RULE 110 DEAD BALL

[Casual Observer]

The point of rewording existing rules is not to make them look stupid, it is to elucidate the effect that such wording has on what a rule actually says. In this case, I was trying to show exactly what the phrase "attention is called to" does to a rule. It is quite easy to miss the actual meaning of what a rule says if you already accept it as meaning something which it doesn't say. The rule says if someone notices a pin missing and mentions it then it is a dead ball. Coincidentally, that is also what it means.

However, since you have such an aversion to making changes to rules I can explain the effect without changing any words. I have an aversion to changing rules? The truth is I think people post stupidity in their own attempt to read something into the rules that isn't there. I don't care if the rules change or not

Looking at the rule about a ball bouncing out of the gutter: Completely irrelevant to the thread and just stupidity.
RULE 109 PINFALL - ILLEGAL
1. When any of the following incidents occur the ball counts as a ball rolled, but pins knocked down will not count:
a. When pins are knocked down or displaced by a ball that leaves the lane before reaching the pins.

The pinfall is illegal once the ball knocks down pins. Under this rule, if a person was to bounce a ball out of the gutter and not call attention to it, the pinfall would still be considered illegal. More importantly, the act of not calling attention would be classed as cheating since a person would be trying to be credited with illegal pinfall. Again, what has that got to do with anything. If people want to cheat they will. Otherwise that whole paragraph is nothing but bull****.


Now, looking at the dead ball rule:
RULE 110 DEAD BALL
1. A ball will be declared dead if any of the following occur:
a. After a delivery (and before the next delivery on the same lane), attention is immediately called to the fact that one or more pins were missing from the setup.

A ball is dead once attention is called to the fact that one or more pins were missing. If attention is not called to the fact that one or more pins were missing then the ball is not dead. The act of calling attention is what makes the ball dead. If a person chooses not to call attention to missing pins then the ball is not considered dead. Again, if they want to cheat they will. If they just don't see it and noone else does then there is not an issue other than people making one on this forum.

Under this rule, if a person was to notice that a pin was missing and chose not call attention to the missing pin then the ball would not be dead, and any pinfall would count. Note that in this case (unlike the illegal pinfall rule which does not include "attention"), the act of not calling attention is not classed as cheating. The act of not calling attention is what keeps the ball live. Common sense and a few ounces of decency stop this.

To me this seems wrong. I believe if pins are missing from a setup then the ball should be considered dead and attempts to not call attention to the fact should be considered cheating and thus I believe the rule should be reworded to:
RULE 110 DEAD BALL
1. A ball will be declared dead if any of the following occur:
a. One or more pins were missing from the setup.


The phrase "attention is called to" does not change how rules are enforced but it does change what is considered to be cheating. How are you going to know there were pins missing if you did not see it and noone called it?

Honestly, stop posting long-winded garbage and look at what you wrote. Stop trying to sound knowledgeable when the truth is you are not reading the rule in context or grasping the intent of the rule.

If noone sees the pin missing then it wont get called. If someone sees it, as happens almost all the time, then it is called. There really is no issue other than a few people making one up on the forum.

Oh, and if you are going to try and use words like "you have an aversion" or quote me at least get it right.

 

[Paxed]

I ask you this question then:

Do you believe a bowler should have the option to look at a rack, see that a pin is not missing and still be able to choose to bowl at such a setup? (as is the case with off spot pins).

 

[Casual Observer]

The question you should ask is, would anyone honestly do it? Stop trying to find fault with every little ****ing thing.

You think the following is all going to happen at once?

1. There is someone prepared to cheat on the approach.
2. There just happens to be a pin missing from the deck.
3. Even though it is in league or some other competition noone else was watching or noticed the missing pin prior to the ball being bowled.
4. The bowler bowls the ball and noone watches to see the result and still noone notices a pin was missing.

Face reality and look at what you are writing. Think about it in the context of a league or other situation. Don't just come up with garbage scenarios on here because you want to debate something.

 

[Paxed]

With the rules as they stand now, a person is well within their rights and within the rules of the game, to choose to bowl at an incomplete rack. Indeed, a person who wants to abide by the rules of the game and who has absolutely no intention of cheating can choose to bowl at an incomplete rack.

Do you think this is acceptable?

I am not concerned with what will or will not happen within the context of a game. I am asking whether you think such an act should be deemed as legal or as cheating?

 

[Casual Observer]

A person not trying to find a way to cheat will NOT knowingly bowl at an incomplete rack. That's reality. The rule is fine and the intention of the rule is fine.

I have said it before, I will say it again. Look at the entire situation and not just your own warped interpretation of a few words.

 

[Paxed]

Would you also say that a person not trying to find a way to cheat will NOT knowingly bowl at an off spot rack? (E.g. a 10 pin which is much closer to the gutter than usual).

 

[Casual Observer]

I am saying that you need to stick to the topic.

The rule in question is written well, the intention of the rule is fine. In reality the rule works well.

We don't need people like you trying to rip it apart word by word to find some imaginary fault with it that does not exist.

 

[Paxed]

All I'm saying is, with the rules as they are written now, the act of knowingly bowling at an incomplete rack is not against the rules. You yourself agreed with me saying "Common sense and a few ounces of decency stop this" (since the rule itself does not).

