BOWLING.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 188, 9 August 1924, Page 1 (Supplement)

BOWLING.

, DUTIES OF AN UMPIRE

WHY SUCH UNCERTAINTY 1

(By TRUNDLER.')

Umpiring l is nt sixes and sevens in New Zealand, for the simple reason that J nobody has yet thought of defining the J position by framing rules. Probably j the most important would be a rule to I indicate whether umpires are merely to I settle disputes amongst competitors, or whether it is also their duty to see that the rules are upheld. The former seems to be the accepted theory on the part of most of the umpires appointed by the various clubs in Auckland, and also to a great extent on the part of' those appointed for centre or Dominion tournaments. As a matter of fact, the printed conditions for Auckland tournaments distinctly state that the umpires are to "decide all disputes arising in any section," but i;i the Dominion tournaments no directions are given. The ".Laws of the Game" give only three instances in which an umpire may act on his own initiative. He may take possession of a bowl which he thinks does not comply with the test, a right which is never exercised. He may declare "dead" and remove from the green a bowl delivered by a player who follows it further than 15ft feet from the mat. a duty which is practically never performed. He may adopt the same course in regard to a bowl delivered without one foot on the mat, a rule which has also been practically never observed except in the Dominion tournament in Auckland last year, when its effect was unfortunately marred the umpires presuming that they had the right to "stop ,, the bowl. Perhaps they had, but the rule does not say so. and it is safer to go by the rule.

\ But on the general principle of whether an umpire is to act on his own initiative, and see that the rules are observed, or whether he is merely to ; settle disputes, no authoritative ruling lias ever been given in New Zealand, and the result is that most of the rules are practicallly a dead letter. For instance, one of the commonest breaches is of the rule requiring a director to "retire at least Gft from the jack n.= soon as a bowl is greened.' . Very few people seem t-i know that there is such a nil?, if I.l> ■ Is to judge from its consistent infringement, and yet it was in existence, almost in its present form, before the D.B.A. was formed. The question immediately arises as to whether it is tho umpire's duty to »eej

that this rule is observed, or whether he must only act when, his attention is drawn to it. Certainly no umpire has ever bothered about it, and very rarely indeed has a competitor challei./jd this point. Only recently this rule was systematically broken on a green where there were two umpires. One was actually playing in the same team as the culprit, and the other in the very next rink,- but neither of them did anything. One must assume that they were bot> aware of the rule, for otherwise their club would not have appointed them umpires, for which position a complete knowledge of the rules is the first qualification. The most charitable construction that can be put upon the incident, therefore, is that in the absence of a rule requiring them to take the initiative they are content to see the rules broken right and left until they are asked to decide a point in dispute. As for the player who infringed the rule, it may be taken for granted that he had not the slightest idea of its existence, for no good sport would knowingly break a rule, especially one like this, where it puts his opponent at a decided disadvantage. The point is this: If the D.B.A. decide to retain this and similar rules of very great importance, it is surely not too much to ask that the necessary machinery should be provided to see that they are reasonably observed. It is infinitely better to have no rule at all than to put in one that remains a dead letter, for want of a clause that will get it enforced. That is exactly what happened over the other two rules already referred to, until the umpires were explicitly given the power to enforce them, and now the umpires are to blame, and nobody eiso, if these rules are broken.

They , are having plenty of fun in Sydney over the incident that occurred in connection with the umpiring- in the final of the singles championship of New South Wales. Although the point was supposed to have been settled after a lively dispute that lasted for over three months, and caused no end of bitterness, "Bowling Life" is giving the use of its columns for further «omment. One writer ridicules the appointment of the umpire in question, and then enumerates the proper duties of an umpire, as established by custom. If he is correct they must have a very different custom to what we have in New Zealand, for here all competent umpires, or '"'markers , ' as they should probably tie correctly called, answer any question except which shot to play. But it shows the strong feeling nroused in Sydney when a writer attacks tlie umpire's critic in this choice language: "The silly nonsense written by W.A. abdiit what an umpire should do, and what this one should have done, stamps Mm a* a positive ignoramu%';whdgver

he may be." As a matter of fact, this hardly appears to be the position: He had merely related his version of what the custom was. And if one man thinks that one system is the custom, and another thinks that another is more general, there are surely better ways of settling it than by ' using such extravagant language. Tho umpire in question will not feel very grateful to hia unknown champion, who supports •him in this fashion: "By virtue of his position as bowling editor to the leading sporting journal in the world, arid being a recognised authority on the rules of the game, he should know his business." The trouble is that the only rule bearing on the subject in New South Wales is that "the umpire shall decide every question," whereas this particular umpire allowed the competitors to decide, and it was on that point that the Australian Bowling Council declared he was wrong. The amazing thing is that, they have made no rule to deal with similar incidents in future, although several alterations were made at the very session where this judgment was given. ] n this case the umpire appears to have been acting as marker at that particular time, and there was no umpire, whereas in Auckland we usually have an umpire and a marker, a system that prevails in all the Dominion tournaments. But what is wanted here, as well as in Australia, is a distinct set of rules providing for the duties and rights of ji marke", as> well as those of the umpire, the latter being just the same whether officiating in singles or rinks. And the most important clause in those rules in both Australia and New Zealand, will be to have it clearly stated, in the case of the marker as well as the umpire, whether those oflicials are to wait until they are asked a question, like an arbitrator called in to decide a dispute, as implied by the "recognised authority" in Sydney who has apparently caused all the trouble, or whether they should act on their own initiative, and take full control of the game, like a referee at football, as decided at the Easter meeting of the Australian Bowling Council. The matter should not be allowed to rest, for otherwise we shall be having another string of regrettable incidents. These are practically always caused by the absence of specific rules, with tactful yet firm umpires to administer them, for in one important respect the game of bowls is unlike the game of football, in that the competitors never dispute the ruling of the umpire, except in those cases where it is specially provided tint an appeal can be made against his decision. The Dominion Council will meet in Wellington on September 10, and that will be a good opportunity to get everything in order, ready for" the big tournament next January. ■■