CORRESPONDENCE.

Grey River Argus, 22 February 1927, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

WEST COAST BOWLING (To the Editor.) Sir.—l have no intention of entering into a controversy re the alleged unstamped bowls at the recent tournament but the article in the Argus on Saturday last, by “Straightwood” contains several mis-statements, and in fairness lo all concerned, should be corrected. He states in the first place, the bowls were unstamped. The writer saw the bowls, and is in a position to say the bowls were stamped not with the D.B.A certainly, but with the N.Z.A. I would suggest that nine out of every ten bowlers would think these would pass the test. This was the view the Tournament Committee took, when they dealt with the matter. It was conceded that the bowler in question acted in pure ignorance, and not with any intention of working any point. Regarding the protest and the Centre not having the courtesy to reply to the player who made the protest, the matter was reported by the Umpire, and the Tournament Committee took this as official. It however, later transpired that quite a lot of players had formally protested. The committee viewed the mat ter from a sporting spirit, together with the fact that the whole tournament would be upset, as nine games had been played before any protest was made. This meant that every player who had met the player in dispute could claim his game. What could be the position? Perhaps just what was wanted from some quarters, the tournament to end in chaos. The Tournament Committee takes full responsibility, and not the Chairman of the Centre, as is hinted. Runanga had three representatives (we make no apoligies) and we trusted everyone would take the finding in a true bowling spirit, and especially as it was Runanga’s first experience in a tournament. Unfortunately, sufficient no tice was not taken of “Straight wood’s” tip to alter the venue of the tournament some time ago, and, still more unfortunate, the Runanga green was a reasonable success, together with the fact that the tournament was :> huge success. I am etc.,

T. BOWES, Hon. Sec. Tournament Committee

Our correspondent states that the a 1 ’ tide in Saturday’s issue contained “several mis-statements,” but in his letter he fails to point out a single one—which is not surprising, considering the article in question was a fail and true statement of the position. Mr Bowes writes that our article stated that the bowls were “unstamped”. What we did say was that the bowls were “not stamped in accordance with the requirements of the Dominion Bowling Association” — which even Mr Bowes admits. But, when it comes to mis-statements, how can Mr Bowes as sort that he inspected the bowls, and is in a position to say they were stamped “N.Z.A.”? Never in the history of bowling in New Zealand has such a stamp been used, and yet l\lr Bowes, according to his own statement, actually saw this stamp! Really, he should consult an optician. In any rase, his i statement that nine out of every ten bowlers would think the stamp that li< i

says was on the Westport bowls was sufficient, is balderdash. Practically every bowler who has played the game for a season or so knows the requirements of the Dominion Association in connection with stamping. The whole position is that bowls not stamped in accordance with the rules of the game were used, and the Tournament Committee failed in their duty in not awarding the game to the opposing side when the ’natter was reported to them. Ail games must l>e governed by definite rules, and if derisions such as that given by the Tournament Exe<-utiv<‘ are allowed to go unrlia I longed, bowling tournaments on the Coast will no! be taken seriously by bowlers from other centres. Let us have “Dominion Bowling Association” rules, not “Rafferty’s”. Mr Bowes’s statement that “the ending of the tournament in chaos was perhaps just what was want ed from some quarters” can be treat ed with the contempt tha.t such a ridiculous and childish statement deserves.