Yes the rule works fine in reality, but in principle, this specific act of knowingly bowling at an incomplete rack is deemed as acceptable when it clearly should not be. You seem mainly concerned with pragmatics and intention. Does written meaning not play a major part in how well a rule is written?

And more philosophically, does the legality of an action simply not matter if the outcome will be the same either way?
TBA could add a rule that states:
"A bowler may alter their score and record it as 300, unless attention is called to the fact that they did not actually bowl 300."
In reality, such a rule would not change a thing. All bowling activities would continue as normal as if this rule did not exist. In a league or tournament context no one would be able to get away with altering their score without someone noticing (just like no one would be able to bowl at an incomplete rack without someone noticing). The only difference would be in principle. The act of altering one's score to 300 would now be considered legal when before, it was not. Surely, even though there are no pragmatic differences, the absence of this rule is preferable to the inclusion of this rule, simply on principle alone.

 

[Fitzy]

Paxed, you are obviously new to the forum so I'll let you in on a bit of TB inside knowledge ... CO is a TOOL! He/She always has been and unfortunately, it seems, always will be.
Constrictive criticism or thoughtful conversation is meaningless while CO is not CO'ing.

Funny how the forum has been quiet and orderly while CO was on his/her hiatus (forced on not). Maybe another forced one is required?!?

Queue CO's rant about [me/my stupidity/not on topic/other derogatory comment] (choose one or add your own!). lol

 

[JWhitty]

I'm not interested in buying in too much to this debate, tournament directors will apply their own common sense to this situation as it arises.

Clearly though you guys haven't bowled in purely social leagues in a while, I certainly have bowled with opponents that either weren't concerned with my pins, couldn't see my pins, or didn't know any better. In fact I distinctly recall more than once turning to my team mate and saying "that guys missing an 8 pin" (or similar) in reference to my opponent, watching him carry anyway, and then standing there silently not mentioning it. It's a social league, he's happy he got a strike, he doesn't know any better, I let it slide. Not when it's my team-mates though, they have to earn their pins!

My long winded point was there are plenty of social league bowlers who would unknowingly bowl at off spots or missing pins all day without noticing or caring. There's also lots of bowlers who can't see the pins anyway...

 

[Roysa]

Good post Jwhitty, many factors including the type of competition have to be taken into account.

Does anyone think that Pam and Margaret from Tuesday morning ladies doubles gives a hoot that Jan had a 9 pin missing from the rack? Doubt it.

Paxed and CO take it to PM's, seems you're getting no where.

 

[Casual Observer]

The rule works well. Why try to complicate something that works fine?

And Roysa, if you don't like it don't read it. Simple enough concept for you?

 

[Roysa]

I actually like reading posts from people like Jwhitty and others who add value. Unfortunately I have to see your posts as well. Keep trolling CO.

 

[Paxed]

The rule works well.

I agreed with you in my previous post. In practice it's fine. The problem lies in the fact that it allows people to do something which clearly should not be allowed.

Why try to complicate something that works fine?

I'm not trying to complicate it, quite the opposite in fact. I proposed a simplification of the rule by deleting the bolded part shown below:

RULE 110 DEAD BALL
1. A ball will be declared dead if any of the following occur:
a. After a delivery (and before the next delivery on the same lane), attention is immediately called to
the fact that one or more pins were missing from the setup.

 

[Casual Observer]

You agree that the rule works well yet you think it allows people to do something they shouldn't.

So which is it? Does the rule work well and as intended (as you agree) or is it abused by people like you say it allows?

I say the rule works fine and there is no issue other than a couple of people on here. You only want to change it for the sake of changing it.

 

[Paxed]

Scenario: A person looks at a rack, sees a pin missing and chooses to bowl at the rack. They don't like the outcome and they call attention to the fact that the pin was missing and is allowed to rebowl the shot.

This is legal under the rules as they stand now. You have no problem with it. I personally do. This is our disagreement.

 

[Paxed]

Just to make it clear - I do not have an issue with how the rule works in real life. I take issue with what it deems as legal and fair play.

 

[wchester]

Scenario: A person looks at a rack, sees a pin missing and chooses to bowl at the rack. They don't like the outcome and they call attention to the fact that the pin was missing and is allowed to rebowl the shot.

This is legal under the rules as they stand now. You have no problem with it. I personally do. This is our disagreement.

It also works to the bowler's detriment. Say he strikes with the short rack and someone else points out that a pin was missing..

 

[Paxed]

It also works to the bowler's detriment. Say he strikes with the short rack and someone else points out that a pin was missing..

As it should. My proposed amendment works in exactly the same way.

The only change is that in the scenario that I described, the bowler is considered to be cheating as soon as they knowlingly bowl at the incomplete rack.

Surely once you see a missing pin the rules should oblige you to have it reracked. As it stands now, bowlers can choose to bowl at such a rack and possibly get away with a strike or choose to have it rebowled if they don't like the outcome. CO says such an event will never occur, so it doesn't matter. I'm asking why such an event is even considered to be legal in the first place.

 

[Casual Observer]

I did not say it will never occur. You really need to stop quoting people.

No matter how you change the rule if noone sees it and the bowler does not say anything then they can basically do what they want.

I'll say it again, look at the reality of the situation. There is nothing wrong with the rule.