You Be the Judge

oneballeddie

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here's a situation I saw at today's BCA:

Opponents are trading safeties waiting for a shot opportunity. Opponent A's 14-ball is tieing up the left hand corner pocket and Opponent B is shooting his 2-ball on the foot rail toward the hanging 14. B makes no call on the shot before shooting. Here's the layout:

http://CueTable.com/P/?@3AIDF4BFdR3EWeA1FCeX3GGog3HJJW1LJRC4Nali1OCXw3PFch@

The 2-ball follows the 14 into the pocket. Opponent A gets up to shoot thinking it was a safety but B claims it is his shot since the ball went into the hole he was shooting it into.

Who's shot is it?
 
Last edited:

shag_fu

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Somthing funky happened to your layout. I cant really see. I think its opp b shot still. Unless you call a safety then if you make the ball in the pocket you are shooting at then it is still your shot. If you intend to make the ball as a sefe, it must be called as a safe or you must cont shooting.
 

oneballeddie

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Wei Table

shag_fu said:
Somthing funky happened to your layout. I cant really see. I think its opp b shot still. Unless you call a safety then if you make the ball in the pocket you are shooting at then it is still your shot. If you intend to make the ball as a sefe, it must be called as a safe or you must cont shooting.

The layout didn't come up for me at first either, until I clicked on the window it's in again and waited. Odd ... Let me know if you never get it and I'll redraw it. Thanks for the comment.
 

shag_fu

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I see it now. If I were B then I dont think I would want to continue shooting anyway. A has no safe, or good breakout for the 8ball. This was kind of a bone head move by B. Yeah he could maybe play safe after the shot but he has plenty of balls to hide behind unlike a.
 

Rimpropool

Registered
It is obvious to me that since one-ball eddie's opponent failed to call his
intention of pocketing the 2 ball in the corner pocket protected by the
14 ball he should lose his turn and one-ball eddie should be shooting. 8-ball is a call pocket game except when shot is obvious. This is definitely not an obvious shot. One-ball eddie's opponent should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for this unsportsman like move.
 

oneballeddie

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
How you know OBE = Opponent A?

Rimpropool said:
It is obvious to me that since one-ball eddie's opponent failed to call his
intention of pocketing the 2 ball in the corner pocket protected by the
14 ball he should lose his turn and one-ball eddie should be shooting. 8-ball is a call pocket game except when shot is obvious. This is definitely not an obvious shot. One-ball eddie's opponent should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for this unsportsman like move.

Rimpro -

I tried to present this in neutral language but you are a real Sherlock. Yes, I was Opponent A (otherwise I would be thoroughly ashamed of myself right now), and I got screwed. Here's the rest of the story:

I saw B shooting the combo and never thought to ask him his intent because it was obvious to me that he was playing safe. After he shot the combo he left the table. It was only after I got up and started trying to figure out how to get out of the safe, that he came back to the table and said "Since the 2 ball went in the hole, I think it is still my shot." Furious about this cheap shark move I was momentarily unable to speak. When I regained my composure the obvious conversation then ensued where I said "But you didn't call that shot." He says "It was a two-way shot" (I guess meaning if he liked the next shot he'd take it, if not take the safe?). So I called the Ref over, and this is the part I cannot believe. The ref looked at the shot and awarded B the call! (Actually in chess I think this move gets three !!!) Flabbergasted I asked the ref how he could possibly conclude the shot does not need to be called, and he said "Because that pocket is an obvious pocket for the 2-ball." I then asked to appeal his decision with another referree who trotted over and sealed the deal by backing up the first referee's egregious decision.

I've since talked with that referee without success and also visited the referee's skybox trying to get an understanding. Not one referee I've spoken with will stand up and say the decision was incorrect and you deserve an apology. The best I've gotten is "It was your responsibility to make shooter clarify his shot." Wrong again Ref #3.

If a shot has more than one plausible outcome it is not obvious which of the outcomes the shooter is playing. All but obvious shots must be called. End of story.

Oneball
 

memikey

Never Has Been
Silver Member
oneballeddie said:
...... Not one referee I've spoken with will stand up and say the decision was incorrect and you deserve an apology. The best I've gotten is "It was your responsibility to make shooter clarify his shot." Wrong again Ref #3.

Absolutely Oneballeddie. You might have pointed out to ref #3 that under the rules it was not in any way your RESPONSIBILITY to make the shooter clarify his shot, it was simply your RIGHT to make the shooter clarify his intended ball and pocket if it was unclear to you......BIG DIFFERENCE!

The above, added to the crystal clear rule that all banks or combinations must be called in any case, it is a stonewall bang to rights no brainer that an uncalled pot which involved both a bank and a combination could not signal anything other than end of visit.

