The 2nd annual Women’s International Bowling Congress Senior Queens Tournament was held May 7-11 at Sawgrass Lanes in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and the official WIBC press release states that Fran Minton, Iowa Park, Texas defeated Jean Williford, Carthage, North Carolina 523-516 in the final match to win the $2,500 title.
“This was a very difficult tournament to win,” said Minton. “I bowled several games each day for five days. I didn’t know if I would make it, but I’m very pleased to receive the title.”
Minton said a mouthful. What the press release does not mention is the confusion and chaos that took place on May 11 that overshadows the victory in the minds of most who were in attendance during the finals or heard about it afterward.
What WIBC failed to report was that they actually named two Senior Queens champions on Friday, May 11. The other was Michigan Hall of Famer Marilyn Kreg of Kalamazoo. Kreg is now officially listed as finishing third behind Minton and Williford, but for a very brief moment, she cried tears of joy and embraced her husband, Art, and friends as the 2001 Senior Queens champion.
A short time after Kreg defeated Williford and Minton for the title, her tears of joy turned into tears of sadness and disbelief when WIBC officials declared the entire finals “null and void” and started over. Not only did they start over, their decision meant Kreg was ineligible to bowl in the finals—only Williford and Minton were allowed to contend for the most prestigious title in women’s senior bowling. Kreg didn’t do anything wrong to get herself booted out of the finals; she was simply the victim of a “bad/wrong” decision made by WIBC Tournament Director Ruth Williams, according to WIBC Executive Director Roseann Kuhn.
Our investigation of the situation revealed that Williams made the decision, apparently on her own, to conduct a "TV format" finals the morning of May 11 instead of a "non-TV format" finals. After speaking with several Senior Queens bowlers, one of which was WIBC Hall of Famer Susie Reichley, Williams went ahead with the TV format finals. It was a decision that would haunt her later that day.
Did she consult with her WIBC bosses before making the call?
Based on what happened later, probably not.
In any tournament, it’s imperative that formats from start to finish are announced and known without a doubt, and to maintain the integrity of the event, formats cannot be changed at any point during the event. I didn’t reach Williams for her explanation of why she made the decision she made; but she must have had some knowledge that at least some of the finals would be shown on television in conjunction with the televised finals of the regular WIBC Queens, which was won by Carolyn Dorin-Ballard.
The WIBC Senior Queens utilizes the classic Winners/Losers bracket format after the qualifying portion of the event is completed. The top 15 players from qualifying join the defending champion (this year, it was Rose Smith of Las Vegas) in a 16-player bracket.
The top 15 then bowl three-game matches with the winners advancing, and the losers going into the losers bracket, only WIBC calls it a "contenders" bracket. Since the event is a “double elimination format,” these losers (contenders) are allowed to bowl until they are defeated again (thus, "doubly" eliminated).
At the conclusion of this bracket-style match play, three bowlers remain. One is the undefeated tournament leader (#1 seed) who has gone all the way through the brackets without losing, one is the winners bracket runner-up (#2 seed) who has only lost one match (to the tournament leader) and the other is the player who makes it all the way through the contenders bracket (#3).
According to official WIBC Senior Queens rules, in a "TV format finals," the number 2 and 3 seeds bowl each other, and the winner of that match advances to bowl against the #1 seed for the title. For the purpose of fitting on TV, these are one game matches—a classic "stairstep" or "stepladder" finals we have seen on television for decades. If the undefeated leader is defeated in the final game, another game is bowled to determine the champion.
However, in a non-TV format, the winners bracket runner-up (#2) bowls a three-game match against the top contenders bracket player (#3), both of whom have only one loss at that point. The winner of that match earns the right to bowl another three-game match against the event leader (#1). If the leader is defeated, another three-game match is bowled, because the format is "double elimination," and at that point, again, both players have only one loss.
In the Senior Queens, after match play was over, Marilyn Kreg was the top player in the Contenders Bracket, making her the #3 seed. Jean Williford was the runner-up in the Winners Bracket, making her the #2 seed, and Fran Minton was the top bowler in the Winners Bracket, making her undefeated, and the #1 seed. Williford and Kreg both had one loss at that point.
