Chairman G Dixon, Secretary R Kavanagh, Treasurer G Price, and D Appleton and M Fry. Don Comerford, Ian Rowark of Partington and Dan Crowder of Roebuck were also in attendance.
The meeting had been called to discuss and if possible resolve a dispute that had arisen following a match in the Monday night knock-out between Partington and Roebuck on 24 August.
The secretary provided the following summary:
On 18 August Roebuck wrote to me to ask if a player could play in the cup having played only one or two league matches. I forgot to reply.
On 24 August, Roebuck and Partington played each other in the Monday knock-out. In the leg at Roebuck, a Roebuck player who had played only two games was included (and lost 21-8). Also a Roebuck player was seen to be practising on the green before the match. This player’s game was abandoned during the first end and recorded as a 21-0 loss.
Roebuck won the match, 207-191, or 199-191 without the 21-8 loss.
Partington have subsequently objected arguing that Roebuck deliberately broke the rules twice in the match and then a third time in entering the 21-8 score on the web site. On these grounds they argue that Roebuck should be excluded from the competition.
Roebuck wrote in an email on 25 August:
Further to my previous email below, I had no option but to play Amelia Courtney, a new bowler who has played 2 games. Ian Rowark has been in touch to warn me that Partington’s captain wishes to register a protest on Amelias eligibility. They are of course entitled to register that protest, however I am somewhat displeased with some of their behaviours. Eric Southward, a weak bowler in his second season, made the error of practising before the game. Our home captain (Richard Courtney) informed me that he'd been disqualified (which is fine) but on return to the Roebuck I learned a little more about the story behind this. Partington’s away captain had made the draw knowing full well that Eric had practised, and continued the draw with the intention of allowing Eric to play. The game commenced with both players aware and at the first end, Eric sent a good bowl. Following this bowl, the opposition player then refused to continue the game, protesting that Eric should be disqualified. Our home captain, accepted this without protest. I agree with Eric's disqualification, however I think it was not the correct spirit to do this and rather cruel to Eric, who has averaged under 7 chalks all season. Had I attended the home leg I would perhaps have done this a little differently, conceding the game but offering a friendly.
Partington wrote in an email on 27 August:
As Secretary of Partington Bowling Club I have been asked by all of our members that Roebuck should be excluded from the Monday Night k/o competition due to the fact they breached the following rules:
Partington appreciate different rules apply to different leagues but in this case it is a blatant breach of the rules and bowling etiquette. Hoping for a satisfactory conclusion to this matter.
Neither of the clubs wished to make any additional statement to the meeting.
There was some discussion of the circumstances in which a Roebuck player had practised before the match. It seemed that he had been seen by several other Roebuck players. Partington players were also aware he had been practising. It was not clear why he had not been told to leave the green. Nor was it clear why he had been allowed to be included in the draw and to start the game.
Roebuck insisted that the player had not been “allowed” a roll up, rather it was an inadvertent error involving a new bowler.
As to the playing of an ineligible player, she was included in the knowledge that she wasn’t eligible. Permission had been sought but neither received nor denied, and they hoped it would be given. Roebuck accepted this was wrong and apologised.
Given that there had been two breaches of the rules, foe which Partington had been awarded 21-0 scores, the question was whether there should be any further penalty. The committee voted unanimously that there should not. If Partington disagree with this they had the right to appeal to the county association. They would discuss this amongst themselves.
It was noted that technically the protest should have been accompanied by a deposit (the size of which is not specified in the rules). The league would not insist on this.
It was also noted that in the Urmston Vets league playing an ineligible player in the knock-out leads to automatic expulsion of the team from the competition. If any club wanted a similar rule they should propose it to the rules revision meeting.