BOWLING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11669, 8 April 1916, Page 10

BOWLING.

p : >: SEW ZEALAND COUNCIL A meeting of tho council of the Dominion ;>'■ Bowling Association was held on Thursday night; present—Messrs M. F. Barnutt (pi*- v ■ sident), P. Steans, J. W. Beanland, W. Helli--well and D. E. Wood (secretary). " The secretary of the Canterbury Patriotic "Fond wrote thanking the association for tho * donation of £228, tho profits of the Dominion Tournament. ; - The chairman explained that the mooting' % lad' been called to discuss two proposals. ■'"The first was a notice of motion by Mr t „■ Helliwell, that certificates hould bo issued , to the runners-up at . tho Dominion tourna■A"wiant in January and also at future tourna- ' mentß. The other matter, brought Reward i-. hy • Professor Maxwell Walker, was that ii''weighted bowls, as submitted to tho council, * and other similar bowls, should be approved. :>, : All-tha members had -been communicated % 1 with, and had been asked, in case they \\>ero ■ tuiable to attend, tho to ionvarcl -. their views on both proposals. Several niem'i'bers had written in reply, expressing their opinions on the two proposals. i' 1 "" Tho -views of the absent members were then jifciixeadi l "'' ■ Professor Maxwell "Walker (Auckland) -wrote that his reason for opposing Mr Helli,j -well's motion was that ho felt that tho value \ of !tho certificates would be cheapened _Jf a, they were granted u> other than first, prize isi-winners. Tho honour of possessing certiiicates should bo reserved for first-prize win*:Vners only. f . Colonel B. J. Collins (Wellington) wrote :<"ihat ha was still of opinion that the centres *tr ahould bo consulted before allowing tho use fr of the loaded .bowls. Ho was not personally T opposed to the use of them. He was opposed the is3ue of certificates to runners-up. as ft this matter was decided at Dunedin in 1913, (•' after much consideration, f; "yMr C.- JRussell Smith (Dunedin) wrote that i, 3w" would support an amendment to refer the question of • loaded bowls to the centres if vOr amendment -were moved. If no amendwere moved, or if such an amendment. weiire lost he would tho motion. Alii;; though ho was personally in favour of the £-'• motion,, he had no objection to the mattbr kjlgoingtothe centres if that course were coneider ed advisable. Ho was opposed to Mi' jkßelliwell'a motion. ,; Jtr T. Bush (Wellington) also wrote opposf*, ing Mr Helliwell's motion. If it were car-'V-ahd'thfe "council would probably have applioationa from the runners-up in tho Auckland i'/aatt" Dunedin tournaments-of l9lt and 1015. 3~The had been threshed out in Dunand,, as far as he could remember, was unanimously turned down. It was not ad-„ " ~viaable to alter any rules. until after tho £&»nekt; tournament, when they would have been ground the four centres. Tho time would then have arrived to have tho whole I"'o£ the regulations reviewed in a_comprehen|if«ve manner. He also opposed Professor IWalieT's motion regarding weighted bowls. hoped the council would do the right by holding it over until the next rnleetHelliwell, in moving his motion, said notwithstanding - the decision of the SS'coagoil ..io: decline to issue certificates to yi'.otlkfa than firat-prizo winners, it certainly isjiifaflni,-. tobe! • taken into serious consideration J&Sthajj-tlie circumstances controlling the .recent siDdginion tournament were entirely different operating in previous years. It was :«t£int»ubtedly an occasion where circumstanoes oases.: In previous years money? were trVahWys allocated to provide trophies for first, ;V' seomd and third prize winners, in addition to the iirst-prize winners only received l»rafica_tes. . Before the recent tournament, to war conditions, it was doubtw. ISjwhothsr it would bo wise to hold a bowlam en t, but after it was made clear 6C&a3febowlei3. generally were men of mature •'--^ears. and largely 'ineligible for active ser-. IfTvice, ■ it was. decided that the opportunity = one | where - advantage might ■ be taken. »to raise l money for patriotic purposes. There--1 the '[tournament was held', but trophy .rtere cut out altogether, certificates "i'only "being provided for tho winners. The -Ip&rase "to give certificates to the winner.?" -.Xwas'one which ho contended was never meant ' to-.bo interpreted to apply to the recent ! S tournament, nor to comply with the coun- •\ cil's recorded decision that official certificates mut go to first-prize winners only, and hewent so far as to say that if this intention had been made clear at tho time the> «•-' matter . was under discussion it would never ; have been agreed to. In any case, the decieion' of the_ council to issue certificate? to winners only was unfair ar.d clashed with the' practice controlling such matters in amateur athletics, it being well known i-. p _that official recognition was always given to rVtlie runners-up., Therefore, in his opinion, it if}- a most unjust thin? that the i* j players -who ran into second place in the doubles and singles competitions for dhampianshiv of New Zeafimd should bo denied the privilege of receiving some official |ffi»cogniti6n for their splendid efforts. 'l'f/jiMr HelHwell'S proposal was lost. jf Aibriaf discussion took place on Professor Walker's motion regarding loaded which was carried. ;?v \wMr >Barnett said he had been interviewed |:fljy '.W. H. Clark, 'chairman of tho Queen ■ Executive, regarding the associadonation of £238 to the Canterbury Fund. Mr Clark asked that the ;-*tim«iey might bo devoted to the Queen Elecffiti®;' to'>be divided equally amongst each of Cvthg<pojßns. | jft- -was decidted to reply that tho money no longer in the association's possession, it.had no power to transfer it. -Recounts' amounting to i' 3 lis 9d wcr«> for payment. . iaSwg s Sw--iiiwLi.j t : •■■■ i« i i \i\ im , - r~