Frank Goebel
December 22nd, 2007, 06:53 AM
This will be a long post and I'm doing more venting than looking for solutions as I'm keenly aware of the rules that apply and how to apply them. It's when it comes time to not just explaining the "what" or "how" of a rule, but more of the "why", that some individuals will revert to being age three (as in, "Why is the sky blue?" or "Why is water wet?").
Last session was the start of the second half, with all points reverting to zero. Regular schedule was in play, not a position round.
A team had only one bowler present (roster/lineup of four with our rule requiring two regular members present). Their opposing team raised that issue to me as I was getting things going (early frames) and wanted to know what was the situation. They wanted to know first, if the team with just one bowler present, if that bowler could earn any points. I told them no, and then the response to that was, "if they're earning zero, that means we're winning all 24, right?)
Of course not, and I explained how they'd have to earn their points based on their own averages. But they were just to convinced that it wasn't the case.
I had to spend pretty much the entire league session, plus at least a full hour after that (as I was trying to process scores even just to pay brackets - which resulted in a payout to the very bowler making all the arguments).
There is just no convincing some people. The arguments kept coming. I mentioned that points should never be "automatic" as it's unfair to the remaining teams who are earning every point they get, especially if it involves a late-season position round that theoretically could vault a third-place team into first. The response to that was to only have that rule apply to position rounds; I said you can't have a week-specific scoring rule like that. I also countered about sandbagging and lowering ones average - not only for the fairness of the league play, but also for tournaments in which many participate (this team's members do just that in the spring). The counter there was that it was halfway through the season and averages shouldn't move much anyway, it would only matter if it's early in the season.
More debate ensued; other sports were mentioned and the whole "commitment" thing was added. He wanted to say that a forfeit in any other sport resulted in a win for the team that followed its commitment and showed up to play. I countered that for, say, football: Yes, a forfeit would result in a win but that the score would be 1-0 (only one point available to the team for the purpose of breaking any ties for playoffs if the situation presented itself).
Getting back to the integrity of the sport and averages, I mentioned that bowling is unique in that a team can be short a bowler (or two) and still be able to participate. My own team had a bowler short but didn't forfeit. Some sports require a full lineup present (baseball, nine, I would imagine - as batting order would require it - but please feel free to correct me here) so if a team only had eight players, it would be a forfeit there. Bowling instead allows a team to be short and insert a bowler's average (often minus a number of pins).
It went further: Granted, we've had four forfeits so far and every non-forfeiting team earned at least 20 of 24 in our match point league (none earned all 24). That wasn't enough. The argument was presented that some unusual circumstance might be present, such as a malfunction of a lane dressing machine that might create a very low-scoring condition. That would still create competition for the other matches, but the absent/forfeiting team wouldn't be competing against the condition as the non-forfeiting team would be (and could lose everything). My counter there would be that a complaint could call for a board meeting to rule; the only option would be to declare the games null and void and subject to being re-bowled, with which I cautioned that it would also negate the forfeit and enable the otherwise absent team an opportunity to be present for such a makeup. I didn't voice that one, because I know that he would have said that if the team wasn't present the first time, it shouldn't be able to be present the second time. But we've heard of needs to make concessions in pro sports and the 2005 New Orleans Saints comes to mind.
I even had to handle this thrown at me: The forfeiting team's record is 0-24. The first place team's record (his) is 21-3. (Those numbers stand out big because we've started a new season segment.) Big question: "Where did the other points go?" I had to explain "unearned" points. I just don't think he's capable of understanding it. As they were walking away, I heard talk along the lines of "that's not what our rule was when this league was started", leading me to believe that at one time, ABC/WIBC didn't have a rule requiring points to be earned. If someone is familiar with such a change made in the past, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
It's odd that the bowler doing the most arguing was the one member of the team that earned all of his points. Each of his teammates failed on one game, and he argued that since the bowlers exceeded their averages for the series, it should give them the points for each game. Unbelievable argument; I had to explain that we're a game-by-game league, not series-by-series (and match play at that). Oddly enough, in this particular situation, the one forfeiting bowler who himself was present bowled extremely well and would have won all of his points as he would have been paired up against this same arguing member.
Another bowler, himself a competitive one that is himself a secretary, also understood the arguments but was less sympathetic than I; earlier in the season, his first game was something in the 120s (failing to earn based on his 210+ average) and still broke 600 for the series.
I know I won the argument in terms of presenting more reasons than are there in the rule book (which only uses the phrase "to preserve a competitive atmosphere, the non-forfeiting team bowling must earn the points"). I did print out a sheet with rule 110c and highlighted the key elements. When we bowl next on January 7, that will be taped to the tables behind every pair for easy view and I will let it speak for itself. Two weeks of non-bowling will have passed by then and I will not bring up the issue except to post the rule on paper.
