Rule "fatigue"...

[Ryster]

Have you ever reached a point where you are just tired of trying to enforce all of the rules, or trust that teams are following the rules? Bowling should not be that difficult.

Last week we had some various instances of misunderstanding USBC rules or general misunderstanding of the league rules. I also do not understand why trying to approach people and politely mention the rule turns in to a potentially explosive situation or adversarial challenge. In some cases people are understanding and the issue is quickly resolved. Other times result in a tirade of expletives, accusations of being reported by other bowlers, or general anger directed at other bowlers or league officers.

Our league secretary has not distributed the final league rules/by-laws as we approach week 8. As VP of our league I am trying to facilitate that, but it has been a challenge (the "house" is our secretary.) It will be a lot easier to enforce league rules if we can get the rules in front of each bowler. Then there is less of an excuse other than simply not reading the rules.

Pile on to it the bowlers that watch for the slightest infraction by anyone on any team and then immediately go running to a league officer. They don't want any part of being a league officer but are the first ones to go running to get something addressed/enforced.

I am quickly starting to see why people are attracted to non-sanctioned leagues. I was exhausted by the end of bowling last week and was ready to just altogether quit.

[boomer]

We had a "gentleman" last night who insisted he should be allowed to bowl when he was the only one from his team in attendance (two called in with Covid and I think they called the third, but since this guy didn't give them his contact info, they didn't call him so he didn't know)

I understand that he was upset that he couldn't bowl.

But when we pointed out that rules say you need two regulars, minimum, to make a minimum lineup and subs don't count to that, he insisted that he should be allowed to bowl (but since he wouldn't be able to count his scores with the rest of the team, he'd have to take an absence when THEY make-up).

I've been there - been the only guy to show up. My reaction to that was to give my contact info and make SURE they contacted me next time.

But dealing with him put a pallor on the rest of the evening.

[J Anderson]

Have you ever reached a point where you are just tired of trying to enforce all of the rules, or trust that teams are following the rules? Bowling should not be that difficult.

Last week we had some various instances of misunderstanding USBC rules or general misunderstanding of the league rules. I also do not understand why trying to approach people and politely mention the rule turns in to a potentially explosive situation or adversarial challenge. In some cases people are understanding and the issue is quickly resolved. Other times result in a tirade of expletives, accusations of being reported by other bowlers, or general anger directed at other bowlers or league officers.

Our league secretary has not distributed the final league rules/by-laws as we approach week 8. As VP of our league I am trying to facilitate that, but it has been a challenge (the "house" is our secretary.) It will be a lot easier to enforce league rules if we can get the rules in front of each bowler. Then there is less of an excuse other than simply not reading the rules.

Pile on to it the bowlers that watch for the slightest infraction by anyone on any team and then immediately go running to a league officer. They don't want any part of being a league officer but are the first ones to go running to get something addressed/enforced.

I am quickly starting to see why people are attracted to non-sanctioned leagues. I was exhausted by the end of bowling last week and was ready to just altogether quit.

It’s not any better in non-sanctioned leagues. There still have to be rules. Of course they aren’t written down so only the league secretary knows what they are. And the bowlers expect rules so if you were to find them in written form it would look like an abridged version of the USBC rules. But we don’t want to be sanctioned because the USBC just takes your money and gives nothing in return, but we like most of the rules so we’ll just “borrow” the ones we like.

[Ryster]

It’s not any better in non-sanctioned leagues. There still have to be rules. Of course they aren’t written down so only the league secretary knows what they are. And the bowlers expect rules so if you were to find them in written form it would look like an abridged version of the USBC rules. But we don’t want to be sanctioned because the USBC just takes your money and gives nothing in return, but we like most of the rules so we’ll just “borrow” the ones we like.

I am not sure what people expect to get back in return for $0.40 per week. Honestly, what do people want? Patches, plaques, and award certificates that end up in a drawer or thrown in the trash? Regardless of the rules issue, the biggest benefits to being sanctioned are having an official average for national, state, and local tournaments, as well as having the league bonded in the event the prize fund "walks away".

