WARRNAMBOOL’S bowls chief yesterday fully supported the officials’ interpretation of the rules after a tense finish to the men’s preliminary final on Saturday.
Western District Bowls Association president Ron Horne said he understood Dennington’s disappointment after the club was leading by one shot after 93 ends when rain stopped play at 5.30pm.
He said after an interpretation of the rules, the 6.30pm cut-off time was waived and the last seven ends completed with City Memorial Red getting up to win by six shots, 85-79.
“I’m understanding of the disappointment of the Dennington club. But the game was completed and if the boot was on the other foot I’m sure this same story would be written with the names reversed and City Memorial Red unhappy,” Horne said.
However, a number of Dennington bowlers who contacted The Standard yesterday claimed the match should have ended at 6.30pm and Dennington been declared the winner by one shot.
Horne said Rule 9(b) stated that if a match was abandoned and at least 70 ends (in division one) were completed, then the match result would be decided on ends completed.
“The opening four words are crucial — ‘if a match is abandoned’ — and it wasn’t,” he said.
“At 5.30pm it bucketed down and play was suspended until such time that it became apparent that play could not continue. But, the rain ceased, the greens commenced to drain and the two managers were offered the proposition of playing the remaining seven ends or coming back the following Saturday to play seven ends.”
Horne, who was officiating but not the independent chief umpire, said the managers were not offered the option of abandoning the match.
“If there had been 70 ends played and there were 40 shots the difference, the situation would not have arisen,” he said.
“City Memorial Red manager Fred Fish was not prepared to forfeit the match. His club was only one shot down with seven ends remaining and the time limit had not expired.”
The independent umpire of the day was chief local umpire Robert Anderson, who is the WDBA deputy umpire sub-committee chairman.
Horne said rule 9(a)(5) stated if play had been delayed or suspended and the match was not completed by 6.30pm, play would cease with the ends in play at 6.30pm.
“The interpretation of that rule was that the game would be ruled off at 6.30pm and the bowlers would all come back the next week for seven ends,” he said.
“The umpires decided to turn a blind eye to the 6.30pm rule and decided to play the remaining ends rather than come back next week.”
Horne said Dennington did not agree with the decision made about 6.15pm to finish off the 100 ends.
“They were back on the green at 6.25pm and commenced bowling,” he said.
“The 70-end rule is only so a result can be obtained in abandoned matches and managers have to agree, which was never going to happen in this circumstance.
“I was happy with the officiating and how the rules were interpreted.”
Dennington bowlers believe the 6.30pm rule for inclement weather should have prevailed and their club been declared the winner.
“I do not believe there was a bowl bowled until after 6.30pm. Rule 9(a)(5) — the 6.30pm rule — is clear,” one bowler, who did not wish to be named, said.
“Ron Horne was the one making all the decisions and his interpretation is incorrect. They were decisions made on the run. The 6.30pm rule is clear and was waived.”
Another Dennington bowler said it was a clear example of a large club being able to dominate a smaller club through rule interpretation.
“The rules have been interpreted in a fairly unique way and one of the 9a rules ignored,” he said.
“There was a huge crowd and the decisions made caused an enormous amount of comment.
“We were ordered back onto the green and warned about a time violation when the umpires had ignored the 6.30pm rule. That was a bit tough, but we understand the final result is not going to change.”
Email a friend