Open table after the break...kind of

[SKUNKBOY]

With regard to 8-ball. Here is the WPA rule about the break:

3.3 Break Shot
The following rules apply to the break shot:
(a) The cue ball begins in hand behind the head string.
(b) No ball is called, and the cue ball is not required to hit any particular object ball first.
(c) If the breaker pockets a ball and does not foul, he continues at the table, and the table remains open. (See 3.4 Open Table / Choosing Groups.)
(d) If no object ball is pocketed, at least four object balls must be driven to one or more rails, or the shot results in an illegal break, and the incoming player has the option of

(1) accepting the table in position, or
(2) re-racking and breaking, or
(3) re-racking and allowing the offending player to break again.

(e) Pocketing the eight ball on a legal break shot is not a foul. If the eight ball is pocketed, the breaker has the option of

(1) re-spotting the eight ball and accepting the balls in position, or
(2) re-breaking.

(f) If the breaker pockets the eight ball and scratches (see definition 8.6 Scratch), the opponent has the option of

(1) re-spotting the eight ball and shooting with cue ball in hand behind the head string; or
(2) re-breaking.

(g) If any object ball is driven off the table on a break shot, it is a foul; such balls remain out of play (except the eight ball which is re-spotted); and the incoming player has the option of

(1) accepting the table in position, or
(2) taking cue ball in hand behind the head string.

(h) If the breaker fouls in any manner not listed above, the following player has the option of

(1) accepting the balls in position, or
(2) taking cue ball in hand behind the head string.



My senerio...a guy takes his beak shot, mis cues, doesn't hit the rack and the cue ball comes to rest behind the headstring. An obvious foul and, as explained pretty clearly in Rule 3.3, the incoming player has three choices.

OK, follow me so far? it's pretty straight forward and no argument so far.

Now, the incoming player sees the position of the cue ball and does not touch or otherwise move it. He lines up and WHAM...breaks the rack to smithereens and makes two balls in each suit. Get ready...here's my question:

Is it now the original breakers shot since no ball was called? Think about it...

I know, I know, the incoming player has the choice to break the rack himself...but he did not elect to re rack or move the cue ball as anyone might expect to do if they were going to break a rack in this sinerio. And he did not declare he was breaking again. I think it could be assumed that he opted for option 1 "accepted the table in position".

I know it is pretty far fetched, but it nearly happened last night. The incoming player did actually move the cue ball but did not re rack. It was assumed he was re breaking. I just happened to think of my particular sinerio and asked a couple guys there for their opinion...one of which was a VNEA referee and no one could give me a definative answer.

I thought I might be able to get one here. I kow everybody is going to form their own opinion and that's fine. I am just hoping that anyone who might KNOW the answer might chime in. If there isn't a true answer, maybe it will create some good theories and we might make some difference in an arguement coming soon to a pool room near you.

L8R...Ken

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Although I'm no ref, I believe since the shooter accepted the balls in position, this is not a re-break and must call a shot.

 

[lorider]

interesting scenario .

well here is my opinion fwiw.

whether he indicated he was breaking or not it is still his shot at the table because under the rules he did make a legal break whether he re racked or moved the cue ball ....or not.

hell i don't know ... but i would give him the break any way.

 

[ChicagoJoe]

I think sportsmanship comes into play here. Unless he's a banger not taking the game seriously at all, I find it hard to believe he'd accept the table position.

 

[SKUNKBOY]

Although I'm no ref, I believe since the shooter accepted the balls in position, this is not a re-break and must call a shot.

Wow, got one of the guys I most wanted to hear from right off the bat. Thanks Jude, I really respect your opinions and advice. That opinion was mine as well. Never seen it, never had the opportunity for that sinerio (except for last night) and probably never will...but I thought it an interesting sinerio for discussion.

Now let's hear from everyone else. I do appreciate everyone else's opinions as well. Let's keep it civil and fun.

L8R...Ken

 

[PETROBOY]

If the rack was undisterbed and the cue ball in the kitchen I would think the other guy was breaking a re rack would only be needed if the balls were moved.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Wow, got one of the guys I most wanted to hear from right off the bat. Thanks Jude, I really respect your opinions and advice. That opinion was mine as well. Never seen it, never had the opportunity for that sinerio (except for last night) and probably never will...but I thought it an interesting sinerio for discussion.

Now let's hear from everyone else. I do appreciate everyone else's opinions as well. Let's keep it civil and fun.

L8R...Ken

The only stipulation I want to make is, usually accepting the balls in position happens after a weak break. I don't think I've ever seen it occur when the breaker missed the entire rack. Like, in my world, this would be an automatic re-break situation but according to the rules, the incoming playing actually can accept the table as-is. But, in doing so, he's no longer breaking.

