RULE 110 DEAD BALL

[Baz]

"RULE 110 DEAD BALL
1. A ball will be declared dead if any of the following occur:
a. After a delivery (and before the next delivery on the same lane), attention is immediately called to
the fact that one or more pins were missing from the setup."

This rule needs clarification.
Theoretically, a player can bowl a ball, leave a split, walk back and they or another team member can claim a pin was missing from the deck, thereby rebowling the frame.

Generally speaking, to date, it has been accepted that if the bowler or another person calls a pin missing before the ball hits the pins a dead ball would be declared. However, this is not in concert with the above rule. In some instances a witness to the call has been required, however, if the ball takes some 2.3 seconds from foul line to headpin, and the call is made when the ball is say, half way down the lane, in the remaining 1.15 seconds someone needs to hear the call, look at and focus on the deck to confirm the call. This is not required by the TBA and WTBA rule.

One possible solution is that when the player makes a legal release of the ball they accept the deck (as they would with off spot pins) and the resulting leave, however, if there are not ten pins at the time of the release has a legal release been made. It seems so looking at:

RULE 108 PINFALL - LEGAL
1. A ball is legally delivered when it leaves the bowler’s possession and crosses the foul line into playing
territory.
2. Every ball delivered by the player will count, unless declared a dead ball.

Bearing in mind that although many centres now have some sort of TV replay, the rule should be made clearer.

 

[Roysa]

Sure Baz i agree the rule shoul dbe made a bit clearer but really i dont think in most leagues it would be a problem, i certainly wouldnt have a problem believing anyone in the leagues i bowl in but each to their own i suppose.

On a different note, i know 100% there is a full deck when i stand up on the approach, i dont know about others but it stands out to me when a pin is missing its the first thing i check.

 

[Casual Observer]

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 changed? Is allowing oil to build up on the ball modifying the surface? Is allowing it to get dirty modifying the surface? Is pointing out someone else was missing a pin interfering with their shot and a deliberate attempt to affect their game?

Honestly, bull**** like this and the whole glue in the finger grips thing in the other thread is nothing but pedantic crap. Rules are rules but common sense has to prevail. All the wannabe lawyers in bowling today need to have a good hard look at themselves and stop trying to complicate stuff to suit their mood at the moment.

The people who come up with garbage like that need to grow and start bowling to enjoy it. Maybe then we will keep more bowlers in the sport.

 

[Baz]

Mr Observer, I think you need a Bex and a good lie down, or maybe even some Coloxyl. I am not trying to complicate things, on the contrary, I am suggested this one rule should be made clearer.

 

[Roysa]

Baz.. its been a while since CO has had a rant like that... he will feel better now and you may not hear from him again for a little while.

 

[willey]

Baz, one of the Lady Pro Bowlers lost a Tournament from this very rule, it was noticed from one of the Commontaters on the TV coverage that a Pin was missing from the Rack, so she had to re-Bowl the shot and lost the Game, Sad but true.

willey

 

[Casual Observer]

Mr Observer, I think you need a Bex and a good lie down, or maybe even some Coloxyl. I am not trying to complicate things, on the contrary, I am suggested this one rule should be made clearer.

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 lawyers who post that crap on this forum who think it should be interpreted a different way.

I stand by what I said, they need to grow up and start bowling to enjoy it.

 

[Emery_Paper]

"RULE 110 DEAD BALL
1. A ball will be declared dead if any of the following occur:
a. After a delivery (and before the next delivery on the same lane), attention is immediately called to
the fact that one or more pins were missing from the setup."

This rule needs clarification.
Theoretically, a player can bowl a ball, leave a split, walk back and they or another team member can claim a pin was missing from the deck, thereby rebowling the frame.

Generally speaking, to date, it has been accepted that if the bowler or another person calls a pin missing before the ball hits the pins a dead ball would be declared. However, this is not in concert with the above rule. In some instances a witness to the call has been required, however, if the ball takes some 2.3 seconds from foul line to headpin, and the call is made when the ball is say, half way down the lane, in the remaining 1.15 seconds someone needs to hear the call, look at and focus on the deck to confirm the call. This is not required by the TBA and WTBA rule.

