Message from SBSC Queenie Lai
A Women rescheduled game played at WS on Jun 1. The weather was extremely hot and met approximately 34 degrees. One lady, act as Lead, felt uncomfortable, stopped playing and took a rest after the 9th end.On the basis of illness, that rink was made up of three players only. Accordingly to the bye-law, that rink will result with 25% scores deducted and the numbers 1 and 2 will bowl three bowls each.
If the players cannot use a Set of Bowls as defined in the Laws of the Sport of Bowls then one bowl may not be from the same set.
However, the numbers 1 and 2 was not allowed to borrow any bowls from the public counter by the opponent team.
Would Claudius clarify the above case?
Answer to the question :
<<TMSA Response on the Case of Interrupted Match with 1 player withdrawn during Play>>
Background
In view of the present 4–rink arrangement at Wu Shan Bowling Green and that 2 of the 4 rinks are used by LCSD training classes on most Sunday afternoons, only 2 other rinks are left available. We deeply regret that we could not offer any Sunday afternoon sessions to our opponent teams for re-scheduled league games at WS.
If the 6-rink arrangement was adopted, then we could have more options to accommodate rescheduled games. We hope HKLBA could urge LCSD to consider arranging 6 rinks at Wu Shan the sooner the better.
For the re-scheduled game W0323 for TMSA-A vs SBSC-B, we had offered the following three options, namely:
1. 18/5/2014 (Sunday) 11 am 2. 1/6/2014 (Sunday) 11 am 3. 1/6/2014 (Sunday) 7 pm
The second option was the choice made by Ms. Jessie So, SBSC. On 1-6-2014 Sunday, the game was played as rescheduled.
當天早上，天文台已發出酷熱警告，隊長有責任提醒隊員們照顧體質較弱的隊友。當天所見，事件前後，我方隊員對陳學賢女士的關顧比她的隊友有過之而無不及。本人亦親自搬椅子到簽場櫃台前的帳篷下，給她乘涼。
Here are the remarks written by our Third, Ms Estella Luk playing on the same rink:
“我記得當時對方有提過換晒另外三隻波（可能是基於“same set of bowls”）, 而我哋又向她們提過球例內的“不能換波” rule。
其實當時，我們feel puzzled of the 2 rules: “same set of bowls” & “開賽中不可換波“的相對矛盾性。我们並不知道有相關的特殊情况球例。相信對方亦不知道，否則她們會反對和堅持换波或尋求資深球員和總會即時處理。
事情只源於我們包括對方都不完全了解球例的全部，才出現這様的誤會。這完全和sportsmanship不闗連。
我希望我能幚助解釋這個不美麗的誤会。亦相信應向HKLBA及再次向海鳥澄清及解釋。以和為貴。謝。Estella.”
當時，本人被邀前往了解, 賽事已到第10局。 屈太(張惠玲女士)已發出目標球, 她在地蓆旁, 我問她有自己木球否, 她說只有兩個。 我建議她:『去借波啦』, 屈太：『我用Linda 波唔得咩』。我回答：『得,呢個係你自己的選擇』。張女士欣然地上蓆發出滾球。
I have two suggestions for HKLBA to consider in handling this “enquiry”:
- 1. For enquiry purposes or as a case study, is it necessary for HKLBA to mention the exact date /time/ venue… and other details which might not be of significance?
To me, that “enquiry” sounds like an accusation against TMSA rather than an enquiry while we have no opportunity to clarify it before your publication. - 2. For this simple case, we can simply consult the Rule book and have the straight answers. HKLBA should remind our convenors and players that they could consult the relevant documents before resume the games in case of disputes. By the way, HKLBA should send Ms. Lai a copy of Rule book, and this may reduce the workload of Mr. Claudius Lam.
Mr. Claudius Lam, attached is the image of the relevant score card. The total scores of SBSC-B from 10th to 18th ends were originally 6 shots. After reduction of 25% in view of the absence of 1 player during those ends, the scores were adjusted to 4.5 shots. Is this correct?
Sunny Chan
Secretary of TMSA
Leo Li
TMSA Convenor