 

[hang-the-9]

This is one of those things that probably will go for a re-rack and a re-break by the guy that originally mis-cued. In your situation though you said the guy moved the ball before hitting the rack, that is fairly clearly a break shot, even if he did not touch the rack. I mean why whould he if it was not hit.

In the theoretical scenario you put forth where the guy just smashed the rack from where the ball was, I would have to lean towards the fact that it was a break shot and not a "shot" shot even if there was no clear indication from the player.

It is similar to playing called shot and the guy banks the ball off one rail into an obvious pocket without saying a word. Only a jerk would start arguing that it was not a called shot because there was really the only obvious way to play that shot. I've let kick shots go as an "obvious" shot if someone did not call them if it was clear that the ball had a chance of going into that pocket off a kick, even if the player did not actually state the intention to pocket the ball. You have a ball a few inches from a pocket, guy kicks it in, where else was the aimed shot? Clearly it was where it went, it did not hit the ball then bank the ball 2 rails into a pocket, it was an obvious result of a true attempt at a shot.

The ruling for a ref may be tougher to make though because you have to weigh both the intention of the player (verbalized or not) and the perception of the opponent who argues the shot. If I was the ref it would sure seem like a break shot in both cases, if the cue ball was moved or not, even though in the case where the cueball was not moved, there is wiggle room. But as I said before, in an honorable called shot game, I'd see it as a break.

 

[hang-the-9]

Although I'm no ref, I believe since the shooter accepted the balls in position, this is not a re-break and must call a shot.

It could also mean that he just felt where the ball landed was just fine for the break.

There were times when I had ball in hand due to a foul but the cueball was pretty much where I would have put it anyway so I just shot it from where it was.

If the shooter knew he had to call a ball, I don't see how he would have just smashed the rack unless he was doing so as an opening break shot.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

This is one of those things that probably will go for a re-rack and a re-break by the guy that originally mis-cued. In your situation though you said the guy moved the ball before hitting the rack, that is fairly clearly a break shot, even if he did not touch the rack. I mean why whould he if it was not hit.

In the theoretical scenario you put forth where the guy just smashed the rack from where the ball was, I would have to lean towards the fact that it was a break shot and not a "shot" shot even if there was no clear indication from the player.

It is similar to playing called shot and the guy banks the ball off one rail into an obvious pocket without saying a word. Only a jerk would start arguing that it was not a called shot because there was really the only obvious way to play that shot. I've let kick shots go as an "obvious" shot if someone did not call them if it was clear that the ball had a chance of going into that pocket off a kick, even if the player did not actually state the intention to pocket the ball. You have a ball a few inches from a pocket, guy kicks it in, where else was the aimed shot? Clearly it was where it went, it did not hit the ball then bank the ball 2 rails into a pocket, it was an obvious result of a true attempt at a shot.

The ruling for a ref may be tougher to make though because you have to weigh both the intention of the player (verbalized or not) and the perception of the opponent who argues the shot. If I was the ref it would sure seem like a break shot in both cases, if the cue ball was moved or not, even though in the case where the cueball was not moved, there is wiggle room. But as I said before, in an honorable called shot game, I'd see it as a break.

I see your point. If the cueball came to rest in the kitchen, he could theoretically be breaking and coincidentally, the cueball just happened to come to rest at his favorite break spot. On the other hand, if he broke from a foot away, this is clearly no longer "the break".

 

[bdorman]

Couldn't the second shooter claim there was a foul on the break and he was choosing the option of re-racking and breaking himself (he gets to choose who breaks).

He's not accepting the table as is, he's breaking.

 

[hang-the-9]

I see your point. If the cueball came to rest in the kitchen, he could theoretically be breaking and coincidentally, the cueball just happened to come to rest at his favorite break spot. On the other hand, if he broke from a foot away, this is clearly no longer "the break".

Yes, the OP stated "came to rest behind the headstring" so OK to break from there.

If it was in any other place, it was a shot for sure since you can't break from in front of the headstring.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Yes, the OP stated "came to rest behind the headstring" so OK to break from there.

If it was in any other place, it was a shot for sure since you can't break from in front of the headstring.

Yes, first sentence. It's no wonder I missed that point. I think it's a shitty predicament that will end-up being a break. In general, rules usually favor the shooter and the shooter didn't make any indication he was accepting the table as is. As the shooter, he should have done more to protect himself. As the opponent, you have the right to question what happened. I don't think the rules sway a referee one way or another but I'd be surprised if this wasn't ruled a break.

 

[SeanChamp]

The first shooter never completed a break shot, and should have shot again. He didn't and either verbally or non verbally for whatever reason in his head gave the opening break shot to the 2nd shooter, who then did complete a break shot from behind the headstring and made two of each and now has an open table.

Rule 3.3 b - Says to me that although no particlular ball has to be hit first, A BALL has to be hit.
(b) No ball is called, and the cue ball is not required to hit any particular object ball first.

