Vacancy bowlers and Adult Handicapped Leagues [USBC]

[Lance Rasmussen]

We usually get several of questions on how to get BLS to handle a type of vacancy scores when a league bylaw defines the vacancy score a little differently.

This is specifically addressed toward adult handicap leagues that are certified USBC leagues for the 2007-2008 bowling season.

Here's two very popular scenerios for league bylaws:

Our bylaws states that the vacancy score shall be _____ [insert score] and shall be scratch.
Our bylaws state that the vacancy score shall be _____ [ insert score] and shall have handicap based on ________ [ insert a different score].If your league sanctioned/certified for the 2007-2008 season, you have NO choice but to follow the rule book where they have rules that they state the league can not have a different rules.



Rule 105 d. 1. a. The vacancy score shall be 120, unless the league rules state another number.



Clarification: This means that a league can vote to be 150, 160, 170, 100, etc etc. But it doesn't mean a different method.



Rule 105 d. 1. b. In handicap leagues, the handicap must be based on the vacancy score used. Handicap shall not be limited.



Clarification: You can not limit handicap, which means the first example is NOT a bylaw that the league can adopt. Saying "scratch" is limiting the handicap to zero.

The league can NOT adopt the bylaw used in the second example either, because saying the handicap is based on a different score other than the score being used goes against what rule 105 d. 1. b. states.

Please take the below poll, if you would.

[HouseBowlrz]

We usually get several of questions on how to get BLS to handle a type of vacancy scores when a league bylaw defines the vacancy score a little differently.

Lance ... very interesting. Rule 100g(4) states that handicap shall not be limited, unless otherwise provided by league rule.

Some 10 to 12 years ago, I bowled in a men's league that limited handicap and the vacancy score was 120. We were missing two opening night and, back then, we didn't have the option of using last year's book so we had to take vacancies of 120 ... and limited handicap.

I don't have a problem with limiting the handicap as I suspect its use was to maintain the middle and upper echelon bowlers and not making it a true scratch league.

So it would appear that Rule 105d(1)(b) and 100g(4) are in conflict. Absentee scores do not have a "no limit" clause so it may be to some teams' advantage to cast off severely lower average bowlers in favor of a vacancy score.


cheers

[Patrick Lajko]

You could not use a vacancy score unless those low average bowles quit the league. You can not use a vacancy score when a player is absent. Vacancy scores are only allowed when a team does not have enough members on its roster for a full team.

[HouseBowlrz]

You could not use a vacancy score unless those low average bowles quit the league. You can not use a vacancy score when a player is absent. Vacancy scores are only allowed when a team does not have enough members on its roster for a full team.

Point taken ... although who's to say that a team, if they are paying for all the roster positions whether filled or not, decides to drop their low average "dead weight" in favor of a vacancy score that gives them the unlimited handicap. The "dead weight" simply pays his/her money anyway ...

I realize it may seem far-fetched but this door is open and it needs to be closed. I see legislation ...


thanks

[Graham Ginsberg]

Without the specific numbers involved, I suppose there might be a cut off point where a team might feel it an advantage to bowl with a vacancy who get full handicap. But a vacancy can never bowl over their average. With a 120 average, and handicap based on 200 at 80%, the vacancy will always only get 184. A 160 average bowler who just bowls his average will at least get 192. You would really have to limit the handicap to make it worthwhile.

And remember that a bowler who resigns, must have sufficient cause or be subject to a vote of captains (rule 114) before being allowed to return. Being "dead weight" would not be sufficient cause. Also according to rule 104, while a captain can permanently remove bowlers from his/her team, they must have "good and sifficient reason".

Although I have never bowled in a league that limited handicap, I have bowled in leagues where teams have been missing players for extended stretches. I have never known any of them to win the league.

[HouseBowlrz]

Without the specific numbers involved, I suppose there might be a cut off point where a team might feel it an advantage to bowl with a vacancy who get full handicap. But a vacancy can never bowl over their average. With a 120 average, and handicap based on 200 at 80%, the vacancy will always only get 184. A 160 average bowler who just bowls his average will at least get 192. You would really have to limit the handicap to make it worthwhile.

The league in which I bowled (years ago) had it's handicap maxed somewhere in the area of a 165-170 average.

And remember that a bowler who resigns, must have sufficient cause or be subject to a vote of captains (rule 114) before being allowed to return. Being "dead weight" would not be sufficient cause. Also according to rule 104, while a captain can permanently remove bowlers from his/her team, they must have "good and sifficient reason".

If the team gets charged for the lineage whether a bowler is there or not, the lower average bowler (say, 140) could simply resign due to travel schedule, continue to pay into the league (since they are getting charged by the house), and get the benefit of a higher handicap score.

I've seen stranger things happen ...


cheers

[Graham Ginsberg]

I decided to look at the numbers a little further. It turns out that there is a break even point. It olny depends on what percentage you use for a handicap calculation, what the vacancy score is and what the average is for a maximum handicap. Surprisingly , the score used for the handicapping base does not come into it.

The breakeven score using my earlier numbers and a maximum handicap at 170 would be an average of 160. The 160 average bowler would get 184, when bowling average. (160, plus a baximum handicap of 24, vice 160 plus a real handicap of 32). Bowlers with a lower average, who only bowl their average get less, while the vacancy still get 184.

A lower perecentage lowers the breakeven average. A higher percentage raises the breakeven to the point that with 100% handicap, a bowler with an average less than that used for maximum handicap, never gets any advantage over a vacancy score.

But to reiterate, a vacancy score can never bowl above average.

And while stranger things have happened, it would seem like a very bad investment to pay fees every week, not bowl just so the team can win. The money payout may be large, but the team would have to win all sort of stuff in order to get any sort of positive return. And it gets even worse if you have to pay for lineage whether you bowl or not. There is almost no way you can get back more that you pay in in this way unless the price money is significantly more that the lineage.

But as you say - stranger things have happened !!!!!

[Patrick Lajko]

One more point to remember: if you are using a vacancy score, then you have an opening on your team. If someone wants to join the league or a temp. sub wants to be on a team, they can take that place. There could be serious issues if a team refused to allow a vacancy spot to be filled.

[Graham Ginsberg]

I have just re-read the rule and while the wording is clear, I am not sure it is necessarily complete. It would seem to me quite likely that the intention was not to restrict the handicap of vacancy score - any more than existed for all other handicaps. If there are no limits on handicaps in the league then vacancy scores should not have any limits. But if the league has limits on handicap, it would seem fair to have those same limits apply to vacancy scores.

Even the handicap rules say "Handicap shall not be limited, unless otherwise provided by league rule". Very similar wording except for the addition of the unless clause.

I think this should be something that USBC could provide clarification. Is the rule to be interpreted literally under all circumstances or should any handicap limitations apply equally to all scores whether or not they are for a vacancy?

Even if no advantage is sought, a team that finds itself short of a player will gain an advantage for those weeks - in those leagues.

I don't think we can solve this one here.

[Lance Rasmussen]

In this case, the Vacancy is in a specific rule area and is clarified by no limits.

As you say, it would have to be modifed at the USBC convention in terms of wording as "Limitiation for handicaps for Vacancies shall be equivelant to the actual present members bowling". The problem there, is that you have to clarify genders or specific averages, if the league has some bizarro rules.