Bear in mind I have been out of league bowling for the past 5 years and getting back into it.  Last night it is position round and we find out in frame 3 of the first game that a bowler on the other team did not have the required number of games to be eligible to bowl.  Instead of this bowler stopping and putting in the absent bowler that had the minimum required games and taking the absent score; he was still allowed to bowl as a "pacer".  I am well aware of what a pacer is.  My discussion with a league official is that it is position round and you are allowing a bowler whose scores do not count the opportunity to affect the oil pattern in one way or another.  He said, "Well does it really matter"?  I said it doesnt 28 frames in at this point (night was almost over).  But yes it does matter.  He just happened to be one of these bowlers that crow bars at the release point trying to generate Robert Smith rev rate and spraying it all over the middle of the lane.  So it mattered a lot.  I was coming off a run over the last month where I had shot 816, 809, and 792.  So with it being position round, you can understand how I was a little amped up going into last night.  Lo and behold my ball reaction was very inconsistent and fought to shoot 640.

I understand allowing a pacer bowl if the opposing team had nobody show up.  But it is a trio league and 2 qualifying members of that team showed up.  So there was really no reason for a pacer.  While this league official is telling me his side; I am trying to emphasize it is a position round and all points are more crucial than normal in the standings.  He said we could bring it up in the league meeting next week and my response was that I did not want to look like that one bowler in every league that everyone hates and I would just take the lumps but I guess I just come from a different place and mindset and not used to the more relaxed ways to run a league. I get this is not the big money league in that center.  But there is some competition where they run 10-15 brackets every night as well as the strike jackpot the center has.  I just thought it was a bad decision to allow an ineligible bowler the opportunity to bowl for free during a crucial week when points mattered more than normal.   

Sounds like everything that happened here was within the rules.

1)  Sub bowler's scores didn't count after determining they were ineligible.
2)  Sub bowled as a pacer since there was seemingly no league rule barring pacers
3)  If there is no league rule barring pacers, the league cannot suddenly decide because it is a position round to not allow a pacer.  That would have required a league vote to change the rule.

In terms of the pacer affecting the shot, what is the difference if this pacer was bowling or the bowler they were replacing for would have been there?  You are still dealing with the same number of bowlers that typically bowl on a given league night.  Regardless of style or line the bowler throws, if this is a house shot pattern it isn't going to make any difference in the shot.

I would take the league officer up on his offer to bring it up at the meeting, and calmly explain your thoughts to the league on the whole issue.  As long as you don't go in loaded for bear, no one will accuse you of being "that guy".  Pose it as a "hey, has there ever been any thoughts or discussions on pacers in the league?  Here is what I was thinking...".  Don't even bring up what happened, just throw the topic out there for discussion.  Maybe the bowlers in this league would understand your side on the issue and agree that pacers should be barred from the league or at least barred for position rounds.  The meetings are where topics can be discussed and leagues can be fine tuned and shaped to be better. 

Our league allows subs for position rounds but their average has to be within 10 pins of the bowler they are replacing.  We also have a rule totally barring subs from roll-offs.  We have no rule about pacers, but it has never come up.

Regarding the difference....the difference is if he was an eligible participant, then there is no issues whatsoever.  The point is that it was position round and the other team had 2 of the 3 members show up.  There was no need for a pacer.

Can you imagine how you would feel if a pacer was allowed to bowl on your pair say at the end of the season during position round or rolloffs and that pacer affected your ball reaction?  Something tells me you would not be too happy even if it was allowed by a league official.  If I wanted to be vindictive and I had a teammate out during a position round, I could technically bring anyone off the street and say come bowl because their scores wont count.  They dont even need to be a sanctioned bowler really.  But that isnt my style.  I am not out to prove a point and then say "See what can of worms you opened up?"

As I mentioned before; I did not cause a scene.  I just approached the league official and voiced my concern and opinion without coming across like I was entitled to something.  It was a pleasant convo because I knew where was place was being new to those surroundings.  I am more curious how you all would feel if in the same situation.

I wouldn't care, but I'm not sure why a pacer is even a thing. You're either bowling for score, or you're not bowling.

We can pace ourselves lol

If the league rules allow it, then no harm.  If you don't like the rule, get it changed next year.

With that said, the pacer could certainly be used to play "defense" if you were bowling a team of lefties, just have your pacer practice throwing straight at the 7 pin with plastic all night long.  That does not sound like what happened here, he was bowling and you were not a fan of him changing the pattern and making it tougher.

Rule 110d.  2.  Pacers are allowed unless otherwise provided by league rule.

