BOWLING.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20322, 2 February 1928, Page 4

BOWLING.

By Jack.

The intercluh championship was advanced a stage further on Saturday afternoon, when another of the fixtures was playedv The result of the’ round places Dunedin, which won its six sections, on top, displacing Balmacewan. The latter, however, won three sections out of four, and is only one point behind Dunedin. Taieri is a close third, and several other clubs are close up. It is at present hard to predict the ultimate winner. Dunedin will shortly be weakened by the departure of several of its leading players on a tour of the Old Country. There was, as usual, some very unequal scoring on Saturday. In the CavershamSt. Kilda game Blackwood (C.) scored 28 to Jacobsen’s 14, Ball (C.) 29 to Cameron’s 14, and Summerell (St. K.) .9 to Forrester’s 7. In the Dunedin-Xorth-East Valley game Nelson (D.) scored 29 to Hinkley s 10, E. Harraway (D). 28 to Taylor’s 14, Rigby (D.) 32 to Tonkin’s 11. Nelsons total in each of his last three games has been round about the 30 mark, and Ins opponents have no more than touched double figures. , . . For Dunedin against Kaikorai M'Cullough compiled 27 to Morrison’s 10. In the Otago-Balmacewan match Cook (0.) totalled 33 to Grater’s 7, Melville (B.) 26 to Beasley’s 13, Millin (B.) 29 to Henderson’s 15. Against Outram Macdonald (Balmacewan) compiled 36 to M'Lean’s 6. For Caledonian against Roslyn Wyatt scored 31 to Matheson’s 14, Claridge 26 to Barnett’s 11, Aitcheson 33 to Dons 11. For Roslyn Campbell scored 23 to D. Scott’s 9. In the Kaituna-Mornmgton game I. Sanders (K.) scored 27 to Hobbs’s 11, and Cunningham (M.) totalled 29 to Abels 14. For West Harbour against Leith Veitch scored 37 to O’Kane’s 16. For Green Island against St. Kilda A. Smellie scored 35 to Leith’s 19, and forGreen Island against St. Clair Miller scored 34 to H. Harraway’s 16. The following is the position of clubs after Saturday’s matches: — Points to Wins. Losses. Points, Date. Dunedin .. 6 Balmacewan .31 9 63 Taieri .... 2 12 60 Kaituna .. 3 Green Island 2 12 54 Caledonian .. 3 2 7 1-5 48 St. Kilda .. Caversham ..21 8 44 Port Chalmers +1 1 6 42 West Harbour 1 1 6 42 Roslyn .... 22 6 39 Leith ..... 1 1 6 36 N.E. Valley .. St. Clair .. 22 6 3D Kaikorai .. Mornington .. Otago .... 1 2 4 28 Anderson’s Bay *1 2 4 20 Fairfield .. 1 Outram .. 1 *Won by default from St.-Clair. fWon by default from Caledonian. FOUR-RINK CHAMPIONSHIP. The following position is the result of first six rounds of the four-rink championship games: — Section A. Wins. Losses’. Kaituna 6 St Kilda 5 1 Taieri 4 2 Mornington .... 3 3 St. Clair 3 3 'Otago 2 4 Caversham .... Section B. Wins. Losses. Roslyn 5 1 Balmacewan .... 4 2 Dunedin 4 2 Caledonian .... 3 3 N.E. Valley .... 3 3 Green Island .. .. 3 3 West Harbour .... 2 4 Anderson’s Bay .. 1 5 Roslyn, by defeating Green Island on Monday night, is the winner of Section B in the four-rink championship. Kaituna went down to St. Kilda in the final match of Section A, and this result makes both ecjual for the section. Probably the section tie will be played next week bn a neutral green. The Centre executive made up two rinks and visited Port Chalmers on Tuesday evening, and after a pleasant and closelycontested game, returned home victors by 46 to 42 points. In each rink the final skip’s last bowl gave victory to the Centre. The seaside club was very glad to acknowledge the friendly visit, and its hospitality and good fellowship made the contest very enjoyable. This evening the Centre will visit Taieri and will play Taieri _ and Outram two rinks each. The executive is to be commended for the interest it is displaying towards our suburban bowlers. Great praise has been bestowed on the secretary of the Dominion of New Zealand Bowling Association for his work in connection with the recent' Dominion tourment at Christchurch, and it has even been claimed that his work has never been equalled by any of his predecessors. I do not wish to detract in any way from the work of the secretary referred to, but when it comes to a question as to who is the best secretary in the Dominion the claims of Mr R. Hanning (Dunedin) cannot be overlooked. There is, I feel sure, no secretary in the Dominion with a wider knowledge of bowling matters than Mr Hanning. Had the rule which was carried in Christchurch last September, and which was not included in the booklet, been passed in Dunedin, I cannot imagine its publication being overlooked by Mr Hanning. "To honour the winners at the recent Dominion tournament in Christchurch — Messrs F. Kettle, V. Langley, D. Hutching son, and W. Foster (rinks) and J. Scott (singles)—a social function will be held by the Caledonian Club in the South Dun* edin Town Hall. The touring Victorian team, consisting of five rinks, will play a match against a team selected from the various local clubs on the Dunedin Green on Wednesday, February 15, play commencing at 2.30 p.m.. The touring party includes five The annual match—an eight-rink game —against the South Otago Centre will be played on the Caledonian Green on Saturday, February 11. Play will start at 1.15 p.m., to enable the visitors to catch the evening train for the south. In an interesting letter from Mr Peter Vance, who was a prominent player in the Mornington Club last year, the writer who now resides in Christchurch, says:—“t see from your notes in issue of 26th inst. that the unstamped bowls are in evidence again this season. Why not do as the clubs do here: Have all the bowls laid out on the green prior to commencement of play and examined by a member of the centre, if present, or a responsible member of the home club. Every Saturday this is done in the Christchurch Centre, and where bowls are found unstamped (which is seldom after the first