The consensus of people I communicated with seem to think the fatal mistake was made Friday morning May 11, when Ruth Williams decided to change the format from "non-TV" to "TV." Senior Queens bowler Connie Cotton contends, and I agree with her, that the error occurred the previous afternoon, Thursday May 10, when Williford bowled against Kreg. It was in this match that the "finals" really began, and the decision to bowl a "TV" or "non-TV" finals format should have been made before this match. Once this match started, there was no turning back (or shouldn’t have been).
Had WIBC officials determined their finals format was going to be the TV format, this Thursday afternoon match between Williford and Kreg should not have been held. Under either format, both players should have advanced to the Friday finals, Kreg as the #3 seed, and Williford as #2, both with one loss at that point.
WIBC Executive Director Roseann Kuhn, who reversed Tournament Director Ruth Williams’ decision, said in a memo explaining her decision, “I pointed out that the one bowler [Kreg] should not have been bowling as she already had two losses, and that under the double elimination format, she was eliminated after she lost in the Contenders Bracket.” Thus, Kuhn declared the stairstep games “null and void” and instructed the bowlers to start over using the non-TV format.
It’s true that Kreg had two losses, but her second loss was to Williford. Shouldn’t that match have been part of the Friday finals?
According to Kuhn, “There was confusion as to whether 'taping' segments of the finals was considered sufficient to use the TV format.” She also said “a number of bowlers questioned whether the format should have been stepladder due to the fact that some of the finals would be taped to be aired in segments on ESPN2 during the Queens telecast.”
One of those bowlers who questioned the format was Reichley, who was one of the top 16 finalists.
“I spoke with Ruth,” said Reichley, “I simply pointed out to her that if the TV-format finals was going to be used, then the rules say three bowlers should participate.” Apparently Williams agreed, because she then told Kreg, who had already packed away her equipment, to get ready to bowl in the finals. Perhaps she thought, and others agreed, that the match that should have been declared “null and void” was the Thursday match between Williford and Kreg. In effect, that is what her ruling did.
Another person with questions was Barbara Chrisman, co-owner of tournament sponsor Storm Bowling Products. Let’s hope this incident doesn’t cause Storm to withdraw their support in the future.
Williford and Minton probably didn’t like Williams’ ruling but they accepted it and the "TV format" finals began. In the first game, Kreg defeated Williford 212-172. She then defeated Minton. The final game score was 213-197.
At that point Kuhn and other WIBC executives, who apparently arrived sometime after the finals began, got involved, and the “null and void” ruling was made in a meeting held by Kuhn. Starting over, Williford defeated Minton in the first three game match 641-605. In the second match, two emotionally and physically drained players struggled to a 523-516 victory for Minton.
Finally, it was over. But is it really?
I had the privilege of meeting Marilyn Kreg and her husband, Art, in April of this year when Marilyn was bowling in Jeanette Robinson’s Golden Ladies Classic Tournament in Las Vegas (she won this event in 1992 and finished fifth this year).
I noticed Kreg because her bowling style is near flawless. It is easy to see how she has remained competitive for so long. When I called her about the Senior Queens, she was obviously very disappointed at what happened, but not one to "rock the boat" too much. In fact, she wasn’t one of the players who questioned the non-TV format ruling on Friday morning. She did send an “informal complaint” letter to WIBC.
Kreg questioned the "non-TV" format ruling before the match with Williford on Thursday. “I was under the impression, as were other bowlers, that the format was to be the TV format,” she said. However, when she was told the format was non-TV; she accepted the ruling. She then lost the match to Williford and was proud that in her mid-60s, she was able to finish third in this prestigious event.
“I came in Friday morning to get my third place check,” said Kreg. “I was dressed to travel, and our plan was to watch the finals and then leave for a trip to Key West.”