The biggest issues facing the non-sanctioned leagues around here are what percentage to use for the handicap, and complaining about "stacked" teams. Otherwise there are very few [if any] problems.

[J Anderson]

I am not sure what people expect to get back in return for $0.40 per week. Honestly, what do people want? Patches, plaques, and award certificates that end up in a drawer or thrown in the trash? Regardless of the rules issue, the biggest benefits to being sanctioned are having an official average for national, state, and local tournaments, as well as having the league bonded in the event the prize fund "walks away".

The biggest issues facing the non-sanctioned leagues around here are what percentage to use for the handicap, and complaining about "stacked" teams. Otherwise there are very few [if any] problems.

League bowlers who are in it for the social part could not care less about having an official average for tournaments. Those bowlers usually wind up in leagues with minimal prize funds so they don’t see a real benefit to being bonded.

[Ryster]

League bowlers who are in it for the social part could not care less about having an official average for tournaments. Those bowlers usually wind up in leagues with minimal prize funds so they don’t see a real benefit to being bonded.

The funny thing is, in several of the non-sanctioned leagues around here many of the league officers have a "history of improprieties" in the handling of league dues on sanctioned leagues. Somehow they get elected as league officers on the non-sanctioned leagues. The bowlers may not see a benefit to being bonded, but if the treasurer runs off with the prize fund or the funds get stolen from the bowling center (even if it is only $1500-$2000) they will suddenly care. Then that extra 40 cents per week doesn't seem like such a bad deal.

We also see many bowlers who want to bowl in tournaments, but when they find out that they need to go in with a 215 or 220 average because they do not have a sanctioned average, they are discouraged and end up not bowling in any tournaments.

I'm not the biggest fan of the USBC by any means at all, but they ultimately serve a purpose. Now, if the annual membership suddenly went up to $120 or something it would be a whole different issue.

[Benji88]

Well said, John

[classygranny]

Just a note of the rules...every league must elect a secretary (even if the house does most of the work) See rule 104 - and additional info at 104D. And therefore, that person would be responsible for the distribution of the rules.

104d/3 Our bowling league utilizes the center’s secretarial service. Do we still need to elect a league secretary?
Yes, Rule 104a requires each league to elect a secretary. Since the league utilizes the center’s secretarial
service, the league secretary should work together with the bowling center and is responsible for ensuring that
all duties listed under Rule 104d are being properly fulfilled.

[Ryster]

Just a note of the rules...every league must elect a secretary (even if the house does most of the work) See rule 104 - and additional info at 104D. And therefore, that person would be responsible for the distribution of the rules.

104d/3 Our bowling league utilizes the center’s secretarial service. Do we still need to elect a league secretary?
Yes, Rule 104a requires each league to elect a secretary. Since the league utilizes the center’s secretarial
service, the league secretary should work together with the bowling center and is responsible for ensuring that
all duties listed under Rule 104d are being properly fulfilled.

That is definitely not being done at our house. The house is the secretary for 99% of the leagues both sanctioned and non-sanctioned. It has become an "attractive" option as in many cases there is no secretary fee charged to the league which helps keep money in the prize fund. For some of the really large leagues, the secretary fee is assessed and the fee is then donated to the junior bowling program at the end of the season.

The league meeting usually goes something like this: "The house will be the secretary and the treasurer. Therefore we only need to elect a President and Vice President." Just for the fun of it, at the next meeting I might have to poke the bear and advise that USBC rules require we elect a secretary. Heads would explode :D

[classygranny]

Ryster....if they don't want any officers, they should go with a "managed" league. Check it out in the rules. Could be an option. I wouldn't want to do it, but then again, I'm a fairly "by the rules" type of gal.

[Ryster]

Ryster....if they don't want any officers, they should go with a "managed" league. Check it out in the rules. Could be an option. I wouldn't want to do it, but then again, I'm a fairly "by the rules" type of gal.

