Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: CM3 Back Online

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    307
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 20/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Yes, two such changes according to the WB site that I can see from what is said there, see:

    http://www.worldbowls.com/laws-umpir...law-decisions/

    In brief summary:

    2018, April - re the size of bowls and also consequent changes to the permitted weights of bowls. This is stated on WB site as effective immediately.

    2016, December - re the 'logo's' permitted - this law change is not specifically stated to be of immediate effect: so, is it? The laws committee decision as reported simply says:

    "The proposal to amend the laws detailed below was unanimously approved by National Authority delegates at the Council Meeting in December 2016."

    In fact, the 2016 changes go slightly beyond the question of logos - "distinguishing marks" is the actual term used - it makes it clear that a player's name can only lawfully be inscribed in addition to such a mark, and, by not specifically allowing them, that the use of numbers (eg 1,2,3,4 as was/is seen on some older bowls) is no longer permitted. The actual size of logos does not seem to be specified - in fact different sizes are specifically permitted: see 52.1.3.1 although maxima are effectively given through the placement requirements. Law 52.1.8.4 also states that all members of a team must employ the same logo on their bowls, although different sizes of logo are permitted!

    Incidentally, there is no form of grandfathering clause in these law changes. It would therefore seem to be all or nothing as from when the law change came/comes into force.

    If these 2016 changes are to be regarded as in play, then some bowls currently in use could be ruled out of order - and not only older bowls - and particulary in team games! Does anyone actually apply the changes in practise or, apart from those who have already commented, actually know of them, even if they have dutifully and responsibly 'bothered' to get themselves a copy of Laws CM3? Several of the older sets I favour would fail - fine for me personally to take the risk, now that I'm aware of the changes, but for any other of my team to suffer accordingly because of law changes they did not reasonably know of seems plain wrong and inequitable to my way of thinking.

    Others (national orgs.. county, clubs as may be) may well be at fault, clearly, but, as instigator/issuer of the laws and changes, WB surely should have responsibility themselves to ensure that they become known and available to all: changes to the pdf or a statement on the relevant page with the download would easily 'solve' their responsibility and at no great cost - as well as giving greater weight to any condemnation of lower tiers for their seeming part in the failure.
    Last edited by corptaxman; 29-01-2019 at 09:34 AM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    suffolk
    Posts
    1,898
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 42/3
    Given: 2/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Law 52.1.8.4 refers to bowls stickers. The difference in size quoted is to accomodate bowls like Aero which accomodate a larger sticker. Bowls numbered 1.2.3.4 have not been allowed for many years as they are not identical.law 52.1.8.4 is in my Law book
    Last edited by john haydock; 29-01-2019 at 10:04 AM.
    No Grey Areas

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    307
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 20/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Well, I can only say that it's in no version of mine!

    On looking at the changes again, I think you're right about 52.1.8.4 only referring to stickers. At the time I was looking solely at the WB site, which refers to "these markings" and, as that was not defined there, relating it back to the law change above that which relates to "distinguishing marks". This only goes to show that you need changes in situ to be able to read them sensibly. You clearly have an amended version - I and seemingly others, do not.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    4,872
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 95/6
    Given: 28/5

    Default


    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I hope the below will placate those that are desperate to see the minor changes incorporated and claim not to receive any communication!!
    This is being sent to all MNAs tomorrow

    http://www.worldbowls.com/laws-umpir...-of-the-sport/
    It's a simple game really!!!
    Commonwealth Games Technical Official - Manchester 2002, Melbourne 2006, Delhi 2010, Glasgow 2014, Gold Coast 2018

    www.allanthornhill.com or Contact me directly @ Ask Umpy

    Any comments made by me on this Forum are my personal opinions only and not those of the World Bowls Laws Committee or the English Bowls Umpires Association

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    307
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 20/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    I've been out of things for about a week, as the recent snow/ice brought down our phone/internet lines (literally - 3inches of ice formed on the wires which are quite lengthy, the weight of which dragged them and the external BT box out of the wall and destroying any connection). I've been catching up this afternoon, now that things are fixed,and have just seen this - good to see and should avoid any future confusion. Thanks for your part - I'm sure - in getting them to do the sensible thing.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    39
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Umpy View Post
    I hope the below will placate those that are desperate to see the minor changes incorporated and claim not to receive any communication!!
    This is being sent to all MNAs tomorrow

    http://www.worldbowls.com/laws-umpir...-of-the-sport/
    Sense at last. A good move and I've also seen a release from BE on their facebook feed to announce the changes too. Excellent, although I don't really understand the sarcasm or find it necessary.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    4,872
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 95/6
    Given: 28/5

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Maybe it wasn’t aimed at you then

    Seems odd that it is ok for everyone else to have a good pop and yet when I do it I get criticised
    Last edited by Umpy; 05-02-2019 at 02:50 PM.
    It's a simple game really!!!
    Commonwealth Games Technical Official - Manchester 2002, Melbourne 2006, Delhi 2010, Glasgow 2014, Gold Coast 2018

    www.allanthornhill.com or Contact me directly @ Ask Umpy

    Any comments made by me on this Forum are my personal opinions only and not those of the World Bowls Laws Committee or the English Bowls Umpires Association

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    39
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Umpy View Post
    Maybe it wasn’t aimed at you then

    Seems odd that it is ok for everyone else to have a good pop and yet when I do it I get criticised
    Nah, its just odd. When I and others feel its a bit crap that the governor and custodian of the laws of the game change those laws and then continue to sell/make available an out of date version of those laws, you choose to imply that it is us that are being a bit pedantic and attempted to defend! Maybe that's why I reacted to your sarcasm and criticised, especially given your standing regarding the laws of the game?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    307
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 20/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Whilst I clearly agree with Riche on the underlying point, I took no offense as a likely 'Desperate' Dan, to your comment, Umpy - I thought it politely and understandably made, and that's all I hope for.

    Incidentally, I didn't just 'claim' no communication in this respect - I truly hadn't received anything, nor, from what others report, directly or indirectly, had they. I can only truthfully speak for myself, of course. Somewhere, there was cross- or lack of communication: better to give direct access wherever possible, as that can and does happen even in the best run organizations.
    Last edited by corptaxman; 06-02-2019 at 03:27 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •