The Scoittish Bowls Umpiring Committee sought clarification on the stamping of bowls as described below:-

Law 1.4.3 describes what is a "Set of Bowls" and Law 1.4.3.3. indicates that they must be the same "size, weight, colour, bias, serial number and engraving".

Whilst it is a simple task for an umpire to check size, colour and engraving there are a reasonably large number of players who are using bowls that do not have a serial number engraved on them.

These bowls are probably of such vintage that they were sold before the advent of serial numbers and, despite being tested and stamped on several occasions, still have no serial numbers on them.

A recent instance has been reported that a player took such bowls to be tested and they were returned, stamped and certificated, despite having no serial numbers on them.

The questions raised by this are:

A) Despite being tested and stamped, are these bowls legal to play with?
B) Why do registered testers stamp and certificate bowls that do not bear a serial number?
C) Whilst each manufacturer has their own form of serial number could there not be a set of numbers issued to each manufacturer by World Bowls Ltd., for use in such instances and applied to the bowls at the owners expense when such bowls are submitted for testing as in the case of those older bowls which are numbered one to four?

LC Decision:

The answers to the questions posed in the Scottish Bowls Umpiring Committee query are as follows.

(A) The bowls are not 'legal to play with'. Bowls used during competitive play should comply with the requirements defined in the Laws of the Sport. The requirement for each player to play with the appropriate number of bowls from the same set is defined in law 8.1.9 and the requirement for each bowl in the set to have the same serial number is defined in law 1.4.3.3.

(B) The WB Regulations for the Testing of Bowls state that a set of bowls submitted for testing can only be re-stamped and given a 'pass' certificate if it complies with the Laws of the Sport - this includes the requirement for serial numbers described above. If a tester finds that the serial number on a bowl has faded, they are required to refresh it. If they find that the serial number is either illegible or missing, they are required to put the same new serial number on each bowl.

Testers are aware of the Regulations. Any failure to meet the requirements for serial numbers, therefore, can be attributed to the occasional 'oversight' by the tester during the testing process. If an owner has recently had a set of bowls returned by a tester accompanied by a 'pass' certificate when the bowls do not have a legible serial number on them, they should return them to the tester to have the serial number added.

(C) There is no need for WB to issue to testers a set of numbers for use when bowls submitted for testing do not have a serial number. Testers already have their own form of numbers for use in these circumstances (for example, one tester uses a letter followed by the last 4 digits of the certificate number).

March 2012 - USA LBA
The Laws and Constitution Committee of the USA LBA sought clarification on "playing out of turn" as described below:-

In a pairs match, the skips and leads change ends and Skip A plays first. His bowl does not disturb the head and comes to rest very close to the jack and is now shot bowl. Then Skip B bowls, also causing no head disturbance. Then Skip B realises he should have bowled first. You're brought in as umpire. How would you resolve the situation?

In as much as both skips played out of turn, (per 47.1.2) is there "the opposing skip" that would choose between 47.1.2.1 or 47.1.2.2?

One umpire might want to implement 47.1.2.1, leaving the head as it is and having Skip B play another bowl to get them back into the proper sequence.

Another umpire might find value in citing 47.1.2.2 and returning both Skip A's AND Skip B's bowls, then having Skip B roll first.

A third umpire might rule that law 47.4.2 is the applicable law inasmuch as it clearly describes the actual situation that occurred. But the solution indicates that Skip B will lose the right to play his first bowl of the end, resulting in Skip A rolling four bowls and Skip B rolling only three. Some feel that this is unfair because Skip A was the first to roll out of turn.

LC Decision:
Law 47.1 deals only with the situation in which one player has played out of turn and the mistake is noticed either before that player's bowl has come to rest (law 47.1.1) or after the bowl has come to rest but before the next player to play has played their bowl (laws 47.1.2 and 47.1.3).

In the situation described, two players have played out of turn before the mistake is noticed. Law 47.1 does not deal with this situation. The US query, therefore, relates to a situation that is not covered by the laws. In line with the Introduction to the Foreword to the Laws, we need to use 'common sense and a spirit of fair play to decide on the appropriate course of action'.

The appropriate course of action would be to have player 'B' play their second bowl, followed by player 'A' playing their second bowl, and so on. This course of action is consistent with the intent of the laws (law 47.1.2.1) and avoids either player being penalised by losing the right to play a bowl as a result of what one trusts has been a genuine mistake by both parties.

