BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: avabob on May 24, 2016, 09:45:53 AM
-
I bowl in a league that gives open play credits for split conversions, clean games, and certain scores like 33 in the 3rd 66 in the 6th, and 99 in the 9th. Last night I was clean going in to the 10th. I struck my first ball, left a 4-6 on my second ball, which I did not convert. Did I have a clean game?
-
There are only 10 frames in a game.
-
If you strike or spare on your first ball of the tenth, then it's a clean game the fill ball doesn't count.
But in some contests it my depend on if they have their own definition, s ,o you have to check with them.
But using the classic definition, then yes you had a clean game.
-
i bowled in a league with a 40 clean pot (4 game league) if you struck in the 10 and opened in the 11th, it did not count as a clean game
-
Desk man said, "There are 10 frames per game, and you had ten marks". I was just interested in seeing if anyone disagrees.
Anyone know whether USBC has any special definition on payout for clean series or clean series in BJ. I had 40 clean in BJ a few years back for about $500, but the situation never came up, and I never asked.
-
If you have a clean game up to the tenth frame, and then do 2 strikes and then a 9, it's still a clean game.
I've done that.
-
I bowl in a league that gives open play credits for split conversions, clean games, and certain scores like 33 in the 3rd 66 in the 6th, and 99 in the 9th. Last night I was clean going in to the 10th. I struck my first ball, left a 4-6 on my second ball, which I did not convert. Did I have a clean game?
Our league changed the clean game rule this year to disallow the scenario you described. If you strike on the first ball, you must mark on the second. If you spare on the first ball, you must strike on the second. The purpose was to add a little more challenge to being "clean". There was some typical moaning at first, but it ended up being well accepted.
-
My local association gives out awards for clean series. Under their definition getting a strike on the first ball in the tenth and then missing a spare after that would be considered an open. I kind of agree with it, but I don't have strong feelings on the matter either way.
-
How can it be a clean game with an obvious open?
XXX = Not Open
XX# = Not open
X/ = Not open
/X = Not open
X- = Open
/- = Open
- = Open
How could it be anything else?
-
How can it be a clean game with an obvious open?
XXX = Not Open
XX# = Not open
X/ = Not open
/X = Not open
X- = Open
/- = Open
- = Open
How could it be anything else?
If you keep it simple and have a rule that states there must be a strike or a spare in each of the 12 frames actually thrown, then your #2 scenario is an open. That was my preference in our league meeting but I was voted down. Whimps. :D
-
Rule 2 – The Game
2a. Definition
A game of American tenpins consists of ten (10) frames. A player delivers two balls in each of the first nine frames unless a strike is scored. In the 10th frame, a player delivers three balls if a strike or spare is scored. Every frame must be completed by each player bowling in regular order.
-
Rule 2 – The Game
2a. Definition
A game of American tenpins consists of ten (10) frames. A player delivers two balls in each of the first nine frames unless a strike is scored. In the 10th frame, a player delivers three balls if a strike or spare is scored. Every frame must be completed by each player bowling in regular order.
I see nothing in that description about a clean frame.
-
How can it be a clean game with an obvious open?
XXX = Not Open
XX# = Not open
X/ = Not open
/X = Not open
X- = Open
/- = Open
- = Open
How could it be anything else?
If you keep it simple and have a rule that states there must be a strike or a spare in each of the 12 frames actually thrown, then your #2 scenario is an open. That was my preference in our league meeting but I was voted down. Whimps. :D
But you didn't have a chance to "convert" the spare on that last shot. So it would still be clean. Just my opinion of it though.
-
2g. Open
An open is recorded when a player fails to knock down all 10 pins after two deliveries in a frame.
-
How can it be a clean game with an obvious open?
XXX = Not Open
XX# = Not open
X/ = Not open
/X = Not open
X- = Open
/- = Open
- = Open
How could it be anything else?
If you keep it simple and have a rule that states there must be a strike or a spare in each of the 12 frames actually thrown, then your #2 scenario is an open. That was my preference in our league meeting but I was voted down. Whimps. :D
But you didn't have a chance to "convert" the spare on that last shot. So it would still be clean. Just my opinion of it though.
Your point is valid. That's the reason why after much debate, the league voted to not require a strike on that 12th shot. I got it and didn't push the issue further.
Still from a purist standpoint and for additional challenge, I like a definition that requires each of the 12 frames thrown to show a strike or a spare. Just my opinion though.
-
There is obviously no "rule" that defines this clearly, but I refuse to "cheapen" the game any further.
An open is an open. Otherwise, just bowl no tap.
-
Per usbc, that's a clean game. 10 marks in 10 frames is clean.
-
Per usbc, that's a clean game. 10 marks in 10 frames is clean.
This.
When at Nationals, you would have been given credit for a clean game.
-
There is what's written by the USBC, and what we know intuitively. Remember, the USBC also believes 116% is the ideal handicap. :o
I shot a 298 last week, leaving an 8-10 on the last shot. There is no way I'd want credit for a clean game. All I know is that looking up at the score, there was an unresolved 8 count hanging there. I'd want to see nothing but strikes and spares, and I clearly didn't do it.
But to each his own on this. As Milo stated, there is always no-tap if you want to settle for less.
-
I expected some controversy on this, but never expected someone to argue that a 298 with an 8-10 is not a clean game. My argument would be it is a clean game unless you give me the opportunity within the confines of the game to throw at the 8-10.
A league can certainly make any rule it wants for pot purposes, but I really think absent any special rule, that my original scenario is a clean game.
-
There is what's written by the USBC, and what we know intuitively. Remember, the USBC also believes 116% is the ideal handicap. :o
But this is not a rule. Just a guideline. By rule, USBC declares 10 marks in 10 frames a clean game.
-
There is what's written by the USBC, and what we know intuitively. Remember, the USBC also believes 116% is the ideal handicap. :o
The usbc does not say that, they just say An exact 50-50 distribution of league championships would result only if a 116% handicap was used.
They dont advocate using it either.
-
There is what's written by the USBC, and what we know intuitively. Remember, the USBC also believes 116% is the ideal handicap. :o
The usbc does not say that, they just say An exact 50-50 distribution of league championships would result only if a 116% handicap was used.
They dont advocate using it either.
The fact that they specifically point out that 116% provides for the most equitable chance of a league championship across all teams is an implied endorsement. Since the stated intent of handicap (from the USBC perspective) is to provide for equity, I don't know how you can interpret their study any different.
-
There is what's written by the USBC, and what we know intuitively. Remember, the USBC also believes 116% is the ideal handicap. :o
The usbc does not say that, they just say An exact 50-50 distribution of league championships would result only if a 116% handicap was used.
They dont advocate using it either.
The fact that they specifically point out that 116% provides for the most equitable chance of a league championship across all teams is an implied endorsement. Since the stated intent of handicap (from the USBC perspective) is to provide for equity, I don't know how you can interpret their study any different.
This is from the USBC facts about handicap sheet:
Question:
If a handicap percent of 116% would result in absolutely equalizing competition in
handicap leagues, then why doesn’t the USBC advocate the use of that percent of handicap to the exclusion of all others?
FACT: Nobody wants to deprive the more skillful of the benefits of their superior skill. If the
more proficient bowlers have an edge, it is one they’ve earned. It is a premium, which comes
from more diligent efforts to improve their capabilities. That incentive should not be taken
away, regardless of the level at which a bowler competes.
So that say's they don't advocate using it.
If you look in the rule book they advocate using 100%
Commonly Asked Questions – Rule 100g.
100g/1 What is a good handicap percentage for a league with members who have a wide
range of averages?
One hundred percent of the difference between a bowler’s average and a base higher than
any average within the league is a good percentage to balance the disparity in averages.
One hundred percent handicap basically makes the competition a “pins over averageâ€
competition, because if the two teams bowl average they will be tied.
-
Not calling a 298 game a clean game shows a clear lack of grasp on reality. You are the ultimate purist! You obviously can't convert the 8 count because the game is over. What's next for you, a hole in one is not clean unless the ball enters the hole on the fly?
-
Not calling a 298 game a clean game shows a clear lack of grasp on reality. You are the ultimate purist! You obviously can't convert the 8 count because the game is over. What's next for you, a hole in one is not clean unless the ball enters the hole on the fly?
I made it clear from the beginning that this is my perspective on a clean game. I believe that regardless of the score, if I look up and see a frame that has anything less than a strike or spare, it's not clean. I should have thrown a strike on the 12th shot to avoid the blemish.
Before our league modified the "clean series" rule, we were getting 3-5 bowlers hitting the pot every week. It was essentially a meaningless achievement. Tightening requirements in the 10th made things a challenge. Now there are weeks where nobody wins and the pot grows. What a concept! If that level of purity (and reality) offends you, sorry.
