Can You Be TOO Fair?

The 109th annual Wisconsin State Bowling Association tournament has ended, and the final prize listing is posted on their website.

Blogger Jeff Richgels of the 11th Frame did some reporting on a few issues regarding tournament averages in this article: One DQ, one rerate, one pending for State Tournament, La Porte says.

One such issue was an enormous doubles score shot by a pair of Division 2 bowlers, detailed in a follow up blog by Richgels.

Fascinating.

At the time, Glenn Bachmann and Jim Yannaras of Milwaukee teamed up to shoot 1546 scratch, using a 388 team average (1164).  This is approaching 400 pins over average (382) - an astronomical number, about 64 pins a game over average.  Not an impossible feat in this day and age, though still eyebrow lifting.  They also must have felt the mojo coming, because they entered the optional scratch portion of the event which, as Richgels noted, is unusual for Division 2 bowlers.

Looking over the final prize listing, I notice that Bachmann and Yannaras are listed in first place in Division 1 Doubles.

Division1?

This was brought to my attention because it bumps a couple of our local guys (Bill Reithmeyer and Ron Edwards) down a spot to third, costing them $145.00 – and everyone else who cashed in that division the value of one spot.

The question among bowlers will naturally be, “Why did these guys get rerated after bowling for reporting lower averages - instead of getting disqualified?”  After all, it clearly states in USBC Rule 319 that disqualification is the result of reporting lower averages.

Doing some reverse handicap calculations, it seems the Yannaras/Bachmann team has been post-tournament rerated from a Division 2 average of 388 to a Division 1 average of 402 (+14 pins).  This would make sense if Bachmann was rerated from 190 to 204 (+14 pins).  I cannot verify as of this writing if this was the exact way the rerate was done, but it makes the most sense - and is significant, here's why.

In an 11th Frame blog, Richgels wrote:

Bachmann is coming off knee surgery last year, La Porte said, and had a 190 average last season — giving he and Yannaras 388 for doubles.

Bachmann was 204 for this season, putting him one pin shy of being rerated under the 15 pins over rule, La Porte said.

How can...wait...what?

The trouble here is that Bachmann did not have a 190 average last year that I can find.  Using the Find A Member feature on bowl.com, Bachmann only had six games in any league last season – not a book average (21 games or more).  Hence, the 15 pin rule is not applicable.  You can't adjust an average if you don't have an acceptable average to adjust.

Under this scenario, he (or his captain) should have reported 204 on his tournament entry (or whatever his current season average when the entry was sent in), per this WSBA tournament rule:

If no average from previous season based on 21 games or more, use the highest current season average at time of bowling in first event of all events entered.

What this means is that Bachmann’s average was misreported on the entry, and it was either missed by the WSBA prior to bowling or the average was ‘subject to investigation’.

Next!

The WSBA uses the same proprietary USBC software to run their tournament as we do.  Theirs, obviously, would have to include the average databases of every association in the state.  Unless the database they use is vastly different, they should have known that Bachmann did not have a qualifying 21 game average from last year.  This should have raised a red flag right away.  Bachmann should have at least been entered with a scratch average until he checked in to bowl with verification of his highest current 21 game average.

Hint:  Anytime you have a readily unverifiable average for a tournament entrant, just put down the scratch average on their tournament confirmation, then sit back and wait.  The bowler will call to straighten it out.  Guaranteed!

In defense of the WSBA, it is easily possible to miss an average considering the sheer volume of tournament entrants.  I typed a tournament average into the address field of one of our tournament entrants and never knew until they never received their checks.  Seems the post office can't deliver to "227".  Missing one average during the WSBA tournament processing is something around  a .008% error rate - point zero zero eight percent.  Mighty impressive, actually.

Yes, we are all in the same boat.

In any case, the onus is ultimately on the bowler to correctly report.  An average can be corrected up to the end of the first game of the first series, unless a 48 hour extension is granted in writing by the tournament.  This is required by USBC rule 319a, #4. 

The bowler should also know that a 21 game average is required, should have known he didn’t have one, should have read the rules, and should have reported the appropriate average (current highest 21 game average) – before the end of the first game of competition.  The rules are for everyone to follow.  Bachmann should have known at check-in that his average was incorrect and reported it as such.

