Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Shot declared wrongly - bowls kicked away

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    9
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 0/0
    Given: 1/0

    Default Shot declared wrongly - bowls kicked away


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Today in a game, the opposition third wrongly thought our bowl (that was knocked into the ditch) was a chalker, declared it the scoring shot, and started kicking the other bowls away.

    He was then corrected but it was too late as bowls had been moved.

    The skips didnít know what rules applied so the end was declared void.

    But was that correct? Since the opposition player declared the shot, then the bowls kicked away, should that not have stood?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    suffolk
    Posts
    2,439
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 71/18
    Given: 2/2

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Argus View Post
    Today in a game, the opposition third wrongly thought our bowl (that was knocked into the ditch) was a chalker, declared it the scoring shot, and started kicking the other bowls away.

    He was then corrected but it was too late as bowls had been moved.

    The skips didn’t know what rules applied so the end was declared void.

    But was that correct? Since the opposition player declared the shot, then the bowls kicked away, should that not have stood?
    Cannot see anyway this action can result in a dead end, The number 3 declared the shot, despite being corrected later,The process is between the 2number 3’s,
    No Grey Areas

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 2/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    If it was a genuine mistake of thinking it was a toucher when it was not I would have allowed the next nearest bowl to be declared shot. If it was clear who was next nearest. If however you were not sure which was the next nearest then the none defaulting side should be awarded the shot. Just my opinion of course.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    suffolk
    Posts
    2,439
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 71/18
    Given: 2/2

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Goggy View Post
    If it was a genuine mistake of thinking it was a toucher when it was not I would have allowed the next nearest bowl to be declared shot. If it was clear who was next nearest. If however you were not sure which was the next nearest then the none defaulting side should be awarded the shot. Just my opinion of course.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Why was the bowl left in the ditch,someone from the team should have removed it as a dead bowl. They were never going to know the next nearest because the head was disturbed,Your theory is good but is there a Law to back it up?
    No Grey Areas

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    21
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 2/0
    Given: 0/0

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Indeed, why was it left in the ditch? I am not an umpire, and having checked the rules I cannot see the answer. I still have the view that unless there is an obvious bowl that could now be declared the nearest, and there cannot be a measure as the head was broken up and cannot be put back to what it was, so the none defaulting side should not be penalised. We all know you should not touch the bowls until both the threes have agreed the position, in this case it was later agreed the bowl in the ditch was not a toucher. A right bag or worms this one, but you surely cannot declare a dead end, the none defaulting team has done nothing wrong. Mine was just a common sense answer, but not neccessarily the correct answer.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    suffolk
    Posts
    2,439
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 71/18
    Given: 2/2

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Goggy View Post
    Indeed, why was it left in the ditch? I am not an umpire, and having checked the rules I cannot see the answer. I still have the view that unless there is an obvious bowl that could now be declared the nearest, and there cannot be a measure as the head was broken up and cannot be put back to what it was, so the none defaulting side should not be penalised. We all know you should not touch the bowls until both the threes have agreed the position, in this case it was later agreed the bowl in the ditch was not a toucher. A right bag or worms this one, but you surely cannot declare a dead end, the none defaulting team has done nothing wrong. Mine was just a common sense answer, but not neccessarily the correct answer.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    That is what I said, cannot be a dead end, the number 3’s declared the shot and head was kicked in , the 3 declared the shot to his opponent, then kicked the bowls in.shot conceded ,he is now the defaulting team.
    Last edited by john haydock; 24-11-2021 at 12:13 PM.
    No Grey Areas

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    711
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 42/3
    Given: 0/1

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    It wouldn't alter my agreement that it can't be a dead end, but, as I read the original question, only the opponent 3 declared the shot and started kicking in the bowls - at that stage there does not appear to be agreement between the 3's. Indeed, the opposite would seem to be the case, as the matter was corrected, albeit too late to go back.

    I wonder what they might have done if the non-defaulting team was wanting to claim more than 1 shot?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    suffolk
    Posts
    2,439
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 71/18
    Given: 2/2

    Default


    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by corptaxman View Post
    It wouldn't alter my agreement that it can't be a dead end, but, as I read the original question, only the opponent 3 declared the shot and started kicking in the bowls - at that stage there does not appear to be agreement between the 3's. Indeed, the opposite would seem to be the case, as the matter was corrected, albeit too late to go back.

    I wonder what they might have done if the non-defaulting team was wanting to claim more than 1 shot?
    No bowls should be removed until the opponents have agreed shot?
    No Grey Areas

Posting Permissions

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