-
This is from the USBC facts about handicap sheet:
Question:
If a handicap percent of 116% would result in absolutely equalizing competition in
handicap leagues, then why doesn’t the USBC advocate the use of that percent of handicap to the exclusion of all others?
FACT: Nobody wants to deprive the more skillful of the benefits of their superior skill. If the
more proficient bowlers have an edge, it is one they’ve earned. It is a premium, which comes
from more diligent efforts to improve their capabilities. That incentive should not be taken
away, regardless of the level at which a bowler competes.
So that say's they don't advocate using it.
Here is another USBC publication that suggests 116% is the sweet spot:
http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/rules/pdfs/Handicap%20Facts.pdf (http://usbcongress.http.internapcdn.net/usbcongress/bowl/rules/pdfs/Handicap%20Facts.pdf)
From the Facts PDF:
The United States Bowling Congress (USBC) defines handicapping as the means of placing bowlers and teams of varying degrees of bowling skill on as equitable a basis as possible for competition against each other.
Even at 100% handicap, as the above chart shows (see referenced PDF), the higher average teams or bowlers still have a decided edge. Seventy out of 100 championships are still won by the higher average team when 100% handicap is used. An exact 50-50 distribution of league championships would result only if a 116% handicap was used.
...........................
Ok..... so if the USBC defines the goal of handicap as providing optimum equity, and the most equity is achieved through 116% handicap, it seems they've defined a 116% standard, unless there are other factors that might come into play.
Maybe the USBC is talking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue. But the PDF I referenced seems pretty clear.
On edit: I found the the Q&A component you referenced in another link. I'm still seeing two different messages being sent. But I didn't bring this up to debate what the "right" handicap should be. My point is that it's dangerous taking everything the USBC says to the bank.
-
I believe the vast majority of bowlers I know consider 10 marks in game a clean game.
Personally I feel if you strike on the first ball in the 10th then you need to spare if you don't strike on the next ball.
However I would consider a 298 a clean game.
-
Not sure how tightening the requirements to win a pot has anything to do with purity. Just because too many guys are throwing clean series isn't criteria for changing the most widely accepted definition for a clean game
-
Look, as I said earlier, I understand the widely accepted definition for a clean game. It essentially says that you should have two chances to knock down all the pins in any given frame. It basically throws the 11th and 12th out the window. I have no expectations this definition will ever be changed, any more than I would expect bowlers to ever adopt overall tougher conditions.
Again, I get it, I just personally don't agree. In my mind, anything other than a strike or spare anywhere on the score sheet is less than clean. I believe the extra challenge of having to mark in the 11th or 12th to avoid a blemish adds to the integrity of the feat.
To your original question I do not believe you achieved a clean game. We're just going to have to have to disagree on the overall definition.
-
I understand bowlers can have differing views of those things that leave something for interpretation. For instance, who is the best bowler ever? What should we consider to be a scratch bowler? What should handicap be based on? These are things that leave interpretation and can differ depending on the environment or person.
However, USBC rules are intended to be black and white (or as much as possible). The rules are sometimes written in a way to prevent interpretation for ease of enforcement. So trying to change the definition of what a clean game is goes against the USBC intention. Sure, one can personally think they didn't have a clean game in their mind by not sparing after a strike in the 11th/12th frame, but to everyone else that must be considered a clean game. Perhaps others will side with you and agree it isn't a clean game, but saying it isn't is similar to saying a strike has to have all the pins off the deck.
So you can think it isn't clean, but you cannot tell others it isn't clean since the rule states it is. And to say it is a more "pure" game with your definition is false. You can't change rules and claim to do it for the sake of "pureness" or sport integrity. In fact, following the rule as written is behaving in a more "pure" way and establishes integrity for the sport.
-
Have to agree to an extent with Steven here...I disagree with his personal view on the referenced 298 even though the 8-count was a split although I agree that avabob's game is not one I would personally view as clean. I'll explain reasoning for both...
avabob struck on the first shot in the 10th, thus yielding the additional two shots. As we generally consider 'clean' frames to be clearing the deck in one or two shots, I personally would not consider strike-split to be a clean 10th frame. If you strike, then you either need to go strike-count or else spare in those next two shots...but again, this is MY view and how I personally would view the accomplishment.
