Had a league meeting last week. Our league bowls in quarters and last week was a position round. We are a 4 member league and had a team with only 3 members as they were left high and dry by a former member. League officers quoted a non-existant league rule about not being able to add to a roster on position night. There is a no sub rule, but no rule as to adding a member. I just found out that even if there was, in this case it would violate USBC rules. I will be bowling in a different house on Tuesdays next season as I cannot put up with this type of behavior from people who should know better. I told the secretary after the meeting, and showed him a copy of the rules. He just blew me off.
Have the team with the short roster file a protest. I can't remember the exact rule...(I'll look it up and post after)... but a league can't prevent a team from not being able to bowl full strength.
Found it... Rule 107c - Substitutions and/or replacements, part 9.
A team must be allowed to add a replacement when it's roster is less than the playing strength of the league.
bubbles does yur league have a by-law stating you need a certain number of games to bowl position night? It is true that they can't stop you from adding a new bowler to fill your roster, but that dosn't make them eligible to bowl if they don't have the required number of games. They let you use an absent score didn't they?
Dear bubbiesdad:
Jwsbowler has provided you with the applicable rule (107c).
That rule clearly requires a league to permit a team to add a replacement when its roster is less than the playing strength of the league -- which appears to be the case, as you describe it.
The "problem" (as I see it) may be that the team was perceived as adding a fourth player on the position night itself.
Now, whereas that would be perfectly legal to do so, there might be a question in the minds of some IF the team had bowled with three players for several weeks, and then, on position night, added a fourth bowler at that time.
Again, that's a perfectly legal "move" IF, indeed, the team no longer had four active players on its roster. But just for the record, how many weeks prior to the position round did the team realize that they were officially short a member? Or did the roster "shortage" occur immediately prior to the position round?
D.M. it doesn't matter what rule a league has about subs or no. of games. USBC rule overides all of these. If a team lost a bowler there is no league rule that can keep that team from adding a new regular bowler to their roster. No matter what night of the league schedule it is. If they were trying to use a sub that would be another story.
Bill it doesn't matter how many weeks they bowled shorthanded. It may have taken them some time to find a regular replacement. Same as I stated above applies in this case also.
RV I can't agree: Say a team has a full roster all year and the last week of the year they are bowling for the championship. The announce that one of their bowlers is no longer a member of the team he quit. They add a new bowler to fill their short roster. He has a 180 ave. and shoots 750. I don't bowl in a league that uses floating subs. We can carry up to 8 bowlers and on the last week of the 1st and 2nd half you must have 9-18 games respectfully to bowl if not you bowl using an absent score....
D.M.
I have to agree with you. Many leagues that I have had dealings with state in their league by-laws that you must have a playing strength of say 4 bowlers as an example. That no subs are allowed two weeks prior to position round or play off or that the sub must have an established average on that league, if the league allows for floating subs. This in my opinion would be to keep a team who is leading substantially an unfair advantage by losing a lower average bowler with one who exceeds a 200 average. Thus giving the team an unfair advantage due to the addition of this higher average bowler. In that they are more or less securing that they will win, that is if the higher average bowler bowls average or well above. Where as the lower bowler for say the past 3 weeks has been bowling well beneath his average for whatever reason.
I know that USBC frowns upon penalizing a team for vacancies such as paying for prize fund and/or secretary fee for the league as many centers will allow for only those positions that have actual persons in them but leaves the league to their own devises for a shorter prize fund and secretary fee due to a vacancy on a team. In the past we had charged our teams the prize fund and secretary fee until last year when it became a big deal after the merger. As the question of why was a vacancy score not allowed to reflect a less than 200 average such as a 170 with hdcp of 20 for total of 190 rather than 180 & 20. As with a blind score when a person is absent they have 10 pins deducted from their score for those games missed. By having the team with a vacancy cover the missing team member because they were unable to get a person to fill that position for however long would cause the members to pay above their normal league fee of say $15 plus the prize fund/secretary fee for the vacant spot. I see where they are coming from but I also believe that by having them cover this fee that gives them more incentive to get a person to fill that spot rather than leave it open and have a set score of say 200 each and every week. This causes a disadvantage to the opposing team that have a full playing strenght that has to bowl their average and above to cover this set score.
bubbiesdad,
I sympathize with you, where I bowl we have a person who frequently changes the rules to fit his mood of the week. One night several weeks ago there were children in the bowling area. This league has no rule regarding children in the bowler settee area. There was a young child on a connecting pair of lanes that was being very disruptive, while on the pair next to them was an older child sitting reading minding his own business and staying out of the way of the bowlers. Rather than approaching the parent of the disruptive child and asking them to remove him from the area to the spectators area. He first approached the parent of the silent, reading child and asked him to move to the spectators area as he did not want the parents of the disruptive child getting upset with him when he asked them to remove the child. Thus causing the parent of the silent child to become very upset with the way he was spoken to as it was rather harsh rather than polite inquiry also why was his child who was being good penalized for the disruptive child. The parent of the older child commented to myself that he would not be returning to bowl the next season due to the way this was handled.
Also, we have a couple of older bowlers who can not let any new members make any changes what so ever to any previous league rule when its time to renew the rules/bylaws for the league. This league in question has a rules committee and one of these persons must always be at the meeting to ensure no changes are made to the rules for the upcoming season. As they like them the way they are and do not want them to change. Rather than waiting for the rules committee to get the rules together then presenting them to the league at which time should be a decision for the entire league or captains of the teams bowling.
Just to let you know your not alone in your frustration with league officers.
HJ
D.M. & others,
I e-mailed the rules department and asked them to read this topic and give their interpretation on this subject. Rather than assume you or I are right I think USBC should be the one to answer this question.
RV you may be totally right I'm just saying I don't agree. Rules are not always just...Just read the last post about how new people can't change the existing rules...
rvbowler:Bill it doesn't matter how many weeks they bowled shorthanded. It may have taken them some time to find a regular replacement. Same as I stated above applies in this case also.
Dear Ray:
I thought I made it clear that (as you say) it doesn't matter how many weeks they bowled shorthanded. I was just asking (for the record) to see if that may have been part of the reason(s) why a controversy existed.
D.M.,
The situation you gave is might be a little different than the original case. You have an 8 man roster. In your league and other roster leagues that is the make up of the team. If one should no longer be able to finish the season the team should be given the chance to replace him. In the first case they had designated subs and none of them wanted to be a regular bowler. In that case the team had to be given the opportunity to replace the lost bowler with someone else.
Because of the roster issue is why I asked for a clarification from the rules dept.
MightyFish: rvbowler:Bill it doesn't matter how many weeks they bowled shorthanded. It may have taken them some time to find a regular replacement. Same as I stated above applies in this case also. Dear Ray:I thought I made it clear that (as you say) it doesn't matter how many weeks they bowled shorthanded. I was just asking (for the record) to see if that may have been part of the reason(s) why a controversy existed.
Bill,
I thought you just threw that out as a general question. I could understand the league questioning it if it took them several weeks to replace the bowler and it happened to be position night when the new bowler was added. But I don't think the league can stop them.
The bottom line is the league already refused to let them add a bowler, so I don't know what recourse they would have now. Another point the rules dept could clarify.
I received an answer from the rules department on this. The answer is because there are always 2 sides to these type of issues and depending on the league rules and how issues like this are handled, the rules department will not give a specific answer on the forum. If the bowlers disagree with the way the league handled the complaint they should file a protest and follow that route.
Those rules guys are slippery little rascals aren't they.....Still think I was right.
