IPT Rules - Confirmation of rule 8.0 (Legal shots)

AuntyDan said:

This IPT Rule question was raised on the UK Pro9 ball forums, I figured people here can give a definitive answer. Here's the sitch:

You shoot a ball of your set towards a pocket blocked by a ball from your opponents set, hoping to make both balls in one shot. You make the opponents ball but your ball does not go in. No ball touches a rail during the shot. Is this a foul?

Under BCA rules it is not a foul as rule 4.11 would be satisfied by (1):
LEGAL SHOT On all shots (except on the break and when the table is open), the shooter must hit one of his group of balls first and (1) pocket a numbered ball.

However IPT rule 8 seems to define it as a foul, because making in an opponents ball is not listed as satisfying the requirements for a a legal shot:
8.0 Legal Shot-
A legal shot after the break occurs when:
a. The shooter pockets a legal called ball in the called pocket.

Is this correct? Can you call your opponents ball to avoid this being a foul? Has this come up in the KOTH or any of the qualifying matches yet?

Click to expand...

For that matter, what if it went in the wrong pocket without hitting a rail. For example, you were trying to softly bank it, and it glanced off a ball and went in the side instead of banking and nothing hit a rail?

Cheers,
RC

If it is not a foul to pocket your opponents ball as long as you conatact your ball set first, then it should fulfill the requirments of a legal shot. Otherwise it would be pretty silly. I think it was merely an oversight.

P.S. I actually don't know what I am talking about, but I had to post again so I didn't go to bed tonight with 666 posts

I think it's simply an oversight, to not mention every single possible way.

My assumption was that when not clearly stated, the general rules of billiards that the WPA uses would be refered to.

By the wording of the rule you stated, it seems to refer to a legal shot that allows continuing the visit. If this is not achieved it does not indicate a foul, but end of visit.

Anyway, I've got to read through the rules in a bit more details. Darned if I can make sense of this laying on top of the balls or bumping balls with your hand without being called a foul.

It is not a foul.

Dan, you have specifically stated "A" in the legal shot requirements, but maybe the word "either" is missing from the IPT rules, because there are also B-D, and if a shot matches EITHER one of these, it is a legal shot.

Aunty,


Rule 8 is an "OR" gate not an "AND" gate.

Read all the choices and select the one that fits.

And a pocket is considered a rail.

Jake

nice catch

Yes, it seems that could use a slight revision. A pocketed ball would meet the requirments of a legal shot.

AuntyDan said:

Jake/Daniel, I did not include the rest of the sub-options of rule 8 for clarity as none of the apply in the scenario I am talking about. However if making a ball in the pocket (in this scenario the opponents ball) classifies as a ball hitting a rail after contact with a ball from the correct set then option B would be satisfied and the shot is legal.

Click to expand...

You are correct.

Strange you should mention that scenario because tuesday evening in a game of 8-ball I specifically chose solids because a stripe was in a pocket blocking my solid but I knew I could make it with my solid and if the solid didn't follow it in then I would have my solid blocking the pocket.

But that is common strategy in many of the videos and books on 8-ball.

And yes, I did win the game. Tournament too for that matter.

Jake

jjinfla said:

Strange you should mention that scenario because tuesday evening in a game of 8-ball I specifically chose solids because a stripe was in a pocket blocking my solid but I knew I could make it with my solid and if the solid didn't follow it in then I would have my solid blocking the pocket.

But that is common strategy in many of the videos and books on 8-ball.

And yes, I did win the game. Tournament too for that matter.

Jake

Click to expand...

In this scenario I presume this was not your first shot after the break and you had already legally potted a solid? If not wouldn't the table remain open because you had not potted a called ball to make you on that set?

AuntyDan said:

Yes, it's a common tactic in US/BCA 8 Ball, which is why it seems odd that the IPT rule appeared to make it potentially illegal (If you did not take care to ensure to hit a rail as well as your object ball.)

Interestingly in traditional UK 8 ball it is always a foul to make an opponents ball in any way. This rule combined with smaller, Snooker-style pockets means the game tends to be more protracted and tactical like One-Pocket, with players vying to get their balls hanging over the corner pockets rather than trying to make them in until they have a clear run-out opportunity.

Click to expand...

You may be a little out of touch with all the current rule sets for uk 8 ball as it is certainly not always a foul to make an opponents ball.

Big steps have also been made in recent years to reduce the frequency of the type of protracted tactical play which you describe.This has been achieved via rule changes to the various different rule sets such as the legal potting of your opponents blocking balls and the reduction of the benefits likely to gained by inducing a foul from your opponent thereby discouraging the indiscriminate laying of snookers.It is not unusual for a match between two competent players (not the top echelon) to average only 3/4 minutes per frame and I am absolutely sure you will see no reluctance to attack and attempt early run outs from the converted uk 8 ball players who have joined the IPT Tour

memikey said:

Big steps have also been made in recent years to reduce the frequency of the type of protracted tactical play which you describe.This has been achieved via rule changes to the various different rule sets such as the legal potting of your opponents blocking balls and the reduction of the benefits likely to gained by inducing a foul from your opponent thereby discouraging the indiscriminate laying of snookers.

Click to expand...

Out of curosity, how would you reduce the benefit of inducing a foul from your opponent? Do you no longer award ball in hand?

That's part of it poolboy.There are several different rule sets in use in UK. In one of the most prominently used rulesets the opponent still receives 'two visits' after a foul but the following rules are relevant:-

1. No ball in hand at any time unless you have been snookered by your opponents foul shot.

2. Must pot a ball or cause a ball to touch a cushion every shot ( as in BCA).

3. No "loss of frame" penalty for playing a deliberate foul.

Consequently it's slightly more difficult than before to lay tight snookers in the first place but more importantly,even if you do and if your opponent doesn't like the prospects of the escape attempt,he is very likely to simply deliberately foul/lightly touch the white ball hard up against your ball into such a position that you can neither pot a ball or play towards any badly positioned balls you might have wished to clear.The first visit after your opponents foul is therefore effectively 'wasted'.

The combination of no ball in hand and the above 'legal' deliberate fouling is what I had in mind when suggesting that the benefits of inducing a foul from your opponent are now reduced.If you had ball in hand and/or your opponent had to attempt a legal escape or forfeit the frame the potential benefits of snookering were infinitely greater.The net result is generally more attacking play and a greater tendency to go for early run outs.

Hope this explanation helps.

memikey, thank you for the explanation. I am a big time rules geek and that's why I was wondering. It always amazes me how many rule sets and styles eight ball can be played under.