Definitely something to consider. We are basically operating as a managed league now where the President and the VP work with the house to deal with the secretary and treasurer duties. We just haven't declared ourselves a managed league.

[Aslan]

We had an issue come up two weeks ago where a new bowler wanted to use a bowl with 3 holes in it but only put two fingers in the ball. The team asked us if it was a problem and we said "no". The thought process was, he's a "new bowler"...it's not a big deal. If it were an experienced bowler, I think I'd feel differently.

Well, this week, the captain of the team that team was playing against came and asked us about it because they weren't sure if they should let him bowl. One of the guys on my team was all bent out of shape about it thinking it was ridiculous that they would even consider enforcing the rule. And, he immediately went to the "effect of a hole on the ball motion, etc". I disagreed.

I mean, a new bowler isn't going to know the USBC rules. I think some discretion is called for. But, I also think it is fair to ask the new bowler to have the hole they aren't using plugged so the ball is USBC compliant. Regardless of whether you agree with a rule or think it's silly or think the USBC should look at different things...none of that matters. If you start down that path...it's a slippery slope to everyone doing what they want because they think every rule is a "suggestion".

And, more often than not...teams will "let stuff go" and regret it later. You let a bowler use an illegal ball and then that team beats you in a crucial position round and you feel cheated...even when it was your own fault. You let people use sanding pads and cleaners in between shots...and then one night you get beat by a team in a big match that is doing that and you feel cheated...even though it's your own fault.

I recall a former league having a requirement that subs bowl 21 games to qualify to participate in sweeps. I used to regularly bowl in that league but was subbing one season and had 18 games and my team wanted me to go with them to sweeps. They had a captain's meeting and everyone was fine with it. They 'thought', "why not, this guy is a high 170s average bowler so who cares? More money for the prize fund!" I ended up tieing for 1st place and won $1400. I can assure you there were many teams that will not be allowing subs with 18 games to go to sweeps ever again. :cool:

[boatman37]

We had an experienced bowler (one of the higher avg guys) bowl with a balance hole. Nobody said anything and he didn't have a stellar night anyway but a few weeks later he rolled a 300 with that same ball. Then earlier this season a guy on the opposing team told him teammate that his ball wasn't legal. They asked us if it was ok cause all of his balls had a balance hole. We said it was ok but yeah it can be a slippery slope. I personally don't feel it matters since i think the effects are minimal but it is a rule and if you starting bending one rule then...well

and yeah we have the 21 game rule too. If we have a sub we try to make sure they get their 21 games in before playoffs come around. They do enforce that

[Ryster]

We had an experienced bowler (one of the higher avg guys) bowl with a balance hole. Nobody said anything and he didn't have a stellar night anyway but a few weeks later he rolled a 300 with that same ball. Then earlier this season a guy on the opposing team told him teammate that his ball wasn't legal. They asked us if it was ok cause all of his balls had a balance hole. We said it was ok but yeah it can be a slippery slope. I personally don't feel it matters since i think the effects are minimal but it is a rule and if you starting bending one rule then...well

and yeah we have the 21 game rule too. If we have a sub we try to make sure they get their 21 games in before playoffs come around. They do enforce that

That's what drives me nuts. An experienced bowler should know by now that balance holes are illegal. It went into effect in 2020 and was announced 2 years before that. Then to bowl a 300 with what is technically an illegal ball just compounds it. I bet this bowler had no qualms about submitting/reporting the score to the USBC [which highlights another problem...]

The way our league has been handling that is basically telling the bowler they can use the ball if that is all the have, but it must be plugged before the next week's league session. They are warned they will not be permitted to bowl the next week if the balance holes are still there. Technically, even that is a violation of the rule since the rule doesn't allow for any kind of grace period. It just says the ball cannot be used in sanctioned competition.

I personally couldn't care less about balance holes, but at the same time want the league to run "cleanly" without all of the bickering that results from these types of rules.