BOWLING.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19196, 12 June 1924, Page 4

BOWLING.

By Jack.

The promoters of the recently-formed Leith Valley Bowling Club are not letting the grass grow under their feet. A very enthusiastic meeting was held in the George Street School Hall last week, under the chairmanship of Mr J. Gray, when it was decided to hold a monster bazaar in August in order to raise sufficient funds to launch the club on a sound iinancial footing. The following committees were elected, with power to add to their number;— Works Stall.—Mrs M'Carthy, Miss Johnston, Mrs Clark, Mrs H. O’Kanc, Mrs Evans, Miss Evans, Miss M. Korney, Mrs Donaldson, Mrs Mitchell, Miss Mitchell. Mrs Rawlinson, Messrs John Gray, W. Paterson, and E. J. Thomson. Fancy, Stall.—Mrs , Mawhinney, Miss M Gray, Mrs H. Rowley, Mrs Tyndall, and Miss R. Gray. Flower Stall.—Messrs Fraser, Hungerford, W. Johnston, E- Page, J. L. Page. Misses Cunningham and M. Kinaston, and Mr D. Tannock.

Produce Stall. —Mrs Bissland, Messrs Campion, Robert Fraser, W. Cunningham, B. R. Ferguson, Robert Ferguson, G. Kitchen, and V\. Ross. Competitions. —Miss Powley, Mrs John Gray, Mrs W. Paterson, Messrs Rawlmson, R. C. T. Evans, and R. Fraser. Sweets Stall. —Miss Powley and Mrs R. C. T. Evans. Music and Amusement. —Messrs W. Cunningham, H. O’Kane, E. J. Thomson. W. Sinclair, C. C. Rawlinson, R. 0. T. Evans, Campion, and H. Rowley. Tea Rooms. —Mrs Mitchell, Misb Rinaston, and Mrs W. Johnston. Side-shows.—Messrs E Paterson, C. Donaldson, M'Carthy, S. Johnston, and G. Ncwoy. Dips and Lucky Packets. —Mrs E. Paterson and friends. . Jumble Stall—Messrs Mawhinney and Gray, jun., and Mfs Tyndall. Finance and Executive.—Messrs Jonn Gray C. H. Wilson, W. Paterson, R. C. T. Evans, and H. Rowley. . The proceedings were of a most enthusiastic nature, and as over 30 members have already joined the newly-formed club, the prospects for its future appear to be particularly rosy. , ... , , All sorts of discussions have followed the publication of the report presented to the Dominion Bowling Council by Mr W. A. Scott, the official bowl tester, and the criticism of the same from the pen at Mr W Dali, of Dunedin (writes Trundler m Auckland Star). One lxiwlerhas gone so far as to suggest that the bilily for bowls passing the test should be thrown upon the club of which the owner is a member, and not upon the I himself, nor upon the governing body that is controlling .the tournament in * « bowls are being used. There one advantage in this scheme, club carried this responsibility, . which it would probably depute to its or uinnires those officers would be on the watch for all the bowls that their membcrs wore using, and would challenge all the pokers long before they reached a tournament. There might, possibly, also be less relu anceto challenge a "bow! if - the . chaHengc wore against a -,elub for not having previously discharged its duty instead o against [he individual owner of straight bowl . What is very clear is that the T" 586 .* tern of challenge is utterly useless. In the of rules nearly two pages are devoted to describing the procedure to be adopted in challenging straight bowlsandyetthe whole thing is a farce m actual practice. Possibly in the dark., ages a challenge was put in, but during recent years on no occasion has a cpmpetdor ever deposited 5s with a challenge. He w ouW rather lose the match than *«n the risk of incurring the lifelong enmityofa fellow-bowler by such a tad K The against him from breaking. the . , ruleß ; AT suggestion that the dub should carry the responsibility would probably getovCTtho difficulty, but m any case it a diffieffit to know why challenging a bowl shodd be such a formal matter that it chokes off all challenges. A competitor does not have to deposit 5s when he tomks a bowl or jack is dead which the other side dlaims to be alive. He simply. «dls in the umpire! and nobody is offended. And there seems to be no reason why it should not be just as simple a test to call m the umpire to settle a straight bowl. If too objector wanted to carry any further tus objection to a bowl which the umpire allowed, it would then be time to deposrit 5s and push hi s challenge. But it looks as if most of ' the dissatisfaction over straight bowls has been caused by the oun> bersome method of challenge, and it this were simplified in the manner suggested the complaints would be few and far between, for all the straight bowls would have been sorted: out long ago. Bowler .Dunedin, writes as follows to “Boomerang,” the bowling writer m the Sydney Referee “In an argument re the bye system. I cannot convince othc,r people with my view—namely, when it comes to the lad three players in a tournament, A, B and C, for instance. A beats B, and G has the bye. G then plays A. and the. latter, wins. Therefore A wins. Now who is second? Some hold that C is second, having drawn the bye, which I contend is wrong altogether, for this reason: A beating B and C puts B and C equal, therefore B and C should play off for second honours. 1 contend' the the only argument that G has is this: A and B play while C has a spell, and ho has only one game to play and win to succeed to first place. Then A would be second and B third. I would like to post your answer in the club pavilion, whether against or for me, in your opinion. Byes are always unsatisfactory at the tail end of a comDctilion (says “Boomerang ’), but where they are inevitable, must ba taken as "all in.” In this instance, A beats B. and then plays C. A succeeds against C" and is returned the winner. C must bo second and B third, for the following reason; Had C beaten A, you would not expect A to turn round and play B’ {whom lie had previously beaten) for seoorkl place It is purely tile luck of the draw, ana custom demands that, as you go out, so you stand on the list. The man who draws the bye automatically becomes first or second. The Bagnell-Wilde system in toe early stages prevents all this heart-burning. A MATHEMATICAL TEST. The inost original suggestion for fixing the bias of a bowl comes from an old player who objects entirely to the whole system of making it draw as much as the authorised test bowl. His Hue of argumein is something aiter this: We never gay that a bowl must not exceed the test bowl in weight; we simply put it on the scale, and we pass it if it does not exceed 31b 3oz. Similarly, we never measure it against the test bowl; we simply put the tape over it and pass it if it does not exceed 16j inches in circumference. Ergo: Why should we not have a aoale to which they must conform in shape, just as we have a scale to which they must conform ill weight and size? The difficulty is to devise a formula to fit the purpose. Here in a chance for some of our experts to display their originality. The suggestion' comes from a man who is of opinion that we have amongst the bowling fraternity u sufficiency of skill in applied mechanics, coupled with bowl costruotion and drawing, to produce this formula, so that in testing a bowl we would require neither green nor table, nor even a debate over their respective merits. The bowl would merely have to conform to the formula, and it would, pass. Tliis scheme is put forward for what it Is worth, but the originator thereof .has not explained how he would gel over the difficulty in regard to loaded bowls, nor how the position would be involved by the discs being ivory, silver, or brass. This Is the age of calculations and “costing,” but it has remained for the greenkeeper of the Tauranga Bowling Club to reckon the distance ho and his fellows travel in mowing and rolling a bowling green (says the Auckland Herald). In a season of’seven months,” ho writes, “I,travelled over 4fX> miles in preparing the green for play.” A greenkeeper having now followed the, lead of postmen in compiling distances walked, similar totals may be expected from the bowlers themselves, and perhaps even from golfers, some of whom must have very considerable records.