 

[PETROBOY]

8.2 Shot
A shot begins when the tip contacts the cue ball due to a forward stroke motion of the cue stick. A shot ends when all balls in play have stopped moving and spinning. A shot is said to be legal if the shooter did not foul during the shot.

The player took his Shot and did not drive 4 balls to the rail hence the incoming player has the options to accept as is, re rack and break himself or re rack and let offending player break,

 

[hang-the-9]

The first shooter never completed a break shot, and should have shot again. He didn't and either verbally or non verbally for whatever reason in his head gave the opening break shot to the 2nd shooter, who then did complete a break shot from behind the headstring and made two of each and now has an open table.

Rule 3.3 b - Says to me that although no particlular ball has to be hit first, A BALL has to be hit.
(b) No ball is called, and the cue ball is not required to hit any particular object ball first.

If you whiff on the break (miscue and totally miss the rack or something), you don't get a "do-over", the opponent gets the break, or can make the breaker break again. The guy that missed the rack should not have shot again unless the other player told him to.

 

[CreeDo]

In a perfect world, the rules would never require you to guess a shooter's intentions.
We're not mindreaders. That's why you're asked to call non-obvious shots.
This is one of those unfortunate exceptions where you must guess.

You think ask "why must you guess? Why can't I just pick the interpretation I want?"

• Because nothing in the rules states you must declare if you decided on option (1), (2), or (3).
• Because it's unsportsmanlike to just choose an interpretation that benefits one player over the other.
• Because common sense & common decency.

So, there are many ways to figure out which option (1,2, or 3) that the player wanted.
- You could just ask him.
- You could look at the evidence: it was hit hard like a break. If he were playing a specific
shot, he would have called it, because nobody could consider it obvious. And I bet he kept
shooting as if it were a break shot.

The ONLY tiny bit of evidence that it wasn't a break, is that he didn't move the cue ball.
But if it's obviously his like a break, you can't choose to interpret it as an uncalled shot
based on that technicality, because it's possible the ball came to rest in his favorite breaking spot,
and no rule requires him to loudly announce "I'm breaking now!".

It's kinda tough to fade, when players look for unwritten loopholes in the rules so they can
create a foul out of thin air (or weasel out of one).

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

In a perfect world, the rules would never require you to guess a shooter's intentions.
We're not mindreaders. That's why you're asked to call non-obvious shots.
This is one of those unfortunate exceptions where you must guess.

You think ask "why must you guess? Why can't I just pick the interpretation I want?"

• Because nothing in the rules states you must declare if you decided on option (1), (2), or (3).
• Because it's unsportsmanlike to just choose an interpretation that benefits one player over the other.
• Because common sense & common decency.

So, there are many ways to figure out which option (1,2, or 3) that the player wanted.
- You could just ask him.
- You could look at the evidence: it was hit hard like a break. If he were playing a specific
shot, he would have called it, because nobody could consider it obvious. And I bet he kept
shooting as if it were a break shot.

The ONLY tiny bit of evidence that it wasn't a break, is that he didn't move the cue ball.
But if it's obviously his like a break, you can't choose to interpret it as an uncalled shot
based on that technicality, because it's possible the ball came to rest in his favorite breaking spot,
and no rule requires him to loudly announce "I'm breaking now!".

It's kinda tough to fade, when players look for unwritten loopholes in the rules so they can
create a foul out of thin air (or weasel out of one).

I agree with everything you're saying. The more I thought about it, the less convinced I was that I could predict how a ref would handle it. I can see myself convincing a ref I was right from both perspectives here. The shooter failed to do enough to protect themselves and opened this can of worms. The sitting player has every right to question whether or not it was an actual re-break.

As a player, you should approach a match from a defensive perspective, "How can I make sure my play doesn't warrant a ruling?" Now, this isn't always possible but in general, it's a good perspective to have.

I was guilty of this a few years back when I pocketed an off-angle combination on an obvious, but uncalled safety (playing 8-ball). My opponent wanted me to shoot again but the rules stated that all combinations must be verbally called. We brought over a ref who ruled in my favor but I received a warning to call my safeties. The ref was right. It's an argument I could have avoided by simply calling safe. I got away with it but I didn't have to. The same thing applies here. The breaker should have done something to illustrate he was clearly breaking.

 

[JeremiahGage]

I believe these types of situations are why the BCAPL took out the option to accept the table in position. Here is a snippet from the rulebook:

3. If your break is illegal, with or without a foul, your inning ends. Your opponent may:

a. re-rack the balls and break;
b. require you to re-rack the balls and break again;
c. (deleted);
d. (deleted).

The game cannot continue until there is a legal break. If the break is illegal and there is
also a foul on the illegal break, the illegal break takes precedence and you must choose
either option (a) or (b) above.

http://www.playbca.com/downloads/rulebook/completerulebook.aspx