[As an aside, in situations where law 47.1.2 is appropriate, the courses of action suggested in the 4th and 5th paragraphs of the query (relating to laws 47.1.2.1 and 47.1.2.2) are not in line with the laws. The umpire does not have the power to directly implement either of these laws. The umpire only has the power to directly implement law 47.1.2 - that is, give the opposing skip the two options leaving it up to the skip to decide which of these options they wish to choose.]

In the US query, it is suggested that law 47.4.2 is 'the proper law' to deal with the situation described. Law 47.4 deals with situations in which a player fails to play a bowl (in previous editions of the Laws it was called 'Omitting to Play'). Law 47.4.1 deals the situation in which a player fails to play a bowl before the result of the end is decided. Law 47.4.2 deals with the situation in which both teams play a bowl before it is noticed that another player has failed to play a bowl - this law is intended to cover situations such as in a Fours game when the two Thirds play their first bowls before they notice that one of the Seconds has not played one of their bowls.

The operative phrase in this law is 'failed to play'. The inclusion of the phrase 'in the proper order' in law 47.4.2 is a throw-back to earlier editions of the Laws where its inclusion was no doubt intended to clarify the situation being dealt with. It would appear that its retention in the current law is now leading to the interpretation that the law deals with playing out of turn. This interpretation is not correct - the law deals with a situation in which a player has not played a bowl and not with a situation in which a player has played a bowl but played it in the wrong order. Applying this law in the case of the US query, therefore, would be incorrect. (in the light of this it may be appropriate for the LC to consider deleting the phrase in future editions.)

LC Decision:
The relevant law in this case is law 12.1 which is clear in its intent - "The Skips, their representatives or the Controlling Body should make the draw for the rinks on which games are to be played".

The Oxford Dictionary definition of 'draw' is "an act of selecting names randomly to decide winners in a lottery, opponents in a sporting contest, etc.". In the context of law 12.1, it would read "an act of selecting rink numbers and opponents randomly to decide opponents in a sporting contest".

It follows that, for any scheduled event, there should be sufficient rinks made available for a draw to take place. Therefore, for a single game scheduled at a club, more than one rink should be made available for the draw and for competitions involving more than one rink of play (e.g. inter-county or inter-district competitions comprising a Side of three or four disciplines) the minimum number of rinks required should be made available. Rinks cannot be allocated to individual games or disciplines in advance. The rink numbers available should preferably be consecutive (e.g.. rinks 1,2,3 and 4 or rinks 2,3,4 and 5) and not interspersed with other games being played at the club. There are a number of ways in which the draw for rinks and opponents can take place (e.g. numbers for rinks to play on drawn from a hat by respective Skips; team representatives swapping scorecards containing the names of their skips and then shuffling and pairing the cards). The LC does not have a preferred option except to say that there should be a random draw done for rink numbers and opponents.

Finally, the LC recommends that the method to be used for drawing rink numbers and opponents should be included in the Conditions of Play for the event being played.

February 2011 - Bowls South Africa:
Bowls South Africa formally applied to World Bowls for dispensation to include in its Domestic Regulations & General Conditions of Play an amendment to law 37.1.7 (this law requires the skip in a team game to keep the score card). Bowls SA requested the authority to allow the skip to delegate this duty to another member in the team.

The rationale behind the Bowls SA request was as follows:"We have received numerous complaints about the skip having to keep the score card. In the past the skip was able to delegate this duty. Under the new rules he may not do so. Many skips wear glasses to read and don't need them to play. By having to keep the card they are required to constantly put on and take off their spectacles."

LC Decision:
The LC rejected the application for the following reasons.

1) The concept of a skip marking a score card is not a new one - law 37.1.7 in the Crystal Mark Edition required the skip of a Pairs game to keep the score card.

2) The sentence in the rationale which reads "In the past the skip was able to delegate this duty" is factually incorrect - the skip did not previously have the power to delegate this duty. Law 37.1.8 in the Crystal Mark Edition stated that skips could delegate their own powers and any of their own duties - keeping the score card (other than in a Pairs game) was the duty of the Second and not that of the skip. Law 37.1.8. also specifically stated that the skip in a Pairs game could not delegate their own duty of keeping the score card.

