Page 20 - Autumn 2017

Page 20:Layout 1 15-Oct-17 3:21 PM Page 1

READERS LETTERS
20 READERS LETTERS
Hi Bob
I read with interest, in the Summer 2017 edition of SMI, the letter re-
garding the fender, and your response. I have had many conversations
about this topic which have made it clear to me that there is no common
understanding of the Laws of the Game in this regard.
ED - Let me open by reproducing the Rule 12 from the Rule Book:-

Let me start quite plainly and bluntly, I am absolutely fed up with players and particularly Um-
pires INVENTING rules because they disagree with something that is NOT in the rule book. Or
indeed inventing something that they think should be in the rule book that isn’t. I have heard
and seen this on many occasions over the last 32 years and we once had an Umpire who flatly
refused to apply a certain rule because she didn’t agree with it!
As to the physics of a bowl hitting a fender, it is far less likely to go over a fender if the
fender moves, as it surely just pushes the fender before it. Think about it and just try it in prac-
tice, a few tries should clarify the matter..
“THERE IS NO RULE IN THE RULE BOOK WHATSOEVER THAT PREVENTS A FOOT
BEHIND A FENDER AND ANY UMPIRE WHO GIVES 3 SHOTS AWAY IS SIMPLY INVENT-
ING A RULE THAT DOES NOT EXIST. IF IT DOES EXIST SHOW ME WHERE IT IS?
WHERE THE ACTUAL APPLICATION OF THE RULES IS CONCERNED, I AM NOT INTER-
ESTED IN PERSONAL OPINION AS THAT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A RULE!”
A County player once told me, “When playing a County match the opposition fired, missed
everything and the bowl went into the ditch, striking the fender, which one of their players was
holding in place with their foot. We claimed 3 shots, saying that the bowl could have gone over
the fender and its course was interfered with by the player holding the fender in place. The 3
shots were awarded.” (The player went on to say that this happened 3 times during the match
and they were awarded 3 shots each time!).