How is the Alternate Jacks trial doing?

Veterans League

Before the start of the 2025 season we reported on the Brighouse Veterans League and the Huddersfield Veterans League trying out something new. Whoever said that the vets are reluctant to change?

The Brighouse Vets were trying a new points scoring system whilst the Huddersfield Vets were being even more radical with the introduction of bowlers taking alternate jacks regardless of who had won the previoius end. The original report covering both leagues can be found here.

So I wondered how the Huddersfield experiment was working out. The experiment was sensibly confined to the bottom division of the 6-Man League as the most appropriate test bed for this trial. With a free Monday afternoon this week I decided to watch the Division 4 match at New Mill where Thongsbroidge C were the visiting team.

As I wandered around the green I asked the markers, measurers and spectators how they were coping with the new Alternate Jacks trial. Very little in the way of negative reaction from players and spectators. It was generally viewed as a worthwhile step to even up proceedings for bowlers who struggled to make long marks without causing a great inconvenience to the general playing of a game.

The was some confusion from some as to whose turn it was sometimes to have the jack but that was often put down to an age thing which could have been related to any such matters. Some indicated that by having bowlers taking the odd or even number ends it simplified the 'whose turn is it' decision.

When I asked about how such matters were handled as a dead-end or when the jack is sent off or a short mark called and then passed to their opponent, there was little in the way of an obvious and consistent resolution and it seemed that play just passed along with little interference from the rules. The best bit of guidance I came across when asking how bowlers kept clear whose jack it was, was 'if you are carrying the mat, then it is your jack'. That simple guidance quote seemed to work to those involved.

That got me thinking about how the experiment was going to be judged. Is it likely to be something that continues next season or is it a one-season wonder? I wonder how much thought has gone into setting some criteria that will enable the League to determine if the trial is a success and deserves an extension.

I am aware of some other Leagues that have tackled the perceived same problem a different way. I know of a League that sets a 27 or 30 metre mark, I can't remember which, as the maximum that a bowler is allowed to set. Such marks can be challenged by their opponent in the same way that a 19-metre mark can be challenged. This tends to be more intrusive to the general flow of bowling matches, however the Huddersfield experiment is more far-reaching than that.

At the end of the day it is a change to the Rules of Bowling so needs to have a good reason to continue. But, in my opinion is definitely worth persevering with to see if it overcomes the problem that some elderly pensioners find in reaching the extreme marks. However by helping some bowlers you are undoubtedly disadvantaging some other bowlers who rely on long marks for winning matches. It is taking a tool away from the armoury of the game.

So how is the trial to be judged? Is it just going to be a reaction and the opinion of the Division 4 bowlers and how is that vote to be collected? There are just 60 bowlers each week affected by the trial. Is there some other factor to be taken into account when the League meets to review the introduction of this new local rule?

I can't see this intereference with the Rules of Bowling being extended from the bottom division of the 6-Man League unless it does get tried out in the bottom division of the 10-Man League.

I wondered if there was some clue from all the records on Bowlsnet to point towards the difference that this variation on the rules could be judged. I couldn't find anything that could be used to usefully point towards the success or failure of the trial.

So how is this trial going to be judged? Is it just going to be which bowlers shout the latest and have the strongest views on its application? Has any thought gone into how the decision on the future of this change is going to be judged or is it just going to be an afterthought when the season ends? Regardless of all that I still think it was an experiment worth having and may still survive the test of time but who decides that and how is all a mystery to me.