One possible solution is that when the player makes a legal release of the ball they accept the deck (as they would with off spot pins) and the resulting leave, however, if there are not ten pins at the time of the release has a legal release been made. It seems so looking at:

RULE 108 PINFALL - LEGAL
1. A ball is legally delivered when it leaves the bowler’s possession and crosses the foul line into playing
territory.
2. Every ball delivered by the player will count, unless declared a dead ball.

Bearing in mind that although many centres now have some sort of TV replay, the rule should be made clearer.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Your understanding of the generally accepted practice of calling deadballs is not the rule itself. In fact, if the deadball procedure was as you outlined as general practice, could there still be a deadball if nobody verified a witness's call?? Turn the scenario around. If the ball struck but you noticed that the rack was incomplete just before the ball hit the pins, by your own generally accepted proceedure you would then have no capacity to call a deadball?????

The rule is very clear as to the proceedure for calling a dead ball should be followed. If someone noticed an incomplete rack they must call it to attention before the next delivery on that lane. If it is not called by then, it stands.

The only rort involved here can be if your opponents are dishonest and outright cheating by saying there is a dead ball when in fact there isn't.
No rewording of the rule is going to prevent that type of cheating. If you are so worried about your opponents falsely claiming a deadball you should ensure that there is a complete rack standing before their delivery.


As for allowing any rack to be counted as legal pinfall regardless of whether the rack is complete or not, this opens up a subsequent avenue to cheat. An opponent could, for example have a rack without a 10-pin then bowl a strike that may not have happened had there been a full rack. If you were to see that the rack was incomplete on the TV replay by the amended rule you would not be able to call a deadball on that shot, and it would as such be counted as a strike.

 

[Baz]

Mr Paper, I can see that you are scratching the surface.

Firstly, "Your understanding of the generally accepted practice of calling deadballs is not the rule itself" Quite correct. It is not the rule. And nobody needs to verify the call.
Secondly, "If the ball struck but you noticed that the rack was incomplete just before the ball hit the pins, by your own generally accepted proceedure you would then have no capacity to call a deadball?????" Quite wrong, you could walk back off the approach and call the dead ball under the current rule.
Thirdly, "As for allowing any rack to be counted as legal pinfall regardless of whether the rack is complete or not..." This is the case according Rule 108, unless a foul is committed or dead ball called.

Rules should be there to define procedures and situations not to leave them wide open for people with fewer scruples than you or I.

 

[Roysa]

Really unless there is a missing 5 8 or 9 pin then surely the rest are easy to identify?

It's a storm in a teacup.

 

[Casual Observer]

Really unless there is a missing 5 8 or 9 pin then surely the rest are easy to identify?

It's a storm in a teacup.

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.

 

[Baz]

Cas, you are right, this did occur, in a women's team match in Guam. This is what brought it to my attention. I simply think that rules 108 and 110 need clarification.

 

[Casual Observer]

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

 

[Paxed]

Baz, I have been giving some considerable thought to the issue that you have raised and it is actually more complex than it appears at first glance.

As you said, the rule as it stands gives bowlers the opportunity to see the outcome of their shot and then falsely claim that the rack was incomplete in order to rebowl the shot. While this may be a problem, keep in mind that such an exploit requires a person to outright lie in order to gain this advantage and of course lying is not generally accepted as fair play. It is however a fairly unique issue. I tried to think up other scenarios where a person may lie in order to use a rule, but I couldn't think of any which involve the same set of circumstances as this one. The bowler who tries to exploit this rule is the person who pays most attention to the rack which they bring into question, while their opponents generally pay less attention, thus making it much easier to exploit. This is what makes the issue more complex than it first appears.

Your proposed solution of a player accepting the deck when they make a legal delivery does eliminate a bowler's capacity to retrospectively claim an incomplete rack. It puts the onus on the bowler to ensure that they have a full rack and considering that they are the person who will be paying the most attention to the rack throughout their turn, it seems like a reasonable solution. However, it introduces another problem which I think is worse than the possible exploit that exists now.

Suppose that your proposed solution was incorporated into the rules. A bowler would then be able to bowl at a rack with, say, no 8-pin and thereby accept the deck. If his/her opponents were not paying attention and they do not call a dead ball, then the shot would stand. A shot which could have left an 8-10 split becomes simply a 10-pin. To me, this seems wrong, but it would not be cheating. In fact, it would be completely legal according to the rules and moreover, unlike the original rule as it stands now, a bowler would not need to lie in order to benefit from this rule. (Even more absurd - it would be completely legal for a bowler to bowl at an empty rack and be credited with a strike under such a rule ).

