Ban on certain makes/models of bowls shoes.

[foxyone2]

If any of you think that your bowls authorities are too authoritarian, or lost the plot, I'll gladly swap ours for yours after their latest edict.
They have placed an immediate ban on two makes of bowls shoes being used extensively on greens throughout Australia, namely:-
Almark Aledge...............immediate ban and
Lightfeet..............banned, but given a period of grace until 30th of June, 2012. However any club may impose an immediate ban on 'Lightfeet' both for their own members and visiting bowlers,if they so choose.
Taking these shoes one make at a time:-
The Almark Aledge has been on the market here for about three years, thousands of pairs have been purchased as they are a very popular shoe (I have had a pair since day one). Why has it taken them so long to impose this ban.............they claim that they never endorsed this product. If I was being cynical I would suspect a 'royalty' issue.
Lightfeet has also been on the market for a while and was endorsed, nay lauded by Bowls Aust. as a product to buy. Maybe they were paying royalties initially but having ceased making bowls shoes, that 'gravy train' has dried up.
You may not be aware but bowls clothing used in 'events', that is anything other than social roll-ups must carry the Bowls Aust. logo which adds a hefty $10 to most items of clothing. This includes shirts, trousers, shorts, jackets, vests, pullovers, caps, and I've even seen it on socks!. In the last case I don't think it's compulsory...........as they can't be seen unless you wear shorts!. The ladies also have the same conditions imposed on their bowlswear.
All this is happening when we are trying to bring our game to the masses. It's time for the tie and blazer brigade to get real!. (I wish you had an angry icon to put on here!).

[edinburghump]

It certainly does sound like a royalty thing for equipment that was once recommended to suddenly become banned!

[foxyone2]

It certainly does sound like a royalty thing for equipment that was once recommended to suddenly become banned!
The product 'Lightfeet' made about half a dozen different styles for both men and women. Bowls Australia gave the product accolades and recommended it. They even had their logo printed on the shoe boxes!. As you can imagine many bowlers are now up in arms over this edict. Many are pensioners or self-funded retirees and to scrap perfectly good shoes and lay out $100+ for new ones is both stupid and unfair. The shoes Bowls Australia are currently endorsing are called 'Asics' at $140 a pop and have very similar soles to the banned products.
This edict landed on us at the weekend via our club secretaries, we have our first Pennant game tomorrow and I intend to wear my 'Aledge'!.
Apparently the edict states that if anyone is seen to be breaching they will be reported by the home club representative i.e. Umpire for the Day or Side Manager. This reporting system is a long-winded and complex procedure and I welcome the challenge. If found 'guilty' I will receive a
written warning and if I re-offend will face disciplinary action. The joke is that I'm a qualified umpire and it's a home game. I'm not normally a 'Bolshie' but this fiasco has hit a raw nerve. I'm also a retired legal practitioner.........I guess it's time to dust off the old books and do some up-to-date research. Could be more fun than bowling at eight down with just one bowl left.LOL.
One interesting side issue is the fact that we are hosting World Bowls here at Lockleys B.C., Adelaide next year. Someone had better tell the U.K. sides to make sure their socks are clean and free from holes!. What a joke!.

[foxyone2]

Bowls Australia ruling states that the sole must be flat, smooth with rounded edges and no heel. Have a look at their choice........Asics. The white and green areas go in as recesses and I reckon there is evidence of a heel. They are similar to the shoes they have banned which they are now saying damage the green!. Now let anyone try to convince me that money making royalties aren't involved!. Monopoly has replaced free trade, another instance.....I can buy a fleece jacket (for night or winter bowls) for between $10 and $15, however if I buy the approved model which carries their logo I pay $60 to $75. The same applies to all items of bowls apparel. One of the Manufacturers over here carries the nickname of 'Expensealite', no prizes for guessing which one that is!
Apologies for the image quality of the Asic sole as I've taken a snapshot of my laptop screen (must have used a 'Box Brownie!).

[snapper]

Never heard of anything like this it definitely sounds like its all about money the picture of your bowling shoes they look exactly like the ones I use we even have bowlers who take ordinary trainers and get the soles flattened by a cobbler and nobody would dream of banning them,
This is dreadful Bowlers are usually pensioners with not a lot of cash and can just about afford the £50 plus to purchase new bowling shoes,

Snapper:confused:

[edinburghump]

Bowls Australia ruling states that the sole must be flat, smooth with rounded edges and no heel. Have a look at their choice........Asics. The white and green areas go in as recesses and I reckon there is evidence of a heel. They are similar to the shoes they have banned which they are now saying damage the green!. Now let anyone try to convince me that money making royalties aren't involved!. Monopoly has replaced free trade, another instance.....I can buy a fleece jacket (for night or winter bowls) for between $10 and $15, however if I buy the approved model which carries their logo I pay $60 to $75. The same applies to all items of bowls apparel. One of the Manufacturers over here carries the nickname of 'Expensealite', no prizes for guessing which one that is!
Apologies for the image quality of the Asic sole as I've taken a snapshot of my laptop screen (must have used a 'Box Brownie!).

