FOR GAME OF BOWLS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 85, 9 April 1924, Page 9

FOR GAME OF BOWLS

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION

FOLLOWING-UP LAW DISCUSSED.

Whether the game of bowls should be further restricted with rules was a

point of importance raised at last night's meeting of the Wellington Bowling Centre. The subject arose when Mr. J. S. Keith, of: the Victoria Club, who was one of the umpires during the centre 'tournament and the champion of champion games, submitted a report dealing with tho placing of the mat and following up bowls. In the course of his report Mr. Keith' said : —"I am still of the opinion that it is necessary to have the mats marked three inches from the ends. It • is equally necessary to have it marked three inches from the sides. However, during the single and pairs matches J observed a decided improvement (as against the matches played in 1923) by the players, in observing the laws of the game. Only in one case during a pairs match had I reluctantly to direct, a player's bowl to be . stopped for a breach of section 7, rule 3. This player committed the breach (I am certain) unconsciously, owing to his opponent walking away towards the hoad immediately ihe player had greened his bowl, with the result that the player walked away with him. Although there is no rule to prevent an opponent walking up to the head, yet the player following him commits a breach of the law. As long as section 7, rule 3, remains as part of the laws of the game, it is necessary to protect the player from the incident mentioned. I would suggest, in order to precent a recurrence of a similar incident, and for the protection of players, that a new clause be added to rule Z, viz : 'As soon as a bowl is grassed, no player be permitted to. walk up the rink he is playing on until the bowl just played comes to rest.' I hope this additional clause will commend itself to the centre. My only reason for suggesting this new clause is that while there are penalties for committing breaches of the rules, there ought to be some protection given to players who niay unconsciously be led into committing a breach of the rules by following his opponent. In conclusion, permit me to put on record my appreciation of the sportsmanlike manner in. which the players received any warnings 1 had to give." . . '• Mr. J. Kershaw complimented Mr. Keith on his report. The- consensus of opinion in the Hataitai Club was that tho rule should not be amended in the way suggested. The rule had been brought in to prevent a player following a bowl right up to' the head. Games with a time limit were seldom played in Wellington. He felt, however, that the suggested amendment would have Che effect of prolonging games unduly. There were quite enough rules now. and no more restrictions should be placed on players. Such umpires as Mr. Keith interpreted the rules in a reasonable manner bow. Mr. W. Seddon (Petone Central) said his club supported the .amendment. When a. No. 3 continually followed up a bowl it had the effect of causing the leads and No. 2's to lose interest. If the amendment were not. brought in an abuse would be perpetrated. Mr. J. Muir (Upper Hutt) considered that too many rules were being made for' the game of bowls. He supported Mr. Kershaw, as he could see no reason for waiting until a bowl came to rest. Mr. A. Coles (Petone) could not see why rules should be altered in the manner suggested. The proposed amendment was not wanted. He agreed that there were too many rules in such a friendly, sociable game as bowls. They did not want to be always playing bowls with a rule book in one hand to point out how the other fellow was infringing. All they wanted was friendliness, not hard and fast rules. Mr. M. J. Hodgins (Hutt) opposed the proposed amendment. The less "of these little irritating rules" there were the better for the game. He had very rarely seen the rule in question abused. The President (Mr. F. Meadowcroft) remarked that laws should be administered in their spirit, and not according to the strict letter. No umpire would penalise leads or two's who walked around the edge of a green to the other end after delivering their bowls. He felt that when a No. 3 had played his last bowl the head had practically finished, and there was no serious offence 1 v hls f mowing it up; as he could not alter the bowl s course in any way. Not halt a dozen men on the Dominion Council would support the proposed amend- ¥? rr - t P\ did nofc ofton differ with Mr. lleith, but in this instance he did. _ Mr Keith said he was opposed to introducing anything of an irritating character. The reason he brought down the amendment was to protect a player who might unconsciously walk more than fifteen feet following up.players who were changing over to the other end of tha rink after having played their bowls. Ihe amendment would not mean prolong ing a game.so much as fifteen minutes'. It was with the sole object of bettering the game that he brought forward the proposed amendment, not to make players feel uncomfortable. Any player was than fifteen feet; whether it was his first or.last bowl. The motion for the adoption of the hTd r s . was defeated oa * sh™ <*