3) One of the LC's underlying principles is that Domestic Regulations will only be considered in situations where it can be demonstrated that these regulations are necessary to deal with local circumstances or conditions. There is nothing in the rationale which suggests that the situation faced by Bowls SA is purely a local one (around the world, players wear glasses to read but not to play). Bowls SA, therefore, has not provided the LC with sufficient grounds for it to approve their request.

However, it is not the LC's intention that a player suffering from a physical or mental condition be placed at a disadvantage when playing the sport. Therefore, in situations, where opponents and officials agree that a player suffering from a physical or mental condition would be placed at a disadvantage if the letter of the law was to be followed, the LC would have no objections to a suitable, pragmatic solution being introduced to deal with the situation. This would, however, need to be dealt with on a case by case basis - not by the introduction of a Domestic Regulation.

February/March 2013 - Bowls England:
Bowls England asked about the use of "walkie-talkies" on the green and if there is anything prohibiting the use of "walkie-talkies" on the green. The question is asked as a person who wears two hearing aids has difficulty in getting information/ instructions from the far end of the green.

LC Decision:
The Laws Committee is anxious to ensure that no obstacles are put in the way of people with disabilities being able to enjoy our sport.

There is nothing in the Laws prohibiting the use of "walkie-talkies" (no definition of walkie-talkies has been given in this inquiry nor have we sought a definition. We note however that many Controlling Bodies ban the use of mobile phones on the green during a game ).

However Controlling Bodies need to ensure that their Conditions of Play specifically cover what is and isn't permitted in regard to aides for bowlers with a disability. Law 38 provides some guidance to Controlling Bodies relating to Players with Disabilities but does not cover Players with a hearing disability. It does however signal that the Laws of the Sport are supportive of various aides being available to ensure that Players with a disability can enjoy the sport of lawn bowls.

In our view it would be prudent for Controlling Bodies to include something along the lines of the following in their Conditions of Play -

When a team is in possession of the rink, a player who has a hearing disability will be allowed to use an electronic device to communicate with another member of their team who is at the opposite end of the rink . Any such communication must be conducted in a manner which does not disturb players on neighbouring rinks.

1) The devices can only be used when the team is in possession of the rink.
2) The player must have a hearing disability.
3) Any communication must be between players at opposite ends of the rink.
4) Players on neighbouring rinks should not be disturbed.

August 2013
A referral was made to World Bowls for clarification on the legality of kneeling on the green to deliver a bowl.

L C Decision:
It is permissible for players who suffer from a physical impairment to kneel on the green to deliver a bowl.

Rationale

Bowls is an all-inclusive sport. Players come from both genders, a wide range of age groups and can have a broad range of physical and intellectual impairments.

When compiling the Laws of the Sport, therefore, members of the World Bowls Laws Committee try to make sure that they do not introduce laws which would discourage anyone from taking part in the sport. They also recognise that trying to legislate for every situation which could arise (even if these could be predicted in advance) would result in a law book which would rival 'War and Peace' in thickness! The referral concerning the legality of kneeling on the green to deliver a bowl aptly illustrates the dilemma faced by the legislators.

The laws do not specifically cover the situation referred. However, in principle, the Laws Committee looks favourably on any solution which allows an individual who suffers from a physical impairment to continue playing the sport - with the proviso that the solution is in line with the intent and spirit of the laws.

Over the years, the Laws Committee has acknowledged that kneeling on the green to deliver a bowl offers an acceptable alternative to standing on the mat for players with certain physical impairments. The photographs below illustrate this. They show two players who represented Scotland in the Open Triples competition for players with physical disabilities that formed part of an 8-Nations Commonwealth Games Test Event held in Glasgow between 26th and 31st August 2013.

Whilst the delivery positions are different both players comply with the requirement of law 20.1 that 'at the moment they deliver a jack or a bowl, the player should have all or part of one foot on or above the mat'. It should also be noted that the players protect their trousers from staining (a concern raised in the referral) by the use of either a foam kneeling pad (photograph 1) or knee protectors strapped to both knees (photograph 2)

Photograph 1                                                        Photograph 2

[Both players have given their consent to their photographs being used by World Bowls. The photographs cannot be used for any other purpose.]