They certainly don't look like they have a flat, smooth sole with rounded edges and no heel! Would love to see someone present a scientific analysis of both shoes which proves no meaningful difference in the designs!

Glad we don't have the "approval" system here (yet).

[Frankie]

Whilst I just can't believe it, having looked at the photo is the ban because it's not 'smooth'!

Has the Australian ban given a reason??

If it was because of royalties it would be a ban for future shoes not the ones already purchased.

I would like to think that they are banned because of future damage to the greens!!

[foxyone2]

Whilst I just can't believe it, having looked at the photo is the ban because it's not 'smooth'!

Has the Australian ban given a reason??

If it was because of royalties it would be a ban for future shoes not the ones already purchased.

I would like to think that they are banned because of future damage to the greens!!

The photo I attached is a style they've approved!. They are claiming a complaint or complaints has/have been made re. damage to greens yet the shoes they've approved are virtually the same as the ones they've banned. I asked for evidence of their claims because of the financial costs of their actions and an explanation as to why they approved them initially in the case of Lightfeet and did nothing for three years or so in the case of Aledge. I'm not holding my breath waiting for a response (I did set my emails up to a) show they received it and b) that they opened it)!. They claim friction............would be interesting to see the scientific evidence upon which they base that claim and the individual readings of all the available shoes tested. It's London to a brick that no such evidence exists!.

Where does one audition for the T.V. programme 'Grumpy Old Men'?.

[foxyone2]

Attached is the new edict which deals with infringements to the Uniform Policy which was published earlier and how the naughty miscreants should be dealt with.
Years ago when I read George Orwell's book '1984' I laughed at the thought that this could happen in democratic countries..........I'm not laughing now.
Beware the uniform police!. They didn't spot my shoes at the first mid-week Pennant match yesterday...........and if they did took a commonsense approach to the infringement. Will try again at Saturday's match!.

[Devon Bowler]

Good Lord you would need to be a Lawyer to interpreter that, don't know what some of our more mature Bowlers would think it takes some of them half an hour to find their glasses,
This is laughable why don't they put things in plain English so people could understand them.

[edinburghump]

Attached is the new edict which deals with infringements to the Uniform Policy which was published earlier and how the naughty miscreants should be dealt with.
Years ago when I read George Orwell's book '1984' I laughed at the thought that this could happen in democratic countries..........I'm not laughing now.
Beware the uniform police!. They didn't spot my shoes at the first mid-week Pennant match yesterday...........and if they did took a commonsense approach to the infringement. Will try again at Saturday's match!.

Good god - fines for non compliance:o . This is supposed to be a fun game (or so I thought!

It is sounding more and more like BA are looking for money imho - surely the more correct course of action would be to suspend the player or to otherwise penalise the club by shot deduction.

[Frankie]

Attached is the new edict which deals with infringements to the Uniform Policy which was published earlier and how the naughty miscreants should be dealt with.
Years ago when I read George Orwell's book '1984' I laughed at the thought that this could happen in democratic countries..........I'm not laughing now.
Beware the uniform police!. They didn't spot my shoes at the first mid-week Pennant match yesterday...........and if they did took a commonsense approach to the infringement. Will try again at Saturday's match!.

If this was the U.K. I would have said this is not a good sign for the future, have seen clubs run like a dictatorship eventually they implode and members leave etc!!

Think I would tell the dictators to stuff it, can't imagine they go down well in O.Z.!!

[foxyone2]

If this was the U.K. I would have said this is not a good sign for the future, have seen clubs run like a dictatorship eventually they implode and members leave etc!!

Think I would tell the dictators to stuff it, can't imagine they go down well in O.Z.!!
They don't. There will be 'Bolshies' (like me), who challenge over regulation, and I've already started on this shoes issue. Maybe I should remind them of 'The French Revolution' in the late 1700's. On a more serious note.........some of the incumbents achieve positions of power because most people are prepared to let others do the work. A supreme example of this is the annual A.G.M.'s at any club; I've yet to see anyone trampled to death in the stampede when the President calls for nominations for the Secretary and Treasurer positions............the Bar Manager's job is a totally different story!.

[Frankie]

Hi foxyone2,

There you have it!! Our club A.G.M. Next Friday 14th, I know that they are short of a Secretary and the Treasurer is not certain! what normally happens is that no nominations come forward and the incumbent with Great reluctance says he will do the job for 1 more year.

This year I'm not certain that this will happen, we will go to the brink, ie Club cannot continue without a committee, which is so sad as we have over 150 members!

So I guess we can't complain when possibly the wrong members take up the job!!!:confused: