chemicals, or other methods, to change the hardness of the surface of the ball after it is manufactured is prohibited.

However, as part of the proposed minimum hardness change, USBC also proposes “eliminating the use of field tests to check bowling ball hardness because of challenges related to workability, temperature control and variances in testing devices.”

While that might make sense when we’re talking about a few points of hardness that happen naturally over use and time with urethanes, it leaves a gaping hole for true cheaters: those who would radically change the softness of a ball with, say, acetone or another chemical.

Without field tests, how can you catch them?

The overriding question is whether taking a ball to 55D or 60D or whatever hardness you pick with chemicals offers a competitive advantage?

I imagine with reactive resin that would be more hook than anyone could reasonably handle, but with urethane? I don’t know. It might hook immediately and be done by the arrows. Or it might hook close to resin, with the control of urethane — perhaps an advantage.

I do know that if it doesn’t matter, there is no reason to have a rule. So the fact that there is a rule makes me think it must matter to some degree.

And as I’ve always said, if we have rules they must be enforced, or we’re not really a credible sport. 

Yet eliminating field testing means there is no enforcement mechanism.

Obviously this matters little for the great majority of bowling, with few people throwing urethanes for anything but spares and there being little to no incentive to cheat.

But for the PBA Tour especially, urethanes are a major factor and having no enforcement mechanism would put the PBA in a bad spot and almost certainly cause issues with players.

Here’s the crux of the issue: Player A suspects Player B of altering the surface of their ball during a tournament and reports it to PBA.

With no field test allowed, does PBA confiscate the ball and send it to USBC in Arlington for a certified check with USBCs equipment?

If PBA takes the ball immediately and it’s found to be legal, Player B was deprived of the use of the ball for the rest of that tournament. Unfair to Player B.

If PBA waits until the end of the tournament to take the ball and it’s found to be illegal, then Player B might win a tournament by cheating. Unfair to the rest of the field.

It’s a terrible situation for PBA and its players.

PBA Tour Commissioner Tom Clark said in a message exchange that he wanted to speak with USBC about the proposal and noted that “we can just have our own field test rule if we feel like we can create the right environment.”

I don’t mean to be the guy looking at the extreme negative, but these are people trying to pay their bills, and there may be a player or two who will see the situation I describe and seek to take advantage of it if there is no enforcement mechanism.

USBC is inviting comments from manufacturers through June 1 on the proposed changes.

The USBC Equipment Specifications Committee, which has delegated authority from the USBC Board to make equipment specification changes, proposed the specification changes based on research provided by the USBC Equipment Specifications and Certifications staff that included field tests at both the U.S. Open and World Series of Bowling in advance of the 2020 USBC Masters.

As detailed in my stories linked at the top of this story, the field tests demonstrated that urethane shells naturally become softer with use over time, possibly pushing them below the 72D minimum, while reactive shells show little change.

USBC said the tests showed five urethane ball models across three different manufacturers averaged under 72D after use.  

However, USBC said that it “does not feel having urethane balls naturally fall below the hardness specification is a competition concern, since reactive balls have more hook potential than urethane.”  

Under the proposal, manufacturers will be asked to discontinue additional production of models previously approved below 73D by July 31, 2021. Currently, 32 ball models approved by USBC passed testing with at least one sample ball under 73D.

Update June 8, 2020: USBC announced in this news release that based upon comments it was taking from manufacturers through June 1, it will extend the implementation timeline: Manufacturers will be granted ball approval at the current 72D limit through Dec. 31, and will be required to discontinue additional production of models previously approved below 73D by July 31, 2022.

However, all previously approved balls remain approved and can continue to be used in competition under the proposal, and any balls confiscated by USBC during field testing for additional research would be returned and could be used in competition.

I wasn’t able to immediately confirm if my understanding of that was correct, but this reads to me that the balls found illegal at the U.S. Open and World Series will be returned to players to be used again. If so, that will not go over well with some other players, particularly since those balls are one D point more illegal now. Update: I later confirmed that the balls were returned to the players.

