More proposed rule changes
- Veterans League
- Sep 6, 2022
- 3 min read
Veterans League
In addition to the already shared proposed scrapping of the 50% rule put forward by Shepley, the Management Committee has proposed a further 14 rule changes including their own amendment to the 50% rule. They want it to become the 75% Rule.
It will be interesting to see how this double change is stage managed with the opportunity to disadvantage one of the two proposals by the running order that they are considered. This only concerns the conflicting proposed changes to Match Play Rule 2c).
Five of the proposed changes from the Management Committee introduce new fines to clubs for failing to adhere to the rules.
If you would like to add any comment here about any aspect of this proposal then feel free to do so using the facility to comment at the foot of this posting either as a website member or anonymous guest.
Individuals can influence the voting by discussing with their club representatives how their club will vote on each of the 14 rules up for change.
The 14 proposed changes from the Management Committee are listed here in a format that is more reader-friendly than the formal manner of the original document.
Bye-Laws
(Bye-law 6): This proposes an increase to £10 of the fine to be levied against clubs not represented at any General Meeting.
(Bye-law 6): This proposes that the President and Vice-President can only be elected to office if they have previously served on the League's Management Committee.
Match Play Rules
(Match Play Rule 2b): This proposes that any club not providing the BCGBA number and Date of Birth of bowlers to be registered shall be fined £10 for each occurrence.
(Match Play Rule 2c): This changes the 50% rule to a 75% rule.
(Match Play Rule 3): Any postponed match not played within 28 days of the date of the original fixture will result in both teams being fined £10.
(Match Play Rule 8): Any club failing to submit their result to Bowlsnet by the day after a match or failing to verify that result within 2 days of the match shall be fined £10 for each such occurrence.
Knock-Out Competitions
(General Rule c): This states that clubs and individuals entering competitions will be allocated a handicap upon entry.
(General Rule c): A new handicap system is introduced.
(General Rule e): Neutral greens that fail to provide access to toilet facilities shall be fined £10.
(General Rule e): This extends the current rule which prevents players from teams withdrawing from competitions and subsequently bowling for lower teams, to cover teams receiving byes as well.
(Julie Fuller Trophy b): This changes the player eligibility from the previous having played 2 league matches to having played 50% of all the league matches held prior to the start of any round.
(General Rule 2): I can't help you with this one, not sure what it is supposed to do. It is to do with scratching times of individuals for KO competitions and says 'NB transposition of sentences'. Sorry, haven't a clue what it is trying to do.
(General Rule 5): This tightens the rule about player eligibility for the Lower Divisions Trophy.
(General Rule 10): This extends the payment method for entry fees to competitions to cover a BACS transfer.
A full copy of the proposed changes is available to download by clicking on the link below.
If you would like to add any comment about any aspect of this proposal then feel free to do so using the facility to comment at the foot of this posting either as a website member or anonymous guest.
What time is the last bus from Meltham or do we need to bring a sleeping bag? It's sure going to be a long and possibly lively meeting.
Here's a great idea. Why doesn't everyone ensure your reps fully participate in the meeting and deal as their members wish. That's a far better way to approach this than listening to continued pathetic diatribes by this site
I agree just seem to be obsessed with fines without suggesting solutions no doubt the treasurer is behind this
Interesting 2 proposals regarding bowlers eligibility. in my view the 50% rule needs changing as it can prevent bowlers from playing for most of the second half of a season. So the proposal to increase to 75% is welcomed. I could live with this.
Equally, the proposed starred bowlers can also work. To those who say the starred bowlers will be prevented from playing , I’d say that if a starred singles bowler loses form they are usually relegated to the pairs and not to the B. team and so they don’t miss games. Also the pairs starred bowlers are the better pairs bowlers and so are less likely to be dropped to the B team as their result…
Not sure the 75% rule proposal has been thought through. It would be worrying when it comes to fair play. Unlike the 50% rule, it will create an uneven playing field in the second half of the season. Let's say you are due to play one of the top 6-man teams in your division in the second half of the season. Would you rather play them in the third quarter of the season when they are at full strength, or in the final quarter of the season when they are weaker due to tied players. It will be down to luck of the draw who gets an advantage through playing key teams in the final quarter of the season. Wouldn't…