Bowlers’ Complaint

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 39, 16 February 1938, Page 6

Bowlers’ Complaint

CONDUCT OF DUNEDIN TOURNEY

Per Press Association CHRISTCHURCH, Feb. 14. Criticism of the management of the recent Dominion bowling tournament at Dunedin was made at a meeting this evening of the Christchurch Bowling Centre. Complaints were that there was irregularity in the imposition of time-limits, probably due to bad umpiring, and that some players were kept too long without a game before playing in the final. The question of time limits was raised by Mr. H. Wilson, who said that when he was playing in the quarterfinal a time extension was allowed, when it should not have been. Extra time of half an hour was allowed, and this might have materially affected the result of the game. The president (Mr. S. F. Barnett) said that there was certainly some laxity at the tournament. There was no inspection of bowls and there was time-limit trouble. The delegates to the New Zealand Association should certainly point these out; in fact, they had pointed them out at Dunedin. The umpires did not know the rule concerning the quarter of an hour extension, said one delegate.

The secretary (Mr. H. B. Oakey) said that in all the Dominion tournaments many of the umpires were not conversant with the rules; they never all knew all the rules, and the same trouble had been experienced at every tournament. Better results might be obtained if the umpires were paid- It was a serious thing for anyone to lose a game through bad management. The case of Smith and Oakey, of Canterbury, at the Dominion tournament was mentioned by Mr. A. F. Collinson, who said that in the final of the pairs these two players sat on the bank for two days and were not allowed a roll-up; this was a grave injustice. No pair or rink which had to rest had any chance with a team playing all day long. The two players had been penalised very badly indeed.

Mr. Oakey said the president of the Dunedin association had approached him on the Friday morning and said that he would arrange a match for the two players on the Saturday, but on the Friday night the president said that they could not have a game, as one of the members of the executive had objected, but the pair could roll a few heads. It was left to Mr. Oakey to refer the time limit question to the New Zealand Bowling Association. AN ANSWER GIVEN DUNEDIN, Last Night. Surprise and disappointment ar% expressed by members of the local executive when the Christchurch bowlers’ complaint was referred to them this morning, especially in view of the complimentary remarks previously passed by certain prominent competitors. In regard to the statement that an extension of the time-limit was wrongly granted, it is explained that in the game referred to, Wilson and Ball. Wilson was the only two-lifer left when the game began, so had he won he would have been in the final. In the circumEtances the executive regarded the game as a possible semi-final and the extension of time was permissible. Had Wilson won and no extension was granted, the loser might have been justified in claiming a replay. » In regard to the inspection of bowls, strict instructions were issued by the executive at the outset of the tournament that his was to be carried out. The umpire on one of the many greens failed to carry out the instruction, but this was remedied later. The statement that there was no inspection of bowls was therefore incorrect. In the case of Oakey’s long wait, this was largely due to consideration for the playeF named whose game was put on early so that in the event of his defeat he could have returned home. He won the game, but as the players whom he had subsequently to meet were engaged in rinks, there was no opportunity to work *& a further game any earlier.