Veterans league
At least four more teams have played ineligible bowlers in the latest round of fixtures in the League Phase of the Julie Fuller Trophy. There were 13 ties yesterday and four teams have had 5-points deducted from their match score totals in recognition of this failure to follow the competition rules. There are still 3 match results outstanding so there maybe even more.
At least two of the four rule-breaking teams were aware of the punishment before the match was played and obviously decided that a 5-point penalty was no deterrent at all. Add these to at least one team that had previously acknowledged they were breaking the competition rule before the match was played. Strange that in all other competitions in the Veterans League playing an ineligible bowler results in a 0-21 scoreline being recorded and that tends to put teams off contravening the rules.
Four other teams had breached the rules in the earlier rounds and each one of them was deducted the standard 5-point penalty.
The four teams involved in the final round of matches being Marsh Liberal, Milnsbridge BC, Golcar Lib and Honley Con. The last named being one of the four teams to fill the competition's semi-final places despite the 5-point deduction as we still await all the final results from yesterday's ties before all the teams can be confirmed. It already appears that Slaithwaite have won the league competition with an average of 75 points scored per match far in excess of any other team.
The revised league table will appear here as soon as all the outstanding results are added to Bowlsnet.
You are asking the wrong person Philip - you need to refer this to the Vets League Mgt Committee . Suspect that the Julie Fuller Trophy wont run in this format in future years so probably a waste of time taking it any further but I agree that a 5-point penalty has been no deterent at all to clubs wishing to take advantage of fielding non-compliant team.
Playing an ineligible bowler usually results in a 0-21 score line. What are the reasons why this doesn’t apply here? Philip of Lindley