Another what's the rule question.

F

Fenwick

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Playing a game yesterday I was on my second foul after scratching. My opponent has ball in hand in the kitchen.

Knowing I'm on 2 he nudges the ball but it never left the kitchen; never passes the line.

I've never had this happen before so we just called it a foul. In a match or tournament what would the ruling be?
 
your opponet must reshoot and make a forward pass over the line.Since his first attempt did not cross the line it is not considered a shot,attempt,or a foul.Ask yourself this question if it were legal why wouldnt he just put the ball on the back rail and freeze you to the backrail.It must move forward and over the line.

Bobby Chamberlain
 
wrldpro said:
your opponet must reshoot and make a forward pass over the line.Since his first attempt did not cross the line it is not considered a shot,attempt,or a foul.Ask yourself this question if it were legal why wouldnt he just put the ball on the back rail and freeze you to the backrail.It must move forward and over the line.

Bobby Chamberlain
Click to expand...

Bobby, what you say is the way I remembered the rules, too. But I just went to the WPA rules for confirmation and found something different. If I read it correctly, the player who shot without crossing the line committed a foul. But in this instance the cue ball does not remain in place. Instead, it is ball in hand behind the head string for the other player.

4.9 Standard Fouls
If the shooter commits a standard foul, a point is subtracted from his score, balls are spotted as necessary, and play passes to his opponent. The cue ball remains in position except as noted below.

The following are standard fouls at 14.1:
...
6.11 Bad Play from Behind the Head String For a foul under the second paragraph of 6.11, the cue ball is in hand behind the head string for the incoming player.
...

6.11 Bad Play from Behind the Head String
When the cue ball is in hand behind the head string, and the first ball the cue ball contacts is also behind the head string, the shot is a foul unless the cue ball crosses the head string before that contact. If such a shot is intentional, it is unsportsmanlike conduct.
The cue ball must either cross the head string or contact a ball in front of or on the head string or the shot is a foul, and the cue ball is in hand for the following player according to the rules of the specific game.​
 
You can also see an example of this in the Crane/Balsis video. After a scratch by Crane on an attempted break shot, Balsis places the cue ball on/near the head spot and plays to the side rail past the headstring, but with extreme left-hand english on the cue ball to bring it back into the kitchen and freeze Crane to the top rail.
 
If they weren't obligated to shoot out of the kitchen, they would just place the CB in the pocket & freeze it to the rail...effectively corner-hooking you.
 
This was a foul by your opponent and is also considered unsportsmanlike conduct in a tournament, which could assess any penalty the ref desires.
 
... considered unsportsmanlike conduct in a tournament, which could assess any penalty the ref desires.
Click to expand...
Because the rules specifically cover this situation and specify a particular penalty, I think there is no reason to call unsportsmanlike conduct. The player who committed the foul might express outrage out of surprise, ignorance and disrespect, and maybe you could ding him for USLC then.

The rules are HERE. They changed in January 2008. Anyone who hasn't read the rules since then may want to give it a try. Be sure to look over the Regulations as well.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Because the rules specifically cover this situation and specify a particular penalty, I think there is no reason to call unsportsmanlike conduct. The player who committed the foul might express outrage out of surprise, ignorance and disrespect, and maybe you could ding him for USLC then.

The rules are HERE. They changed in January 2008. Anyone who hasn't read the rules since then may want to give it a try. Be sure to look over the Regulations as well.
Click to expand...

When I read the post I thought it said he nudged a ball, which would have been ruled:

6.11 Bad Play from Behind the Head String
When the cue ball is in hand behind the head string, and the first ball the cue ball contacts is also behind the head string, the shot is a foul unless the cue ball crosses the head string before that contact. If such a shot is intentional, it is unsportsmanlike conduct.
The cue ball must either cross the head string or contact a ball in front of or on the head string or the shot is a foul, and the cue ball is in hand for the following player according to the rules of the specific game.

But after reading it again I see he meant just nudging the cue ball, which would be just a foul, I agree.
 
selftaut said:
... But after reading it again I see he meant just nudging the cue ball, which would be just a foul, I agree.
Click to expand...

Kevin, I agree it's a foul, but I think in this instance the cue ball does not remain in place. Instead, it is ball in hand behind the head string for the other player. See post #3 above.
 
