Walter Daveer Changes: Fact or Fiction? You decide!

[jockey]

With the advent of the new rules we have seen a lot of ranting and raving. Sandbagging, should be scratch, should not have been changed, what surveys?

However none of these posts addressed the question of whether the changes were actually warranted or not.

Well to see if we could find this out I took the only source of information I had at hand that I reckoned could decide this once and for all. BY the way the source of this information was the TBA website, but more comments later.

Here is what I found:

2002:
Mens Womens
Average Entering Average: 167.71 155.32
Average Tourrnmt Average: 170.08 156.41
Average Bowler Handicap: 12.82 15.41
Average Games Per Bowler: 15.27 15.00
Average Points Won Per Bowler: 7.64 7.50
Average Improvement
Entering / Tournament Averages: 2.64 1.11
Bowlers Bowling Under Avge 20/55 26/56
Bowlers average over WDV old
cut off / Points taken: 7 9
Bowlers average over WDV old
cut off Points taken: 34.5/420 80.5/420

2003:
Mens Womens
Average Entering Average: 169.37 154.73
Average Tourrnmt Average: 166.94 153.37
Average Bowler Handicap: 11.79 15.65
Average Games Per Bowler: 13.06 13.06
Average Points Won Per Bowler: 6.53 6.53
Average Improvement
Entering / Tournament Averages: -2.43 -1.35
Bowlers Bowling Under Avge 38/62 30/62
Bowlers average over WDV old
cut off / Points taken: 10 5
Bowlers average over WDV old
cut off Points taken: 59/405 48/405

Further the bowler representation entering average/points taken were as follows:

2002 Men Women 2003 Men Women
>120 0 0 0 1/8
>130 1/8 2/19.5 0 2/11
>140 1/10 5/48 2/12 2/5
>150 1/17 10/60.5 3/28 11/76
>160 7/66.5 19/139.5 6/39.5 24/157
>170 17/126.5 11/72 16/109 17/99.5
>=180 21/157.5 9/80.5 25/157.5 5/48
>180 7/34.5 0 10/59 0

So after taken time to analyse these results it is clear to all who look at them that the competition was healthy and there was no reason the tamper with it at all. Though one could argue for a 100% negative handicap to apply to all bowlers whose entering averages exceeded the old cut off marks.

Bowlers of all averages were able to represent there state and be successful when doing so.

The crust of the matter is that if the TBA had have looked at the facts that were readily at their fingertips rather than going off halfed cocked and making a knee jerk decision based on a survey done at the time of competition (never filled in with clear unemotional intentions) and some so called feedback from the past 3 years then they would have realised the event wasn't broke so there was no need to fix it. To introduce a scratch event for bowlers who have never and would never attempt to bowl in a scratch event is just proposterous.

I call on all the Bowling Proprietors to withhold their subsidies until the TBA can show why they deserve the money of all the bowlers it is now not doing anything for. If I can not pay a registration fee and still bowl in my league then I will definately be doing so.

Regards
Jockey

 

[Andrew S.]

You left out the bit about slaughtering the first-born child.

 

[craig]

glad i dont run the show, cause if i had my way i would abolish the walter de veer trophy

like me or hate me, thats my opinion

 

[Luke D]

well unfortunately, it only takes a small amount of people to be sandbagging etc to bring down the credibility of a tournament, so this might be why TBA has made it scratch to try and restore some of the credibility, and even legitimacy. the the DeVeer tournament has lost.

 

[gjelectrics1]

Walter Deveer Changes

Changes had to be made to stop the sandbagging by certain individuals and / or states that were stuffing up the tournament for those of us that did not bend the rules. :evil: :evil: :evil:
But why not leave the average cutoff where they were and make it a scratch competition :?: :?:

 

[fuzzy]

Jockey


It seems as if a lot of effort on your behalf has been put into producing these stats, and rightly so with passion. I agree with the context of what has been discussed around the traps( forum,lanes and social gatherings of bowlers), where are the survey results, who was surveyed, how where the responses collated and what machinations used to come up with possible changes.

As a proud previous bowler/and Captain in Walter De Veer , I find myself compelled to ask myself some pertinet questions, I shall ask a couple here, will be interesting to see the responses recieved,(most welcome to attach here or to my email address)

If bowlers spend a large amount of time, money and effort to enjoy their sport and are capable of reaching State team selection by adhering to the criteria of said Tournements, why change the way it has been up till now?

What is more of a thrill than representing your State in your selected sport and mixing with the many like minded and experienced level of participants?

Are the changes proposed for this State only? Or is it a general concenus amongst all States competing?


All sports have their administrators who are guardians of the sport for the participants, they are generally chosen/elected by them,but as the administrators/committees must make choices on behalf of the participants, rightfully or wrongfully. They don't always get it right, as long as it in the best interset of the sport, so be it. We must remeber though that as they are placed there for the participants, it should be the participants who must speak up and either agree or disagree with outcomes. There are many opportunities to do this either by attending meetings or writing to the commitees or even on forums such as this, participants can be heard and allow the administrators know what the feeling is out there. Grumbling about something that one feels passion about and not doing anything other than talking to others, and not following up, becomes cheap.
Remember there are other alternatives, be it different tournaments or competitions. I.E: Golpdpin has Emmerson shield and Junior Sheilds, Amf has Dunn Sheild for adults and Juniors, these are of course intrastate run tournaments but what about the likes of Eastcoast and all the individual tournaments one can participate in. We make the choices and can freely do so, I would love to hear from respondees and to see if I am as passionate about Bowling as others are.

Thanks for letting me my thoughts

Fuzzy
Joe Fazzari
joefuzz@iprimus.com.au

 

[Graham]

These details were posted on the TBA site yesterday :
____________________________________________________
State Team Rule Change Announcements
Subsequent to the results of a bowler survey conducted at the Adult National Championships and feedback provided to the Tournament Team through the various team and state managers on behalf of the bowlers over the past three years.

The TBA Rules and Ethics Committee have been presented with a summary of the requested changes for consideration. As a result TBA have reviewed the current rules and made changes to suit these popular requests. Effectively, the new rules are a result of 3 years work.

Walter De Veer Trophy Rule Changes
The main focus of the suggestions for this event was to align the entering averages with a championship grade (which we have done) and to go scratch. This effectively creating an event for Championship B Grade bowlers.

There will be a replacement event for the A Grade & Classic bowlers in the 2004 Nationals, with handicap.

If you wish to document some proposed changes for future consideration then this should be addressed to the TBA Office.

Rules and Ethics Committtee
Tenpin Bowling Australia
PO Box 239 Beenleigh Qld 4207

These new rules are now available for download Here

_____________________________________________________

 

[wchester]

The TBA has a rules and ETHICS COMMITTEE ???

That's a good one! Are these the same people who selected Ron Hoppe to serve as Team Australia's Technical Advisor....who by the way was working illegally in Australia and has since been deported for overstaying his visa.


Is this the same committee who recently strongarmed jockey into editing his previous post?

hahahaha.....Ethics my arse.

 

[Chucky]

TBA rules and ethics commitee. now thats some funny stuff.

maybe some one could help me out with a ruleing for the new rules.

This year in June i had to pull out of a league due to injury. i had bowled 24 games at an avg of 181. Since then i have had to change my bowling style from cupping the ball to stay behind it, due to wrist.

Due to uni comitments 4 nights a week this year i have only been able to bowl in 1 league which is a sunday night disco lights league, which i take as a fun night out, instead of serious. now in this league my avg is under the cut. I personally know that i am a better avg bowler then that and am deciding if i want to go for wdv again if i am eligable due to earlier avg.

I have only been bowling for 2 years and wdv this year was like nothing else ever experienced so that is why i am thinking of trying out but due to the new ruling i am unsure weather i want to bowl and might try out for TQI state team, well try atleast.

But i want to know if that 181 avg as still usable due to pulling out of league in june and that i am a different bowler to then.

If you understand what i am saying.

 

[Andrew S.]

Here is an extract from the new revised rules.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Must not have any Accredited League averages (over a minimum of 24 games at the end of the preceding year) exceeding 169 pins for the Men's Division and 159 pins for the Women's Division.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your average may not a current average, but it is an accredited average, which would appear to rule you out.

 

[Andrew S.]

The TBA has a rules and ETHICS COMMITTEE ???

Funny that. There are 3 committees listed on the TBA website : Womens, Coaching, and Seniors. Mr John Coxon is listed as the Rules and Ethics Manager, but there is no mention of a Rules and Ethics Committee.
Rumour has it that there is a committee comprising of John Coxon and the Regional Managers.
TBA is now claiming that the Walter De Veer changes are the result of feedback from the past 3 years. In view of the emotion showed regarding these changes I am sure TBA will be only too willing to publicise the feedback documents, if only to confirm their claims.

 

[gjelectrics1]

Where can we get details of this replacement competition for A grade and classic bowlers[/quote]

 

[kahlua_666]

I can't seem to work out why the De Veer tournament is scratch to improve the tournament (so they say) and the new tournament for A grade and Classic bowlers is going to be a handicap tournament.
That really does not make any sense. :? :? :?

 

[CJ]

Yep.... right there with ya on that one kahlua..... I was trying to figure out the reason in that too. For a while there I thought that it was just me reading it all wrong - but thanks for making the point - at least now I know I am not going mad :?

 

[bm2]

It does seem pointless to exlude Classic and A Grade bowlers from the (previously handicapped) Walter De Veer tournament, then make it a scratch tournament for B grade and below, and then turn around and give us (A Grade and Classic) back the same handicapped tournament we already thought we had, under the guise of a new name???

Any thoughts as to what this new tournament should be called?????

Broni :lol:

 

[kahlua_666]

I have sent one last email to the Rules and Ethics Committee regarding the changes to the Walter De Veer tournament for 2004.

I believe there is still a chance that some changes might happen. [-o<
If there is anyone out there who is serious about getting things back the way they were or with limited changes then try one more time by sending your email to the Rules and Ethics Committee. The more suggestions they get the more chance we have of getting back what we have lost.
The email addresses are on the TBA Website. www.tenpin.org.au

Pam :mrgreen: