BOWLING

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 17 March 1928, Page 13

BOWLING

Devotees at fhe shrine of “kitty” have had a wonderful season and are shortly looking towards the end of the time for play for the 1927-28 season. The sport has keen full of interest all over the Dominion, perhaps more so than in most past years. The visits of outside teams and the return visit ot New Zealand bowlers to Australia and England must have a good effect on the standard of the game. The discussions on points of general interest which no doubt will take place while the Dominion 'bowlers are in the Olfl Country must also lead to an understanding that is all for the good of the game. There is one more thing to be said about, the proposed revision of the laws, wrote “Measurer,” in the “Tasmanian Mail,” regarding proposals be. fore the Australian Bowling Council. TVc should not have British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and iSouth African laws, but one uniform set for the Empire. Such a code should be drafted and passed for revision to the Homeland and dominions until final agreement is reached. Our Australian laws are based on the British, and there seems no good reason why there should be any variation. There are too many bowls being played at the present time not bearing an accredited stamp, and it may possibly occur that some club in the final stages of Saturday matches may find itself penalised by its players not having a duly stamped bowl. Bowls wliicn bear one or other of the following stamps, viz., D.N.Z.B.A. 25, or later years, are disqualified, and the game awarded to the opponent under the association rule.—“Otago Daily Times. ’ ’ BOWLS EXTRAORDINARY. Knowing full well that such happenings would not fail to interest every bowler everywhere, Tom Schnaekcnberg sent me some hair-raising details of episodes that took place recently in the big games in the Dominion (says a Southern critic). A third man was in sfructing his skip how to play his last bowl. Th 0 skip, however, did not see eye to eye with his first lieutenant. While this interesting controversy was in progress, the third man informed his opposing third that if the skip played contrary to his direction lie would stop the bowl.

A Chinese auction thereupon took place on the spot —all taking, nobody listening. Players gathered round, ane while some were prepared to admit that a third hail no right to volunteer information, or, rather, advice, when the lay had not been altered, others went much further, and submitted that a skip was under no obligation to accept advice from the third—wise in their generation, these latter. An appeal was actually made to the rules, and, most extraordinary of all, it- was discovered that, according to the Dominion code (which one can scarcely believe), there was nothing to •prevent player or director from stopping a bowl that was being played by his side.

T.C. quotes the rules in support a follows: —

“If a bowl be interfered with, other than by the effects of play, it shall be burned. When a bowl, during its original course, and before it has passed the jack, is burned by tlij; side to whom it belongs it shall be dead.”

Then T.C. remarks: “It is contended, apparently by virtue of this rule, that if a member of a team plays a shot which the director does not approve of the latter may slop the bowl.”

A correspondent, writing in the Dunedin “Evening iStar” says: “I was playing in our club’s singles championship the other night, and on the firs; head, with perfect drawn shots, three bowls were touching the jack, and you could net separate them (even one was not touching more than the other!). The umpire was unable to give either of us the shot. I have known two bowls touching but. my opponent and myself had never seen three bowls touching.” This may not be a record, but it is a rare occasion. "REBOUND FROM SIDE BANK. VVhilsi. several bowlers were chat ting in Hamilton recently, says ihe “Times,” one mentioned that, in a game in which lie had taken part on an end rink, the umpire ruled on an appeal that a jack struck the side bank and rebounded into the rink was still alive. Rule 52, which bears upon this point, is so clear in its wording that it is difficult to conceive of any ground upon which such a decision could be based, ns it distinctly stated that “if it (the jack) be driven against th? bank or into the side ditch, it shall be dead, even if it conics to rest within the limits of the rink.” l Of course had the jack struck the end bank and rebounded into the rink it would have been alive, and all that one can suppose is that the umpire an the occasion referred to was ignorant that any distinction was made in the rules between end bank and side bank. The question should never be raised in a championship tournament, for in rule 96 it is provided that for such games the side limits of the outside rinks shall be at least one foot from the edge of the ditch. ANOTHER QUEER DECISION. During the same leorero another amazing decision lie had actually hoard given was quoted by a bowler present. Each side had what they believed to be a bowl touching the jack. The umpire was called in and after examination declared, “Yes, they are both touching fill (right.” “Then it’s a drawn head?” they asked him, but down lie got for another look, and then pointed to one bowl as being the shot. “But you said they' were both touching” came a roar of protest. “So they are,” replied the very just judge “but thi s one is touching more than the other!!” It rather reminds one of the master carpenter whose son called on him with pride to inspect a Poor the latter had laid. After trying fruitlessly to fault the floor the fafher grudgingly admitted. “Aye, i’s level — but il *s no more Ihnn level.”