Ruth Williams interrupted Kreg’s travel plans by telling her they were changing to the TV format, and asked her to get ready to bowl. Within 15 minutes, Kreg changed clothes and Art retrieved her equipment from their minivan. A while later, she was the WIBC Senior Queens Champion ... and then it was taken away.
“There is no way for me to explain the range of emotions that you feel at a time like this,” she said. “I was, and still am, stunned at the ability of tournament officials to randomly change the format.”
The mild-mannered Kreg is usually not one to question officials decisions, but in her letter to WIBC, she does point out the inconsistencies demonstrated in the Senior Queens. Kreg has questions and so do many others.
"Ms. Kuhn got involved and showed her leadership and statesmanship a little too late,” said Kreg. “Why is that considered leadership? Where was she when the decision was made to change the format again and again? Why wasn’t the match stopped if she realized it was a mistake?”
Good questions. Kuhn defended her decision not to stop the matches.
“First, by the time we sorted everything out and determined how to correct the situation, the final game was nearly over,” she said. Another part of her answer suggests the possibility that this still may not be over. “By declaring those games bowled null and void and having another match under the rules that should have governed the finals, we had something to compare with in the unlikely event a wrong decision was made and we had to use the original match to determine the winner. It was like bowling a provisional game.”
Does this mean that if Marilyn Kreg files a formal protest or lawsuit over the results that some ruling body or court could reverse the outcome and declare her the champion? Because of the small amount of money involved and the integrity of the parties involved, it’s unlikely this will go any further, but stranger things have happened.
When I spoke with Fran Minton by phone, she said, “I felt terrible for Marilyn, but I was shocked when they said they were changing the finals format. Of course, it turned out great for me, but it could have been the other way around.” The victory adds to a great year for Minton. In January, she won the Texas Senior Queens.
Perhaps the most important question that needs to be answered is, Where is the final authority in a WIBC tournament, or any bowling tournament, or any sport?
I have always believed that the tournament director was the final authority in any event. When executives and administrators get involved, it usually means trouble. In baseball, the umpire is the final say—right or wrong. It’s that way in all sports. That is why the NFL has instant replay—to help the referees make tough calls on the field. I don’t recall ever hearing of an incident in any sport where an executive of the organization stepped in and reversed the decision of an official during the event. The officials on the field (or the lanes) must be given the authority to do their jobs. If mistakes are made, protests can be filed afterwards. This is a sacred rule to preserve the integrity of any event.
Finally, "almost" Queens champion Marilyn Kreg said, “I have been bowling competitively for 52 years. My goals were always clear: to compete in a fair and dignified manner, and accept decision made by tournament officials, and to bowl to the best of my ability. The rules of WIBC should be such that this blatant abuse of interpretation and power should never be allowed to occur. It is my sincere hope that some of these issues can be remedied and the Senior Queens can continue for many years of success and joy of good clean competition.”
I asked Roseann Kuhn if WIBC would compensate Marilyn Kreg in any way to ease her distress. Kuhn said, “I don’t believe you can put a price tag on what happened. And, I don’t think it was the money but the prestige of winning this championship. It would be very difficult to compensate someone for not receiving a championship they thought they earned. You have no idea how unhappy WIBC was/is over what happened, and unfortunately, someone was hurt by it. I still believe that regardless of that, we still had no alternative but to make the decision we made; otherwise, the consequences would have been much worse.”
Perhaps, or maybe the same with the names reversed. Maybe WIBC can just put an asterisk next to the 2001 title, and give Marilyn Kreg (or maybe all three finalists) a free entry into next year’s event, or declare co-champions?
No matter what happens, winning a big title like this should be a glorious experience, and because of the blunders made by WIBC, these women were denied the joy of victory, and that’s a shame.
Jim Goodwin, a BWAA director and LPBT's regional program director, is the award-winning editor/publisher of Stars & Strikes, in which the preceding originally appeared. Subscription rates are $20 per year (Pin Point Publishing, 2850 Red Valley Run, Rockwall, Texas 75087 ... voice/fax: 972/771-0069).