two Saturdays) the players in question must use other bowls. “ Congratulations to Jack _ Scott (singles) andWatty Foster and his Caledonian rinks on their success at the tourney. I watched the rink games very closely, and was sorry to see in a number of rinks (Dunedin clubs included) the old trouble of too many thirds and skips amongst the leads and seconds. You know what I mean —the latter did not know their positions. They quite forgot that the ‘ bank ’ was there.” Just after the bowling notes had gone to press last week the following letter from Mr J. J. Marlow, a member of the Dominion Council, reached me; — Dear “ Jack,’’—Your notes as a rule are so accurate, well founded and fair that many bowlers go to them for information. Hence the necessity for answering your criticism of January 19, and explaining the council’s action, as I am certain if you had understood the position you would not have written, “If the council cannot, abide by its own regulations how can it expect the average club or player to do so? ” The tournament is that of the Dominion of New Zealand Bowling Association. At the annua] meeting of the association held in September, the date is fixed, and the conditions under which the tournament, is to be played are laid down. Then the carrying out of the tournament is handed over to a committee consisting chiefly of the local members of the council and the centre executive. They have full _ power to arrange details but cannot override the regulations laid down at the council’s annual meeting. For years past the rule with regard to rinks was that if six qualified in any one section then all sixers qualified. (You know how close we were to that in 1926.) The council in its endeavour to confine the tournament within reasonable limits tried to grapple with this question. The first and most logical suggestion was. to play off till you get a winner, but experience has proved that where six is the highest score, in a section, there are invariably three sixes, which means holding up all other players whilst two games are played and extending the tournament for two-thirds of a day, as the council does not consider a seven head game a reasonable test as to which rink shall represent the section; so that suggestion was abandoned, and it was decided that where six was the greatest number of wins in a section all sixes in that section should be considered section winners, and qualify for post section play. Now we arrive at the necessity of the second clause you quote: '' No rinks (other than section winners) shall qualify for post section play, if they have been more than twice defeated.” Unfortunately the Tournament Committee overlooked this resolution, and framed the rule you quote, which they duly printed in the tournament book. Attention was drawn to this at the council meeting held on January 11, when it was decided that the council’s resolution must be given effect to, and the secretary was instructed to get the alteration from the book inserted in the daily papers and posted in the various pavilions before the rinks started, so that bowlers generally would understand the position. I think you will now admit the council’s action was logical and consistent. I cannot agree wjth your contention that if sixes qualified in Section G, all sixes were equally eligible. In that section six was the highest score, hence all sixes in Section G equalled winners in all, other sections where winners were found with a greater number than six, so all sixes were beaten in those sections. With the Exception of this one oversight, the Tournament Committee managed everything wonderfully well, and President A. J. Benzie, Secretary E, W Wade and the Tournament Committee are to be heartily congratulated on the great success of the 1928 tournament. From the consensus of opinion freely given by prominent bowlers it seems safe* to say that this will be the last tournament in which rinks will be asked to play three games of 21 heads per day: two games of 25 heads is the popular choice for future tournaments. Apologising for trespassing on so much of your space,—Yours, etc., J. J. Marlow. In the above letter Mr Marlow states if the writer had understood the position he would not hqve written “If the council cannot abide by its own regulations, how can it expect the average club or player to do so? ” The position, however, was understood quite well, according to the regulations printed in the, official programme. Mr D. M. Fastier, also a member of the council, in explaining the matter ,at thd last centre meeting, frankly stated that the criticism made was justified on the regulation as printed in the official handbook, but he also stated that this printed regulation was not the one passed by the council in September, and he gave the correct one. Naturally, the criticism was based on the incorrect regulation which appeared in the official book, and could have no application to the correct one. Surely the fault in that respect lies with the council. Mr Fastier wisely left the matter at that, but Mr Marlow seeks to excuse it. We charged the council with evading its own regulation which appeared in the official book, and which naturally every bowler would take as being correct. We now find the council evaded the regulation because it was an incorrect one, and apparently had no right to be in the official book at all. In addition, it had passed another and then calmly forgot about the application of the latter till the eleventh hour, and this in spite of the fact it had been passed in September last, and the president and several members of the council reside in Christchurch and were members of the Tournament Committee controlling the tournament. As the book is issued under the authority of the council that body must shoulder the responsibility for the inclusion of an incorrect regulation, and which was misleading. Mr Marlow later refeVs to the other regulation quoted by me regarding no ! rinks (other than section winnersj qualifying for post-section play after -being twice defeated, and states the Tournament Committee overlooked this regulation,! and framed the incorrect one which appeared officially. This statement merely accentuates to use his mild term, the “ oversight.” A most vital clause to the most important competition of the tournament is inserted in tho official book, and then found at the last minute to be incorrect, whilst the true one is forgotten till the eve of the competition to which it applies. With reference to Mr Marlow’s statement that he cannot agree with any con-, tention that if sixers qualified in Section G, all other sixers in other sections should also qualify 1 can only state that he is entitled to his opinion, just as I am to my opinion. Even allowing that the new regulations makes it clear that only the sixers in the particular section won by six, shall qualify for post section play, he will find that a ■ great many bowlers still hold that all other sixers have a claim to just as much consideration, even though' their sections were won by seven or more. Others again hold and express tho opinion that seeing the qualifying numbor is seven, all sixers, including section winners with six, should drop out from further play.