The only conceivable circumstances in which it could ever mean otherwise would be if there had been a local rule introduced for that tournament only to say that no balls or pockets required to be 'called'.

Bad luck, you got shafted:(
 

oneballeddie

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
"Not a Combination"

memikey said:
The above, added to the crystal clear rule that all banks or combinations must be called in any case, it is a stonewall bang to rights no brainer that an uncalled pot which involved both a bank and a combination could not signal anything other than end of visit.

I went back later and asked Ref #1 if he knew rule 4.2 that says banks and combinations are considered NOT obvious and special care must be taken to call them. He said (digging his hole deeper) "You go read the rule again, it says kisses and caroms need NOT be called."

The mind is a terrible thing.
 

smoooothstroke

JerLaw
Silver Member
Absolutely the shot should be called if the shooter is to continue shooting,in no way could that shot be considered obvious.
 

stuckart

Paint Dry Watching Champ
Silver Member
I see it both ways. If I was shooting my 2 into the pocket to make yours, and mine went in as well, I would continue shooting, whether I wanted to or not. I would think it was obvious that I was trying to make the 2 in that pocket, else I would have called safe. Mainly because there is a very good chance I'll make my ball as well and wouldn't want to take any chances and get stuck in this situation.

I see where you're coming from as well. And it really comes down to the antics of that particular game/match. You said there were many safeties being played that game. Was your opponent calling Safe out-loud each time?

Unfortunately, for you, this is one of those, Tie goes to the Shooter instances! I would have been P.O.'d as well.
 

oneballeddie

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
stuckart said:
I see it both ways. If I was shooting my 2 into the pocket to make yours, and mine went in as well, I would continue shooting, whether I wanted to or not.

Well, then we would have a foul if you continue shooting while I am getting the ref. There is no room in pool for "seeing it both ways." The rules should be clear. Unfortunately, the BCA Rules remain unclear on this situation - even though they seem to be making some kind of front-page headline "change" this year that says "ALL COMBINATIONS AND BANKS MUST BE CALLED - referee discretion is no longer allowed on considering whether combinations or banks are 'obvious', no matter how obvious they may appear to you..." What's the "change"? That rule was always there.

This "rule change" still does not cut it. The shot in question is a carom shot, and the rules are still fuzzy. It needs to be decided whether the carom is "incidental" or not.

Doesn't everybody know that if you are playing the force-follow shot where your ball follows opponent's ball into the hole, then you have to call your ball into that hole?

Look, BCA, why don't you just clear this up with a simple rule that says "any shot with more than one outcome is not obvious and must be called."
 

oneballeddie

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
stuckart said:
I see it both ways. If I was shooting my 2 into the pocket to make yours, and mine went in as well, I would continue shooting, whether I wanted to or not. I would think it was obvious that I was trying to make the 2 in that pocket, else I would have called safe.

Well, congratulations. You see it the same way that Opponent B and the two wrong refs saw it. If you are into shooting "two-way" shots without calling them, what can I say to change your mind?

stuckart said:
I see it both ways. If I was shooting my 2 into the pocket to make yours, and mine went in as well, I would continue shooting, whether I wanted to or not.

If you continue shooting while I am getting the ref I think that is a foul.

There is no room in pool for "seeing it both ways." The rules should be clear. Unfortunately, the BCA Rules remain unclear on this situation - even though they seem to be making some kind of front-page headline "change" this year that says "ALL COMBINATIONS AND BANKS MUST BE CALLED - referee discretion is no longer allowed on considering whether combinations or banks are 'obvious', no matter how obvious they may appear to you..." What's the change? That rule was always there.

This "rule change" still does not address this situation. The shot in question is a carom shot, and the rules are still fuzzy. It now needs to be decided whether the carom is "incidental" or not.

Doesn't everybody know that if you are playing the force-follow shot where your ball follows opponent's ball into the hole, then you have to call your ball into that hole?

Look, BCA, why don't you just clear this up with a simple rule that says "any shot with more than one plausible outcome is not obvious and must be called."

Incidentally, to the three wrong refs ( I say three because Opponent B himself was/is a BCA Certified ref), here's how YOUR rule book defines an obvious shot.

p12. "Obvious Shot. A shot in which the non-shooting player has no doubt as to which object ball is being played and which pocket is intended to receive it." That means it's my call as to whether or not I knew what you were doing.
 
Last edited:

ne14tennis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I see it your way Eddie

I am a BCA National Referee but I didn't work them this year. Maybe I should have.

Since the pocket is blocked, it is NOT a staright in shot, but it is obvious he is going for that pocket .

In his mind it was a 2 way shot if he liked it he was going to continue shooting, if not he was going to claim he called a safety.