Reviewing Bachmann’s averages over the last several years, it looks like he has been a 217-219 average player.  His lowest averages have always been in the Singles Masters leagues at Classic Lanes – Menomonee Falls.  I am going to venture the conditions of that league were either not standard, or the house is tough.

Understanding that Bachmann is coming off of knee surgery, using his current season average of 204 is most appropriate in my opinion as an experienced tournament director.  That is to say, I would not have rerated him higher than 204 for any tournament I was running - based on this history.  Those that do not know Bachmann (including me) should at least understand this if they also review his average history, as ‘tournament integrity hawks’ are prone to do.

Good 'ol Rule 319

Meanwhile there is the issue of rules.  Rulings are, after all, made in accordance with rules.

USBC rule 319a, #3 states:

Bowlers are responsible for verifying his/her own average, whether submitted by the bowler, the team captain or others.  If the submitted average is lower than required and results in a lower classification or more handicap, the bowler’s score is disqualified.

However, the WSBA rules state this portion of 319a somewhat differently:

Tournament management reserves the right to adjust all reported averages that are lower than required and result in a lower classification or more handicap.

This is an interesting alteration of the USBC 319a rule, and it appears the USBC allows for change.  The first sentence of 319a reads:

The following conditions apply to averages in handicap or classified tournaments, unless the tournament rules state otherwise, except that only USBC league averages shall be accepted.

From this, we can understand that the WSBA essentially replaced the clause “the bowler’s score shall be disqualified” with “Tournament management reserves the right to adjust”.

So this gives the WSBA the power to make a case by case judgment in situations where a bowler reports a lower average.  In this case it appears the WSBA determined there was no ‘foul’ here.  I think this is a fair judgment based on what I know - which is far from everything.

Still, the removal of the disqualification clause could really open a door that a tournament director might not want opened.  The clause should read; tournament management reserves the right to adjust or disqualify.

Truly, it is already cumbersome for a tournament director to verify averages – especially where 319d (prize winnings) and 319e (tournament averages) are concerned.  Removing the threat of disqualification for reporting lower averages...oof, I don't even want to think about it.

I think I get what the WSBA is trying to do here.  They have engineered the average adjustment rule because they want to be able to make specific decisions on specific cases.  They don’t want to be painted into a corner of having to disqualify bowlers by the rules anytime, say, an honest mistake is made on an entry form.  They want the ability to exercise the most fairness they can in an effort to keep bowlers.

That certainly seems honorable and fair, but the integrity of a tournament may be at stake when an entire division of bowlers in an event suddenly get bumped down a spot.  Especially if this is done late in the event and without public explanation.

Finally, the WSBA average rule does not say when an average may be adjusted.  As a bowler, I would read that rule and assume (yes, I know) that the tournament management reserves the right to adjust my average before I bowl.  This, because of USBC Rule 319c, the traditional "rerate" rule, where bowlers have the right to refuse participation based on the rerate - as Yannaras reportedly did a few years ago in a GMBA city tournament.

Obviously, I would be wrong.

It is unfortunate Bachmann and Yannaras were not properly classified when they entered the tournament.  It is also unfortunate they were reclassified so late in the tournament.

In the end, this shouldn't be called a rerate at all.  It was an adjustment to an appropriate average after the initial misreporting of that average.  And, it was all done within the WSBA rules system.

As the WSBA rules apparently allow for post-bowling adjustments, this creates a dilemma.

If no average from previous season based on 21 games or more, use the highest current season average at time of bowling in first event of all events entered.

Tournament management reserves the right to adjust all reported averages that are lower than required and result in a lower classification or more handicap.

On the one hand it says what average to report.  On the other hand, the WSBA average adjustment rule almost implicitly allows for a bowler to report a lower average by not providing a penalty for doing so and, in this case, not using USBC Rule 319a as it is written in the rule book.

Besides, if you leave a loophole - someone will try to exploit it.  And that will impact the integrity and credibility of a tournament more than a disqualification might have.

So what do you think?

Should their doubles effort be disqualified because an average was reported too low and not adjusted prior to bowling?

Or should the scores stand as reclassified?

Is the WSBA average adjustment rule better than the USBC rule?

Does the same rule open the door for potential 'accidental' cheating?