Dec 2001 Volume 82 Number 1 "serving the protectors"
Bowls
by Peter Baehnk

Holdfast Bay Club Singles

Twenty club bowlers took part in the club’s singles competition at Holdfast Bay Bowling Club last November.

New members, Graham Boyer (Holdfast Bay Bowling Club) Peter Newton (Happy Valley Bowling Club) and Tim Dodds (Henley Bowling Club) appeared in the competition. Another member, Cos Cavaiuolo, made his presence felt when he played three trouble-free rounds to qualify for the singles final. That final will be decided on our closing day on March 18 at the Elizabeth Bowling Club.

The other finalist will come from a semi-final played between long-time singles player, Danny Dahlitz, and new member, Tim Dodds.

Club ladies - led by Lyn Gregory - made themselves available as markers, as did Graham and Margaret Fulwood, Bill Brown and Don Blewitt of the Holdfast Bay club.

New Members

The club has accepted two full and two associate members.

Taken on as associates were Ken Furnell - who recently moved from the Woodville Bowling Club to Modbury - and Peter Newton, of the Happy Valley Bowling Club.

SAPOL employee Karen Grandfield, and ex-London bobby, Graham Boyer, have joined the club as full members. Karen plays pennant bowls for Mallala and Night Owls at Modbury. She has nominated for the Australian Police Bowling Carnival at St John’s Park, Sydney, in April.

Graham Boyer is the Customs Bowling Club secretary and plays pennant bowls for Holdfast Bay Bowling Club.

Mixed Fours

Greens ran well as 34 rinks lined up for a mixed fours competition at Elizabeth Bowling Club last November. The weather was warm and humid; the temperature was around 33 degrees. With no breeze, moisture hung in the air and made conditions unpleasant.

An Elizabeth rink won the day with two games and 59 points. Karen Grandfield, was in the winning rink with Wayne Grandfield, Nev Glanville and Richard Snelling.

The winners of the losers was another Elizabeth rink, skippered by J. Carter (34 points).

The Rules

Roy Howcroft asks: “A bowl comes to rest totally outside the rink on which it has been played. That fact escapes the attention of the directors until after the last bowl comes to rest and an umpire is called to measure for shot, one of the bowls being the ?dead’ bowl. The ?dead’ bowl is a ?counter’. Should the ?dead’ bowl have been measured as a counter?”

The answer must be considered in light of law 26.

Law 26 (ii) - Dead Bowl

Directors or the opponents in singles shall agree on the question as to whether or not a bowl is “dead”. Any member of either team may request a decision from the director but no member shall remove any bowl prior to agreement by the directors. Once their attention has been drawn to the matter, the directors by agreement must make a decision. If they cannot reach agreement the umpire must make an immediate decision.

The Law requires that, once the directors have had their attention drawn to the dead bowl, they make a decision (and obviously declare it “dead”). If they cannot, the umpire must make an immediate decision. In the case outlined, the umpire made a decision in accordance with the law and decided that the dead bowl was actually live and in the count.

Common sense, however, suggests that, because the bowl was wholly outside the boundary of the rink, the directors should have decided the bowl was dead. The umpire should also have pronounced the bowl dead. Roy’s answer will appear in a coming issue.

PASAweb   Index & Search   Top of Page   Comments   Email to Editor

The Police Journal Online is an official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 2001  The Police Association of South Australia sustance