There's your answer.  It's pretty cut-and-dry.  Does the situation described suck?  Yes.  Was there anything that could be done?  No, so suck it up.  Is there a way to prevent it from happening in the future?  Yes, so address it in the way it needs to be done to make the league just a little better going forward.

A pacer is a buddy of one of the other team, who tried to sneak him in, but when caught, he's a guy who gets to practice for free...

I have never used a pacer, but if the opposing team asks if I care it's usually not a big deal.  And frankly, I don't think TWOHAND834 thought it was a huge deal either, just wanted to know other opinions on the subject. 

Sometimes we FEEL that something that happened was a little weird, and want to know if those feelings are justified or not.  A forum like this can get the whole range of responses because we come from the whole range of backgrounds, etc.

My wife likes to watch Dr. Phil, while I go crazy trying to get through 15 minutes of it.  Is she right? Am I wrong?  For the sake of our marriage, yes and yes.  But the real answer is neither, we're just different. 

There will always be those you offer "advice" trying to be funny, and others who insult, and a few who actually think before they start typing.  Deep down we're probably all pretty good guys, just different.

(Now let's all join hands and sing Kumbaya)

Quote from: Bowler19525 on April 13, 2022, 08:44:16 AM

Sounds like everything that happened here was within the rules.

1)  Sub bowler's scores didn't count after determining they were ineligible.
2)  Sub bowled as a pacer since there was seemingly no league rule barring pacers
3)  If there is no league rule barring pacers, the league cannot suddenly decide because it is a position round to not allow a pacer.  That would have required a league vote to change the rule.

In terms of the pacer affecting the shot, what is the difference if this pacer was bowling or the bowler they were replacing for would have been there?  You are still dealing with the same number of bowlers that typically bowl on a given league night.  Regardless of style or line the bowler throws, if this is a house shot pattern it isn't going to make any difference in the shot.

I would take the league officer up on his offer to bring it up at the meeting, and calmly explain your thoughts to the league on the whole issue.  As long as you don't go in loaded for bear, no one will accuse you of being "that guy".  Pose it as a "hey, has there ever been any thoughts or discussions on pacers in the league?  Here is what I was thinking...".  Don't even bring up what happened, just throw the topic out there for discussion.  Maybe the bowlers in this league would understand your side on the issue and agree that pacers should be barred from the league or at least barred for position rounds.  The meetings are where topics can be discussed and leagues can be fine tuned and shaped to be better. 

Our league allows subs for position rounds but their average has to be within 10 pins of the bowler they are replacing.  We also have a rule totally barring subs from roll-offs.  We have no rule about pacers, but it has never come up.

Regarding the difference....the difference is if he was an eligible participant, then there is no issues whatsoever.  The point is that it was position round and the other team had 2 of the 3 members show up.  There was no need for a pacer.

Can you imagine how you would feel if a pacer was allowed to bowl on your pair say at the end of the season during position round or rolloffs and that pacer affected your ball reaction?  Something tells me you would not be too happy even if it was allowed by a league official.  If I wanted to be vindictive and I had a teammate out during a position round, I could technically bring anyone off the street and say come bowl because their scores wont count.  They dont even need to be a sanctioned bowler really.  But that isnt my style.  I am not out to prove a point and then say "See what can of worms you opened up?"

As I mentioned before; I did not cause a scene.  I just approached the league official and voiced my concern and opinion without coming across like I was entitled to something.  It was a pleasant convo because I knew where was place was being new to those surroundings.  I am more curious how you all would feel if in the same situation.

If there is no league rule that says pacers are not allowed, then USBC rule 110d applies which allows that bowler to participate.  It is pretty cut and dry.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't care about a pacer.  I bowl on a competitive, head-to-head scratch league and deal with way more shenanigans than someone bringing in a pacer.  There are numerous times throughout the season where teams "hire" subs to come in so they can max out their cap against other maxed out teams.  "Strategy", they say.  We have also had instances where a sub is needed, and teams recruit a bowler from the other league in the house to bowl both leagues at the same time on the same night.  That is permitted and makes for an interesting night to see said bowler running back and forth between leagues.

If this pacer was really blowing up the shot, it would have also negatively affected the team that brought in the pacer.  Why would the other team have wanted to impact themselves as well?  I don't think they genuinely understand the potential issue.

This is definitely an opportunity to improve the league by having a discussion about it at the next league meeting.  No one is suggesting there was a scene or fight about it.  It could simply be this is a chance to educate some of the other league members and get them thinking about some of the USBC rules that may seem like minutia, but could be something that makes sense for them to address in the by-laws.