I suppose the rule could be changed to say:
"After a delivery (and before the ball contacts the pins), attention is immediately called to the fact that one or more pins were missing from the setup."
However, such a change would eliminate the ability to call a dead ball if it is discovered on a video replay that the deck was incomplete.

In my opinion, the rule should stay as it is since there is nothing inherently wrong with the rule itself. In order to exploit the rule a person would need to outright lie about a missing pin and such an exploit is not infallible. If you suspect your opponents of falsely claiming dead balls then you need simply to ensure that their racks are indeed full before they make their deliveries. You can then refute any claims of an incomplete rack.

 

[Baz]

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

Not correct Cas, it was Japan vs Guam, I think you just sawed through the limb you are sitting on

 

[Baz]

Pax,

"The bowler who tries to exploit this rule is the person who pays most attention to the rack which they bring into question", this isn't quite right, as you said earlier, it would take someone who is prepared to lie and cheat, hard as it is to believe, there are people who will. The person who cheats isn't interested in the integrity of the rack, only taking advantage of the rule.

Looking at the option of leaving the onus on the bowler to accept the rack, it is now the situation that a bowler can decide if off spot pin/s are to his advantage or to ask for a rerack.

"(Even more absurd - it would be completely legal for a bowler to bowl at an empty rack and be credited with a strike under such a rule )." This is the case now under the current Rule 108!

 

[Casual Observer]

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.

 

[Paxed]

"The bowler who tries to exploit this rule is the person who pays most attention to the rack which they bring into question", this isn't quite right, as you said earlier, it would take someone who is prepared to lie and cheat, hard as it is to believe, there are people who will. The person who cheats isn't interested in the integrity of the rack, only taking advantage of the rule.

I think you may have missed my point of that sentence. I was merely observing that the bowler will definitely be looking at the rack whilst others may not be looking at the rack at all. It is this situation, where there is a possible disparity in information available to players involved, which makes this rule a unique issue worthy of serious thought and one which can not be simply dismissed as a generic attempt to exploit a rule. I could not think of any other rules where a person could falsely claim something in order to conform to that rule and actually be in a position for it work.

For instance, someone could falsely claim that a bowler's spare ball bounced out of the gutter and it shouldn't be counted. This is easily refuted since the bowler would have been looking at their own shot. Alternatively, Someone could falsely claim that a bowler's strike shot should not be counted because the rack was not full, but again the bowler could refute such a claim. It is clear that the bowler is always in a position to make a judgement about thier own shot.

Now, looking at the possible exploit of this rule, it is easy to see the unique issue that arises. Someone could leave a split and falsely claim that there was a pin missing from the rack. If the opponent was not watching, then they are in no position to refute such a claim. Such an exploit does not really exist when you consider other rules.

"(Even more absurd - it would be completely legal for a bowler to bowl at an empty rack and be credited with a strike under such a rule )." This is the case now under the current Rule 108!

After rereading the rules I agree, you are correct. There is a problem with the rule that runs deeper than just people being able to make false claims.

"RULE 110 DEAD BALL
1. A ball will be declared dead if any of the following occur:
a. After a delivery (and before the next delivery on the same lane), attention is immediately called to the fact that one or more pins were missing from the setup.
b. A human pin setter interferes with any standing pin before the ball reaches the pins.
c. A human pin setter removes or interferes with any downed pin before it stops rolling.
d. A player bowls on the wrong lane or out of turn or one player from each team on the pair of lanes bowls on the wrong lane. (refer Rule 113)
e. A player is physically interfered with by another player, spectator, moving object or by the pinsetter as the ball is being delivered and before the delivery is completed. In such case, the player has the option to accept the resulting pinfall or have a dead ball declared.
f. Any pin is moved or knocked down as a player delivers the ball but before the ball reaches the pins.
g. A delivered ball comes in contact with any foreign obstacle, including Bumper Rails (except in Bumper Leagues)."

The problem stems from the bolded part of the rule. Notice that no other parts of Rule 110 rely on attention in order to be considered a dead ball.