Last session was the start of the second half, with all points reverting to zero. Regular schedule was in play, not a position round.
A team had only one bowler present (roster/lineup of four with our rule requiring two regular members present). Their opposing team raised that issue to me as I was getting things going (early frames) and wanted to know what was the situation. They wanted to know first, if the team with just one bowler present, if that bowler could earn any points. I told them no, and then the response to that was, "if they're earning zero, that means we're winning all 24, right?)
Of course not, and I explained how they'd have to earn their points based on their own averages. But they were just to convinced that it wasn't the case.
I had to spend pretty much the entire league session, plus at least a full hour after that (as I was trying to process scores even just to pay brackets - which resulted in a payout to the very bowler making all the arguments).
There is just no convincing some people. The arguments kept coming. I mentioned that points should never be "automatic" as it's unfair to the remaining teams who are earning every point they get, especially if it involves a late-season position round that theoretically could vault a third-place team into first. The response to that was to only have that rule apply to position rounds; I said you can't have a week-specific scoring rule like that. I also countered about sandbagging and lowering ones average - not only for the fairness of the league play, but also for tournaments in which many participate (this team's members do just that in the spring). The counter there was that it was halfway through the season and averages shouldn't move much anyway, it would only matter if it's early in the season.
More debate ensued; other sports were mentioned and the whole "commitment" thing was added. He wanted to say that a forfeit in any other sport resulted in a win for the team that followed its commitment and showed up to play. I countered that for, say, football: Yes, a forfeit would result in a win but that the score would be 1-0 (only one point available to the team for the purpose of breaking any ties for playoffs if the situation presented itself).
Getting back to the integrity of the sport and averages, I mentioned that bowling is unique in that a team can be short a bowler (or two) and still be able to participate. My own team had a bowler short but didn't forfeit. Some sports require a full lineup present (baseball, nine, I would imagine - as batting order would require it - but please feel free to correct me here) so if a team only had eight players, it would be a forfeit there. Bowling instead allows a team to be short and insert a bowler's average (often minus a number of pins).
It went further: Granted, we've had four forfeits so far and every non-forfeiting team earned at least 20 of 24 in our match point league (none earned all 24). That wasn't enough. The argument was presented that some unusual circumstance might be present, such as a malfunction of a lane dressing machine that might create a very low-scoring condition. That would still create competition for the other matches, but the absent/forfeiting team wouldn't be competing against the condition as the non-forfeiting team would be (and could lose everything). My counter there would be that a complaint could call for a board meeting to rule; the only option would be to declare the games null and void and subject to being re-bowled, with which I cautioned that it would also negate the forfeit and enable the otherwise absent team an opportunity to be present for such a makeup. I didn't voice that one, because I know that he would have said that if the team wasn't present the first time, it shouldn't be able to be present the second time. But we've heard of needs to make concessions in pro sports and the 2005 New Orleans Saints comes to mind.
I even had to handle this thrown at me: The forfeiting team's record is 0-24. The first place team's record (his) is 21-3. (Those numbers stand out big because we've started a new season segment.) Big question: "Where did the other points go?" I had to explain "unearned" points. I just don't think he's capable of understanding it. As they were walking away, I heard talk along the lines of "that's not what our rule was when this league was started", leading me to believe that at one time, ABC/WIBC didn't have a rule requiring points to be earned. If someone is familiar with such a change made in the past, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
It's odd that the bowler doing the most arguing was the one member of the team that earned all of his points. Each of his teammates failed on one game, and he argued that since the bowlers exceeded their averages for the series, it should give them the points for each game. Unbelievable argument; I had to explain that we're a game-by-game league, not series-by-series (and match play at that). Oddly enough, in this particular situation, the one forfeiting bowler who himself was present bowled extremely well and would have won all of his points as he would have been paired up against this same arguing member.
Another bowler, himself a competitive one that is himself a secretary, also understood the arguments but was less sympathetic than I; earlier in the season, his first game was something in the 120s (failing to earn based on his 210+ average) and still broke 600 for the series.
I know I won the argument in terms of presenting more reasons than are there in the rule book (which only uses the phrase "to preserve a competitive atmosphere, the non-forfeiting team bowling must earn the points"). I did print out a sheet with rule 110c and highlighted the key elements. When we bowl next on January 7, that will be taped to the tables behind every pair for easy view and I will let it speak for itself. Two weeks of non-bowling will have passed by then and I will not bring up the issue except to post the rule on paper.