A BOWLING DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18302, 9 February 1925, Page 2

A BOWLING DISPUTE.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE MIESS." Sir, —In Saturday's issue there appeared a lotter written by the secretary of the Beckenham Bowling Club, •in which he complains of the publicity given to the incident of his club being discussed for playing Mr W. Almond in the eliminating game of the pennant competition. As to the publicity, it would have been in the club's best interest for the secretary's lotter never to have been written, as tho explanation* given by him, viz., that, owing to Mr Morgan being in Wellington, the club had no other player capable of skipping a rink, is nonsense. I havo before me the list of games played in which the ordinary or common garden variety of skip piloted Beckenham into the very creditable position of tiein.g with Sydenham for first place in Section Bof the pennants. Mr Morgan, % comparatively now member of the club, played in one, viz.. against Im ;>erial, a new club composed chiefly of first year players, who were sports to enter, and though losing on their games, put up a good fightWhy was the Beckenham Club confined to Morgan or Almond? Why not have played one of the skips who had guided the club to its present position There were three who played) against United, two of whom won; three who played .against Heathcote. two of whom won; and three who played against Sumner, all of whom won. That these men were available was evident by tho fact that three of them were playing in minor positions and two were on the bank. In regard to Opawa making the game as unpleasant as ]X>ssible, that is nonsense. At the very commencement of the game they voiced their objection, and rightly, so. Of course, when the Centre turned down the protest, it left the field open for other clubs to do a.s Beckenham had done, and these clubs, St. Albans and Edgeware, were (under the Centre's ruling), if not actually compelled .in self-defence to do as Beckenham had done, but were at any rate justified in so doine. But the Centre were at fault. The president said there was no rule, "beyond ordinary sportsmanship," and this certainly should be enough for fair-minded men. But if there were no rule, there certainlv is a condition which the Centre should have upheld, and it was this: When first the four-rink championship was introduced, it took the place of the A pennant. There was a distinctrule that {ill players should .be listed as A or B, at the beginning of the pennants, these lists to be in the Centre secretary's hand, and A players could not play in the B pennant games. _ ' And "when the four-rink championship canie into being it wrus distinctly stated that these conditions would prevail. When Beckenham broke this understood condition, Opawa wera justified in lodging a protest, and the Centre should have upheld it. Bowling clubs are, as a whole, sports, Beckenham included, and I am persuaded that had the rogular selectors been in Christchurch, the trouble would not havo arisen, as they, I believe, considered playing the game of more importance than winning the game. While writing I would mention another matter, of unstamped bowls. I have played on the Beckenham green once this season, and the umpiro on that day was Mr Bott, and he would not allow such bowls to be used, two players being provided with stamped bowls by him. The president, I believe, was umpire on the Opawa groan at Easter. 1924, and a player with unstamped bowls was stopped by him. But when the matter of unstamped bowls was under discussion, he stated that the Dominion Centre were enforcing this rule. But, like the local club, the Dominion umpires must be lax, or some of them, for the very bowls turned down by Mr.Benzie at Easter, 1921, wore passed by the Dominion umpire in January at the Dominion tourney held in Christchurch. Yours, etc., UNITED.