Rosny v Sandy Bay – Appeals Panel findings and decision
The following is published IAW the recommendation of the panel (see below) and with the endorsement of the BTS Board.
This document sets out the Appeal Panel Findings and Decision in the matter of an appeal by the Rosny Park Bowls Club against the Sandy Bay Bowls and Community Club for playing an ineligible player in the Ladies Thursday Pennant Division 1 game between the two clubs on Thursday 23 February.
The Appeals Panel consisted of Leigh McAdam (Glenorchy City Bowls Club), Chair and Panel Members Michael Hannon (Royal Hobart Bowls Club) and Don McVilly (Cremorne Bowls Club).
The Circumstances
During the lunch break in the game, a Sandy Bay player, namely Jacqui Phillips, injured herself moving a chair in the clubrooms.
After attempting to deliver a bowl after the lunch break she withdrew from the game as a result of her injury.
Sandy Bay subsequently introduced Paula Graham, a spectator into the game as a substitute.
This person was not at the time a member of the Sandy Bay Bowls Club as she was a visitor from England.
Phil Hobbs, the Sandy Bay Coach on the day, who is also a Sandy Bay Bowls Club Bowlslink Administrator, added Paula to Bowlslink as a Social Member of the Sandy Bay Bowls Club with playing rights.
Paula subsequently played the remainder of the game as lead with the other members of the team adjusting their playing positions accordingly.
The Question of Eligibility
Ultimately, this matter rests on a determination as to whether Paula Graham was eligible to act as a substitute in the game.
The following Sections of BTS Conditions of Play (COP) are relevant in this consideration.
COP 1.2
“Every affiliated club’s members, holding a category of membership with playing rights for pennant competition, are eligible to play in BTS Championships and BTS pennant”.
COP 3.2(c)
“WB Law 39.2.3 allows different regulations to WB Law 39 regarding absentee players in a team. Domestic Regulation 2.5 applies to the effect that, if a game commences with only three players in a team OR, if a game commences with four players in a team and subsequently one of the players becomes ill or cannot continue for other reasons and there are no substitutes available, the game should continue with three players in that team. The team with an absent player plays as though the second is the missing player. The order of play shall be maintained by the second of the complete team playing consecutive bowls. Each player must Bowls Tasmania play two bowls only. The team with an absent player will have no reduction made in its score.”
COP 3.3(c)
“Clubs may select social bowlers to fill temporary vacancies in their pennant sides by granting them playing rights, and informing the BTS Secretary of the name of such players prior to their first selection.”
The Constitution and Rules of the Sandy Bay Bowls and Community Club provide for an application for membership to be posted on the noticeboard for 14 days before coming before the general committee for determination.
Clearly this did not happen on this occasion, Paula’s details were simply added into Bowlslink which in and of itself does not meet the requirements for membership, and thus she does not meet the requirements of Condition of Play 1.2.
Therefore, she cannot be considered as an eligible substitute and thus Sandy Bay have played an ineligible player.
Further, they would not have met the requirements of Condition of Play3.3(c) as they did not inform the BTS Secretary of their intention to play her prior to her first selection.
Determining The Penalty
COP 3.23(d)(i) provides as follows:
“In the event that a side plays a non-eligible player in a game then that game shall be regarded as a forfeit, and pennant points and shot allocations provided for in Condition 3.23 (f) shall apply.”
COP 3.23(f) provides that the team playing the ineligible player (Sandy Bay) will receive no pennant points and a penalty of minus 15 shots, while the opposing team (Rosny) will receive the maximum number of pennant points applicable to the game (12) and be credited with 15 shots.
COP 3.23(d)(ii) further provides as follows:
“If a Club appeals or if BTS becomes aware more than 48 hours after the conclusion of a game that a side has played a non-eligible player in a game, the side playing the non-eligible player will not receive any pennant points and will receive a penalty of minus 15 shots. The opposing team will only receive the pennant points and shots earned in that game.”
The Appeals Panel accepts that the email sent by Rosny on the evening of the day of the game constituted an appeal and this obviously was within the 48 hour timeframe. Therefore COP 3.23(d)(ii) does not apply.
The Appeals Panel also considered the provisions of COP 1.15(b) as detailed below:
“Side Captains, Skips or players cannot agree to bend or disregard a rule. If a match is found to have been played that contravenes these Conditions of Play or the WB Laws, both teams will receive zero points for the match.”
Sandy Bay has said that there was a discussion with the members of the relevant Rosny rink and that there was agreement that Paula Graham play as a substitute. In its written response Rosny states that members of their rink were not involved in any discussions to agree with the use of the substitute. It is not clear at what stage the umpire gave a ruling (if she did so at all in a formal sense). The panel is of the view that the probabilities are that after Sandy Bay initiated the discussion there was talk among a number of persons and that in the end Rosny may have felt pressured to not voice any opposition in order that the game continue. Although there may be occasions where a failure to protest on the day may amount to an agreement to bend or break a rule, the panel does not consider this to be such a case and therefore COP 1.15(b) does not apply.
It is the conclusion of the Appeals Panel that Sandy Bay have breached Conditions of Play by playing an ineligible player and thus, in accordance with COP 3.23(d)(i), this game should be regarded as a forfeit by Sandy Bay. Consequently, they should receive no pennant points plus a 15 shot penalty while Rosny receive all pennant points and should be credited with 15 shots.
The Panel also recommends that the outcome of this case and similar cases be circulated to clubs as a deterrent for future breaches of Conditions of Play.
Leigh McAdam Michael Hannon Don McVilly
18 March 2023 18 March 2023 18 March 2023