BOWLS

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 12750, 4 January 1936, Page 11

BOWLS

WITAT IS THE RULE?

REMOVAL FROM THE! HEAD

A competitor asked tor a ruling on an incident which occurred .at the Christmas tourney at Auckland. The jack bad'been trailed to •such a position that it was difficult- to tell bow many shots were in favour of either side. ff. director remarked: “Hold hard. I’m going to measure these, ’ but. bcfiore ho could unwind his measure an opponent kicked in the head. How many shots was he entitled to claim?. There is no direct rule to settle , this, the revising committees and the council evidently assuming that the bonders have more V. sense than 'to kick away the bowls before the directors are agreed upon the result. However, the obligation to leave them alone is clearly implied in Rule TS:, . “Every hpwl not resting against another bowl, and which lia's been admitted hv the other side to he a. sikpt, shall he removed from the head.” If the rule is so definite as tp which bowls may be removed, surely it- means that no others may, although pomipon sepse suggests that i, lot of fim,o 'can be saved by . the rest of the, players carrying put Rule 35. and .‘.‘.clearing to a petition .behind the mat” all . howls that .are hopelessly put of the coupt. . The obligation to: leave the bowls alone until the result- i,s scttle.d is stilly more clearly expressed in .clause 1.0 of tffe du{ies of a marker. “Neither lie npr a competitor. shall remove any howls until both players are satisfied.V