I am president of a mixed church league. The league has been around for 56 years. We are a prize league, not a money league. The top 2 teams get a small amount of money (usually about $25/person). Every bowler, regardless of wins or losses, has the same chance to win any prize.
Our league consists of 11 teams, each with 4 bowlers. However, one team only has three bowlers. Until about 3 years ago, everyone who joined the league was assigned a team by the secretary. The teams would change every year. Also, the secretary chose the team captains. Now, bowlers who are not chosen by any teams, new individual bowlers, and bowlers who do not have a team preference are the only ones assigned to teams. In the past, vacancy fees were always paid by the league. However, some of our bowlers are saying (and USBC rules also seem to say) that the short team should pay. I don't think the league would ever agree to make one team pay because the league is short a bowler. Also, last week, the short team had a sub bowl in the vacnt position, at the league's expense. I along with several of our bowlers, do not think this is okay. We have a captain's / officers meeting next month. Any ideas?
Thanks!
Terry
Starman, the best solution is for the center, team league to work hard to find bowlers to fill vacancies. There is no hard and fast rule on how to handle it if there is to be a season long vacancy. If the center demands it then there must be a way to pay those costs but many will not demand it. If there is a demand for the team with the vacancy to pick up those costs in some cases the result could become the loss of a team instead of a bowler.
If there is a vacancy the best solution, if the center is agreeable, is to not charge the team, adjust the prize money accordingly and when it is paid out the short team gets shares based on their team numbers, in your case three shares rather than four.
Don Gates
Don, what you are telling Terry is correct, however, what she is asking is about a sub bowling in the vacancy spot. The contention is you cannot use a sub for a vacancy. The team feels they can use this sub whenever they want, and others feel the team should no longer have a vacancy if a person is bowling. I will be following up with the rules department on this issue as I have been asked what my opinion is as an official.
Rule 107c defines a sub as "...a bowler who replaces another who is scheduled to participate in a USBC league, or bowls for a team with an incomplete roster." With regard to subs and/or replacements, rule 107c9 states that "A team must be allowed to add a replacement when its roster is less than the playing strength of the league."
From that, not only can a bowler sub for vacant but the league cannot prevent it.
This rule can easily be abused by people who are actually meant to be team members but have poor attendance. They can declare themselves as subs in order to avoid having to pay for weeks that they miss where in most leagues absentees still have to pay the fees when they return. Also in most leagues their is a penalty of 10 or more pins for an absent bowler where Vacant does not have a penalty so the dishonest team gains an advantage when their "sub" doesn't participate.
Regarding the money you are in a no win situation. It's apparent that your league wants to be as accomodating as possible to encourage participation, but by doing so you are being taken advantage of.
If you refer to rule 104a1 regarding team captain authority and duties, the team captain is to "Determine the members of the roster and be responsible for the eligibility of the team and its members under the rules of the league and USBC" and in 104a3 "Be responsible for the conduct and attendance of the team in league play..."
From that I would hold the team captain, not the league, responsible for the vacancy and therefore the team, not the league, is responsible for all fees. Also from that I would suggest it is not a good idea to assign members to teams because whoever comes out short will feel they should not have to pay extra. I don't remember from your post if you did that this year or not - but if you did then I would consider changing that practice.
I negotiated with the house I bowl in to not charge lineage for vacancies. I also waive the secretary fee leaving the teams that have a vacancy only to pay the point/prize portion of the fees. If they bring in a sub for the vacant position I charge the team the full fee for that week and pay the house lineage for that position because by having a warm body in the lineup it is not a vacancy. I just hope that the bowlers with poor attendance don't figure out that they can declare themselves as subs to avoid paying when they are absent because that will probably put an end to not paying the house for vacancies.
I also suggest that when you get into these no win situations that you always act in the best interest of the league over a single team or individual. Better to lose a partial team than to lose several teams or have your league fold over it. If the members of that team can't see the logic in what you are doing the masses will see them for what they are.
Good luck.
Jeffrey, what you are saying is correct. What the team wants to do is to place a sub in the vacant spot and not have to pay. That is where the problem lies. As you stated, you can add a bowler to a team that does not have a full roster. The point being made is once you have a person bowl for the vacant spot, it is no longer a vacant position. The team should now pay for 4 bowlers.
Mom, there are several scenarios here many of them based on what the center will accept or not accept. In the interest of keeping the league intact and pssibly growing rather than the latter, I think if there is to be a season long vacancy the best situation would be for the center not to charge lineage for that vacancy, the team that is short, or the league, not pay any extra fees but accept three shares rather than four when prize money is passed out, the prize fund reflect that situation based on that team finishing first and the difference if they finish lower allocated evenly to the other teams. If the center agrees not to charge, allow the team with a vacancy to have subs since it is more fun and less punishing if the vacancy score, w/hdcp, is punishing. If the center does want lineage payment for a vacancy sub then just have the sub or or other three team members pay that fee and only that fee.