But again, USBC does not see that as a "competition concern," and it's hard to argue with that based on the evidence.

This hardness research report offers details on the tests, and some highlights follow.

The calibrated durometers, devices used to measure the hardness of a material, showed slight variances, as USBC was advised by the manufacturer to expect.

The durometers measured 0.8 to 1.8 points lower than the USBC approval durometer used in Arlington, which accounts for some balls in the field test measuring below 72D and further illustrates another variance challenge in conducting field tests.

USBC said 330 reactive, 153 urethane, and one rubber ball were tested at the 2020 World Series.

While no reactives fall below 72D during ball approval in the laboratory, 70 out of 330 (21.2%) of reactives measured below 72D in the field, which USBC said may be because of durometer variance. The lowest field measurement on a reactive ball was 69.4D.

Though urethane balls were not below 72D when approved by USBC, 67 out of 153 (43.8%) of urethanes in the field measured below 72D. The lowest measurement on a urethane ball was 66.1D and six urethane balls were shown to test below the field specification of 68D.

The five models comprised 68 of the 153 urethane balls tested. The field test showed 96 percent of these “soft” urethane balls tested less than 72D

The other 85 urethane balls tested were considered “hard” urethane balls and just over 1 percent of these balls tested less than 72D.

The field test also showed a hardness decrease when comparing the hardness of a urethane ball at the time of approval to its hardness in the field.

Reactive balls, in contrast, show little variation in hardness from time of approval to when tested in the field.

USBC monitors the hardness of approval samples and, while the data shows reactive balls have been approved at a stable level of hardness, the manufacturing target for urethane has been on a downward trajectory over the past couple of years: from roughly 79 in 2017, 80 in 2018 and 78 in 2019 to 73 in 2020. (Perhaps a reaction by manufacturers to the perceived advantages of the PURPLE HAMMER detailed in my stories.)

By adjusting for measured differences between the durometers used for field testing, USBC was able to compare the measurement for each bowling ball to the average value recorded when the ball was first approved.

When applied to the 154 urethane balls measured, there was an average drop of 2.1 points on the hardness D-scale.

Most urethane balls drop significantly from their approval hardness, but two or three models seem to stay relatively close. Reviewing the approval data shows the models that matched closer to their approval numbers had oil absorption times of less than one hour. The fact the balls absorb oil is an indicator these balls are more of a weak reactive design, rather than a pure urethane, USBC said.

When breaking down the hardness changes by manufacturer, all five manufacturers had a decrease in hardness from approval to the field testing, though two of the five showed a larger difference. The manufacturers weren't identified by name.

During data collection at the World Series of Bowling, 76 of the urethane balls tested at the U.S. Open were resubmitted for testing. The data shows an average (mean) paired hardness difference of 1.1 points softer on the second check at the World Series. The root cause of this paired difference is under investigation. (Paired hardness means a ball’s test result from the U.S. Open was compared to the same ball’s test result at the WSOB).

At this time, USBC staff believes the difference is related to the location of the testing and the variance of temperature gauges used to ensure the balls are within the appropriate temperature window. When these paired differences are broken down by date of manufacture, based on the serial numbers, the large fluctuations in the differences appear to be from balls made in the last two to three years, which supports the idea the overall change will settle down over time.

Key Findings

• Reactive shells showed little change when tested in the field, averaging 0.45 points softer compared to when approved
• Urethane shells showed more change when tested in the field, averaging 2.1 points softer compared to when approved
• The results vary in magnitude by manufacturer, but the trends are the same. For the reactive balls, the hardness changes little to none for all manufacturers; with urethane, the balls get softer for all manufacturers
• Duplicating the USBC field test would be extremely difficult for a tournament operator because of the time and manpower required, the number of variables, and the cost.

  ---

  Note: As has always been clearly disclosed on 11thFrame.com here, I have been a Storm bowling staffer since 1996.