Search results

Poll has been added as discussed previously in the thread.

What limits would they be James? You really have no idea but I have said that before. In fact, one could almost call you "uninformed".

soft.......

In hindsight the poll is a good idea. I might see if i can add one later. The non-refundable deposit was just one idea. I am sure there are others.

This thread is not about one tourney, it is about tourneys in general. How many people were happy with what happened at Berri a short time ago? None of that was Steve's fault, he did what he needed to do when the bowlers let him down and to his credit he ran the tourney regardless. How many...

James, the attempt is appreciated but all the work done for the Mildura tourney, chasing sponsors, organising everything was done by Dean and Ray. I am not TD (that I know of) and they organised the BBQ and skins. I had nothing to do with any of it. Dean and Ray deserve all the credit for...

...............

It is not one or two shift workers and like Chin said, organise it early and it shouldn't be an issue. It is a heap of bowlers and it is most tourneys. Genuine reasons do exist but the number of people doing it means that not all are genuine. More than half would just be a case of deciding...

There are a number of issues, one of them being prize funds. Even if the deposit became non-refundable a month out from the tourney or something would be better than it is now. There is always a certain squad people all seem to want to bowl. It fills up in no time yet by the time tourneys...

There have been a number of tourneys where people nominate then withdraw and in fact it is an ongoing issue. It stuffs up prize funds, affects sponsors (if tourney has them) affects squads and so on. Why can't the following occur? Nominations are only received with a non-refundable...

You continue to completely miss the point. How the **** are you going to know? You can write the rule however you want but if noone sees it and the bowler him/herself says nothing then you don't know. You only want to change the rule to suit a situation that will either never happen or you...

I did not say it will never occur. You really need to stop quoting people. No matter how you change the rule if noone sees it and the bowler does not say anything then they can basically do what they want. I'll say it again, look at the reality of the situation. There is nothing wrong with...

You agree that the rule works well yet you think it allows people to do something they shouldn't. So which is it? Does the rule work well and as intended (as you agree) or is it abused by people like you say it allows? I say the rule works fine and there is no issue other than a couple of...

The rule works well. Why try to complicate something that works fine? And Roysa, if you don't like it don't read it. Simple enough concept for you?

I am saying that you need to stick to the topic. The rule in question is written well, the intention of the rule is fine. In reality the rule works well. We don't need people like you trying to rip it apart word by word to find some imaginary fault with it that does not exist.

A person not trying to find a way to cheat will NOT knowingly bowl at an incomplete rack. That's reality. The rule is fine and the intention of the rule is fine. I have said it before, I will say it again. Look at the entire situation and not just your own warped interpretation of a few words.

The question you should ask is, would anyone honestly do it? Stop trying to find fault with every little ****ing thing. You think the following is all going to happen at once? 1. There is someone prepared to cheat on the approach. 2. There just happens to be a pin missing from the deck. 3...

Again - common sense. You ignore the other guy, thank the person who did the work and pay them as appropriate. Then, not wanting to make a scene, you let it drop and don't make a big deal over nothing on a forum.

Honestly, stop posting long-winded garbage and look at what you wrote. Stop trying to sound knowledgeable when the truth is you are not reading the rule in context or grasping the intent of the rule. If noone sees the pin missing then it wont get called. If someone sees it, as happens almost...

Wow, now you want to discuss how rules that are right look stupid if you change the words? Lets rewrite the rule book and then, even though it is nothing like the actual book we will discuss how wrong it is. OR WE CAN USE COMMON SENSE!!!! The original rule posted in the thread is fine as it...

Go look up "legal intent". The rule is clearly written and the intent of the rule is clear. If you want to go reading rules and trying to interpret them like this then at least do it properly.

lol, thought so. I will go out on a limb here. Either yourself or someone you know was affected by a ruling?

ditto. someone looking for an issue that isn't there. Either that or this is a case of things we are not told regarding an issue that actually occurred.

No need for me to do anything at all. Like 99% of the bowling community if someone tells me I was missing a pin then I bowl the shot again. I don't ask for a court case and proof that the pin was missing. No matter how something is written there will always be people like the wannabe...

Ok, someone has to say it..... Do we need to video every delivery ever made and make sure they were not wearing a pacemaker? That could be an electronic aid of some sort. While we are at it, Shoudl we weigh every ball after every shot and take 26 photos of it to make sure it has not...