BOWLING NOTES.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20499, 18 March 1932, Page 4

BOWLING NOTES.

[l3y Jack.] Those who witnessed the pairs at the Christcliureh green on Saturday saw some fine plfiv oii the part of the St. Albans' representatives, C. Malpas and 11. B. Oakey. They won their game against (J. Lawson and J. S. Martin (Sunnier) fairly easily, but against Spreydon they had amassed the big total of 22 points at the end of the fourteenth head, their opponents in the meantime having captured two heads for three points. At this stage it looked as though Malpas and Oakey might run up the haJf-ceiitury, but Templeton and Keddington made a great recovery by winning the final seven heads, bringing their total to 22. It was a fino effort <m the part of the Spreydon players. I'. Delargcy and llnuii have played very consistently during the season, and many expected the Canterbury pair to contest the final, if not actually win it. They were very disappointing against Spreydon, however. The latter pair tailed off in the early stages, but, as in their game against St. Albans, they rattled on the points over the concluding heads and finished 10 up. • • • The best contested game of the day was that between P. Clark and E. A. C'hivers (Barrington) and G. W. Munday and J{. Allen (Sydenham). The result was in doubt until the last bowl was played, and the point, difference was a fair indication of the relative merits of the two teams. • • # Barrington fought stubbornly against T. Pollock and .T. Burgess (Kiccarton) iti the semi-final. Ricearton were always in the van, but were hard pushed in the middle of the game to maintain their position. If Malpas and Oakev can reproduce their last week's form tliev should bring the title to St. Albans", but the Uiccarton representatives are a solid pair, and will take some heading off. It should be a good game, with the issue in doubt until the final head. The rinks, played on the Canterbury green, provided a surprise or two. One of the greatest, but an agreeable one, was the performance of the If.S.A. quartet in reaching the final. This will be very encouraging to the "baby" club of Christchurch, and a straightout win would be popularly acclaimed. Their prospects of beating Shirley, however, look rather remote in view of the outstanding ability of the Shirley four. They were clearly a class above their opponents on Saturday, and it is difficult to see them getting beaten. Poulton, Toy, Williams, and Morgan (Heathcote) did splendid work to run Sunnyside to a point after being 14 down on the sixth head. Wanting five to win on the last head, Heathcote built up a line end, but could get only three counters. • # • Redcliffs should have beaten R.S.A. in the third round. With three heads to go they were one up, but with a. running shot the liodcliffs' skip took out his only protector and left the R.S.A. five up. The head was open .and the shot could have been drawn. * » • • In the semi-finals both the R.S.A. and Sunnyside rinks confined themselves exclusively to the draw, except in _ the final head, when CulJimore vainly tried to retrieve his position by sending down two last cues. The combined totals amounted to only twentyseven, which must bo something an* Mj v rojV';sc6ri»ig'in a : links championship. ' * « • 5 Shirley gave a well-nigh faultier exhibition of trundling against United who at no stage looked like winning. • • • *= W. 1). Ramsay adopted bad tactics in the fifteenth head, < when he attempted to drive out the opposing shot bowl, giving United three. .In this connexion it is interesting to read the following extract from the "Southland Times":—"What do Soar and Donald think of themselves now? With two beads.to go and leading by two points they' had the game in hand, hut because Thomson was lving one shot Donald asked Soar to drive it out. which he attempted to do. Instead he took his own bowl, leaving Thomson four shots and this gave Thomson a lead of two with one head to play. Soar got one and finished one down. Another game lost through driving." Shirley were in. a fairly safe position at the time Ramsay sent down his last ones, but this in no way condones a tactical error. • • • The effect of a time limit in tournaments is dealt with by Mr A. J. 1 Sullivan in the latest issue of the "New Zealand Bowls and Croquet Journal," and the points ho raises are well worth noting by all players. It will be remembered'that at the last Dominion tournament there was some doubt as to whether a special tournament rule overrides the ■ordinary New Zealand Bowling Association rule ap-* plicable to the number of heads that ■shall be played. Mr Sullivan sums the position up as follows: 1. Provided the jack has been thrown.bv the proper lead, before the timo limit bell rings, the head is considered to be. in progress, even though such throw doe.s not comply with the rules, and a new throw by the other lead becomes necessary. 2; Jf a head is in progress and the hell rings for time, tfio head must be played out, and the higher scorer of the two marks the winner. 3. If a head in progress is made dead, after the time limit bell has rung, the side with the higher score is the winner, and no further play takes place. 4. If the time limit bell rings while a head is in progress, and at its conclusion the scores of both sides are equal, an extra head must be played to the winner. 5. When the score on each side is equal, , and another head is being played,' and is made dead by either side,, after the time limit -bell has nuig, an extra head must be plnved to determine the winner. 0. Unless Clause 1,, Clause 4, and (or) Clause 5 renders such a course unavoidable, the jack shall not be thrown after the bell has rung for the time limit.