It is HIS responsibility to make YOU aware that he was playing safe. Since he didn't and the ball went in....it was his turn.

And, yes it is a big foul if he continued to shoot while you waited for a Ref.

I don't see a big problem with what he did? That he went by his chair and then came back to the table may have been a shark move or maybe he just doesn't know the rules

I would have called a ref over if he had tried to say it was a safety
 
Last edited:

oneballeddie

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
ne14tennis said:
I am a BCA National Referee but I didn't work them this year. Maybe I should have.
no comment.
Since the pocket is blocked, it is NOT a staright in shot, but it is obvious he is going for that pocket .

Obvious to whom? Apparently all BCA referees think the same way:

"The corner pocket is the obvious hole for the 2-ball.
Therefore, it is obvious shooter is playing the 2-ball in the corner."

This logic is as ridiculous as:

"Disneyland is an obvious place for a vacation.
Therefore, you are going to Disneyland on your vacation."

In his mind it was a 2 way shot if he liked it he was going to continue shooting, if not he was going to claim he called a safety.

It is HIS responsibility to make YOU aware that he was playing safe.

Why does he have to call "safe" but not "2-ball in the corner"? Both are legitimate outcomes. Playing safe in this situation was a lot more obvious to me than trying to run out starting with a force follow carom that may or may not go.

Since he didn't and the ball went in....it was his turn.

Tell you what, since all BCA refs seem to see it this same way, how about putting it in the rule book: "Any ball being shot toward an obvious hole is assumed to be a called shot whether called or not. Only safes, combinations and banks must be called in advance. Force-following a ball into a hole on top of an opponent's ball is obvious." Then we can all proceed with the same set of assumptions.

I don't see a big problem with what he did?

That's a problem.
 

ne14tennis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What's also obvious

I take it you lost this match?

Isn't that obvious too? If you won, this would be a non-issue.

Although the referee may not have stated his answer in the best way......what transpired (as you described it) was legal.

You didn't like the 1st Refs decision so you get a second, then a third, then you try the Referees table.

The way it was explained made you angry and that's why you want to blame someone for your misfortune.
 

oneballeddie

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Denouement

I take it you lost this match?

Isn't that obvious too? If you won, this would be a non-issue.

Although the referee may not have stated his answer in the best way......what transpired (as you described it) was legal.

You didn't like the 1st Refs decision so you get a second, then a third, then you try the Referees table.

The way it was explained made you angry and that's why you want to blame someone for your misfortune.

Yes, you are correct except for your belief the shot was legal. The shot was illegal then and is illegal now. If you still disagree ask Bill Stock.

Actually what made me angry was that the refs did not seem to understand how the game is supposed to be played and the rule book was no help at the time.

Happily the rules have been updated to specifically address this kind of situation:

Player A has solids. Player A, without calling the shot, shoots the 6-ball into the 12, pocketing the 6-ball after the 12-ball.
Ruling: Player A’s inning ends. Player B accepts the table in position.
Discussion: This type of shot is included in the definition of “Combination”, and therefore must be called.
This is not an obvious shot. The action between the 6-ball and 12-ball is not an incidental kiss under Rule 1.17.1. When a ball is blocking the mouth of a pocket such that another ball cannot enter that pocket without the possibility of pocketing the blocking ball first: if a player intends to pocket a ball other than the blocking ball in that pocket then the shot is not obvious, and must be called. Note that this is not the same type of shot as in Figure 10-3, where there is a clear possibility of pocketing the called ball without pocketing the other ball.
In addition, Player A could have intended to continue shooting or may have been attempting a safety. Without the requirement to call the shot, Player A could claim either result after the shot depending on whether the position after the shot favored Player A or Player B. With two different outcomes possible under the rules from the same shot, Player A must declare their intentions before the shot.


Source: Official BCA 8 Ball Rules pp. 64-65
 

tatcat2000

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Sorry I never got back to you Eddie - I was tracking this thread for a while and just waiting for the 2009 edition to come out before commenting, but it got away from me. My bad.

Happily the rules have been updated to specifically address this kind of situation.

And they remain the same in the 2012-2014 edition. Just a note to wrap up the discussion though. Although the ruling itself has not changed and will not change, and though the situation Eddie quoted is still in the rules (Applied Ruling for "Combination Shot", Situation 1), the extended discussion Eddie specifically quoted has been removed from the book for brevity. Again, nothing has changed: it's just that the situation, ruling and diagram were deemed to be clear enough, without the need for the extended discussion.

Buddy
 

mooseman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not exactly sure why the BCAPL just doesn't keep 8-ball as a call shot game regardless of OBVIOUS shots.

Call your OB and the pocket PERIOD. This would take all ambiguity out.

As soon as you don't have to call obvious shots leads to problems such as this........
 
Top