As to the 298 game ending in a split, I would still view that as a clean, albeit disappointing game precisely because there were two marks in the 10th and the split-8 is effectively no different than if someone had gone XX8 or any other XX6 (or better). I'm old school and view a five count on a mark to be a loss of the mark, hence my use of 6 or better. The loss of the 300 would be frustrating in ANY circumstance, no matter HOW many one may have thrown, but to say the frame was open simply because the third shot (of a maximum three in the 10th) was not a strike just rings hollow for me...it is, after all, the second shot of the two you are awarded for a strike on the first shot in the 10th.
And with that, I return to my little retired-from-the-game corner...
-
Michelle: Thanks for a well thought out analysis. When I posed this question it was really to see what people thought. Immediately after finishing the game I asked the desk man whether I qualified for a clean game and was told it did. I actually wasn't sure, and would not have been upset either way.
I have always personally thought of my situation as a clean game. My rationale is that whether you strike or spare in the 10th, the last two shots are basically for count. Most people clearly believe a spare in the 10th does not require a strike on the count ball for a clean game. I don't really care about the definition either unless it impacts an award, in which case I want to know the criteria when I am going for it.
if I spare on my first ball and throw a bad count on the second ball I am much more disappointed than if I strike and go 9 out on my last two shots regardless of how it is defined. Likewise two or 3 bad count spares bothers me worse than one open.
By the way I have thrown 298 with a swishing 7-10, 299 with stone 8 pin, and I think I have a 297 or two in there somewhere. They were all clean games in my mind although I obviously was pretty disappointed with the bad shot resulting in the 297 games.
-
IUSBC rules are intended to be black and white (or as much as possible). The rules are sometimes written in a way to prevent interpretation for ease of enforcement. So trying to change the definition of what a clean game is goes against the USBC intention. Sure, one can personally think they didn't have a clean game in their mind by not sparing after a strike in the 11th/12th frame, but to everyone else that must be considered a clean game. Perhaps others will side with you and agree it isn't a clean game, but saying it isn't is similar to saying a strike has to have all the pins off the deck.
I don't disagree with much of your analysis. As I've stated repeatedly, I understand the USBC definition of a clean game, but I personally don't agree with it. I'm not trying to interpret the USBC definition any other way than it's stated and have no expectations that it will ever be changed. Anybody can keep their 'clean game' with a blemish without fear I'll come after them :) .
The only issue I have with your analysis is comparing the standard for a completely clean game to a strike that has to achieve certain style points. One is absolute and easily measurable while the other is subjective. It's comparing apples and oranges.
-
IUSBC rules are intended to be black and white (or as much as possible). The rules are sometimes written in a way to prevent interpretation for ease of enforcement. So trying to change the definition of what a clean game is goes against the USBC intention. Sure, one can personally think they didn't have a clean game in their mind by not sparing after a strike in the 11th/12th frame, but to everyone else that must be considered a clean game. Perhaps others will side with you and agree it isn't a clean game, but saying it isn't is similar to saying a strike has to have all the pins off the deck.
I don't disagree with much of your analysis. As I've stated repeatedly, I understand the USBC definition of a clean game, but I personally don't agree with it. I'm not trying to interpret the USBC definition any other way than it's stated and have no expectations that it will ever be changed. Anybody can keep their 'clean game' with a blemish without fear I'll come after them :) .
The only issue I have with your analysis is comparing the standard for a completely clean game to a strike that has to achieve certain style points. One is absolute and easily measurable while the other is subjective. It's comparing apples and oranges.
Just to be clear, the OP's game does not have a blemish. It has what you call a blemish thus making your view of a clean game subjective since it does not meet the definition; the same as the possibility of a person's view a strike must have all the pins leave the deck being subjective since it does not meet the definition of a strike.
With all that said, I do support your league's efforts with the rule. In today's game, having a clean game pot seems like a waste, especially with the scoring I personally see in my league. In my league, the pot would be won every game by several people, even with the additional restrictions your league added. I am usually in favor of things that allow the casual bowler to become more competitive.
-
Why is the last ball referred to as a fill ball, not the last two balls in the tenth?
-
My guess is because once you have completed the 10 frames of bowling, the rest of the tenth frame is fill or bonus? Not sure if bonus i the correct terminology.
Personally, I call a fill ball the ball after a spare or after a double in the tenth. For some reason, I don't call the two balls after a strike fill balls.