"A ball will be declared dead if attention is immediately called to the fact that one or more pins were missing from the setup." This logically implies that if attention is not immediately called to the fact that one or more pins were missing from the set up then the ball is not declared dead and thus, according to Rule 108 it is counted. This means that it is completely within the rules for a person to bowl at an incomplete rack. However, such a situation makes the rules inconsistent, since according to Rule 102:

"RULE 102 STRIKE
A strike is recorded when the player completes a legal delivery and bowls down the full setup of ten pins on the first ball."

An incomplete rack is not a full setup of ten pins and thus, if a person knocks down all the pins in an incomplete rack it is not a strike. For the rules to be consistent, bowlers must not be allowed any option to bowl at an incomplete rack. Any ball bowled at incomplete setup must be considered as a dead ball regardless of whether attention is brought to it or not.

The problematic part of Rule 110 would be better worded as:

RULE 110 DEAD BALL
1. A ball will be declared dead if any of the following occur:
a. One or more pins were missing from the setup.

Thus, if pins are missing then the ball is dead. If pins are not missing then the ball is not dead. (Rather than, if attention is called then the ball is dead. If attention is not called then the ball is not dead.)



--------------------



If you look at other rules and insert the need to "draw attention to the fact" you can see just how absurd Rule 110 1.a. is at the moment. Take for example, the rule that states that if a ball bounces out of the gutter, any pins knocked down do not count:

The rule as it stands:
RULE 109 PINFALL - ILLEGAL
1. When any of the following incidents occur the ball counts as a ball rolled, but pins knocked down will not count:
a. When pins are knocked down or displaced by a ball that leaves the lane before reaching the pins.

The rule with added "attention":
1. When any of the following incidents occur the ball counts as a ball rolled, but pins knocked down will not count:
a. When attention is immediately called to the fact that pins are knocked down or displaced by a ball that leaves the lane before reaching the pins.

Under such a rule a person could bounce a ball out of the gutter and have it counted as legal pinfall simply by not drawing attention to it and they would not be cheating!

 

[Casual Observer]

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 is and the intention of the rule is clear. If someone notices there is a pin missing then the ball is dead and gets bowled again. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

 

[Paxed]

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 point of rewording existing rules is not to make them look stupid, it is to elucidate the effect that such wording has on what a rule actually says. In this case, I was trying to show exactly what the phrase "attention is called to" does to a rule. It is quite easy to miss the actual meaning of what a rule says if you already accept it as meaning something which it doesn't say.

However, since you have such an aversion to making changes to rules I can explain the effect without changing any words.

Looking at the rule about a ball bouncing out of the gutter:
RULE 109 PINFALL - ILLEGAL
1. When any of the following incidents occur the ball counts as a ball rolled, but pins knocked down will not count:
a. When pins are knocked down or displaced by a ball that leaves the lane before reaching the pins.

The pinfall is illegal once the ball knocks down pins. Under this rule, if a person was to bounce a ball out of the gutter and not call attention to it, the pinfall would still be considered illegal. More importantly, the act of not calling attention would be classed as cheating since a person would be trying to be credited with illegal pinfall.


Now, looking at the dead ball rule:
RULE 110 DEAD BALL
1. A ball will be declared dead if any of the following occur:
a. After a delivery (and before the next delivery on the same lane), attention is immediately called to the fact that one or more pins were missing from the setup.

A ball is dead once attention is called to the fact that one or more pins were missing. If attention is not called to the fact that one or more pins were missing then the ball is not dead. The act of calling attention is what makes the ball dead. If a person chooses not to call attention to missing pins then the ball is not considered dead.

Under this rule, if a person was to notice that a pin was missing and chose not call attention to the missing pin then the ball would not be dead, and any pinfall would count. Note that in this case (unlike the illegal pinfall rule which does not include "attention"), the act of not calling attention is not classed as cheating. The act of not calling attention is what keeps the ball live.

To me this seems wrong. I believe if pins are missing from a setup then the ball should be considered dead and attempts to not call attention to the fact should be considered cheating and thus I believe the rule should be reworded to:
RULE 110 DEAD BALL
1. A ball will be declared dead if any of the following occur:
a. One or more pins were missing from the setup.


The phrase "attention is called to" does not change how rules are enforced but it does change what is considered to be cheating.