Winston846 said:
You can also see an example of this in the Crane/Balsis video. After a scratch by Crane on an attempted break shot, Balsis places the cue ball on/near the head spot and plays to the side rail past the headstring, but with extreme left-hand english on the cue ball to bring it back into the kitchen and freeze Crane to the top rail.
Click to expand...

No, this is different. This is a legitimate intentional foul, with the cue ball remaining in place for the incoming player. In the situation from the OP, it becomes ball in hand for the opponent (in the kitchen), because the first player's cue ball did not leave the kitchen.
 
My thinking was and is he fouled. That I knew. Next time if there is one I'll take ball in hand in the kitchen. We'll straighten this out so it doesn't happen again. It wasn't a big deal just wanted to know the correct ruling.

Thanks everyone.
 
AtLarge said:
No, this is different. This is a legitimate intentional foul, with the cue ball remaining in place for the incoming player. In the situation from the OP, it becomes ball in hand for the opponent (in the kitchen), because the first player's cue ball did not leave the kitchen.
Click to expand...

The OP fouled (he says he scratched, which I'm assuming is a pocket scratch) and his opponent then just nudged the cue ball in the kitchen. In the video, Crane fouls (pocket scratch) and Balsis has BIH in the kitchen and plays a "correct" intentional foul out past the headstring and bringing the cue ball back into the kitchen with english. Had Balsis just nudged the cue ball in the kitchen, the situation would have been identical. But instead, he played it the correct way.
 
Winston846 said:
The OP fouled (he says he scratched, which I'm assuming is a pocket scratch) and his opponent then just nudged the cue ball in the kitchen. In the video, Crane fouls (pocket scratch) and Balsis has BIH in the kitchen and plays a "correct" intentional foul out past the headstring and bringing the cue ball back into the kitchen with english. Had Balsis just nudged the cue ball in the kitchen, the situation would have been identical. But instead, he played it the correct way.
Click to expand...
Although most of the top players from that era played the two-cushion lag: shoot from about a diamond from the cushion on the head string, just miss the farthest ball in the 15-ball rack, and hit foot rail, side rail and come back into the kitchen to freeze to the middle of the head rail.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Although most of the top players from that era played the two-cushion lag: shoot from about a diamond from the cushion on the head string, just miss the farthest ball in the 15-ball rack, and hit foot rail, side rail and come back into the kitchen to freeze to the middle of the head rail.
Click to expand...

Bob,

I guess mentally i am from the same era, because that what i try to accomplish on that shot....too bad i am rarely successful on freezing it there !!

-Steve
 
Bob Jewett said:
Although most of the top players from that era played the two-cushion lag: shoot from about a diamond from the cushion on the head string, just miss the farthest ball in the 15-ball rack, and hit foot rail, side rail and come back into the kitchen to freeze to the middle of the head rail.
Click to expand...

I personally seem to have more success with the Balsis method. I have also seen the method you mention, but my speed control is nowhere near good enough (I have a hard enough time freezing a 1-cushion lag! :grin:). While there really is no "correct" method (one better than the other), what I meant by "correct" in the previous post was rules-related. He played a "correct" intentional foul in that the cue ball left the kitchen before returning.
 
We had a situation at the Senior European Championships 14.1 event a couple of weeks ago when a player intentionally played the cueball towards the head cushion and didn't even try to shoot over the kitchen line and I happened to be a referee in that area. According to the rules, it's always an unsportsmanlike conduct and after a brief conversation with the head referee, he told me that if the act is intentional, it's always automatically -15 points for the shooter and he/she will play the break shot again. The player didn't know this rule and was quite unhappy with the decision but I told him it's the same ruling for everyone at the EC. The first paragraph in the rules says that the responsibility of knowing the rules is always on the player. Felt a bit sorry for him, but that's how this particular rule is being enforced in the European Championships. He was leading 97-40 in a race to 100 and ended up losing the match.

I know this may seem a bit harsh but we refs have to be consistent on our calls and this is how this particular rule is being interpreted here. Of course on national level tournaments the penalty might be only a warning, as it's in the rules that the referee has the dicretion for the penalty.
 
mjantti said:
We had a situation at the Senior European Championships 14.1 event a couple of weeks ago when a player intentionally played the cueball towards the head cushion and didn't even try to shoot over the kitchen line and I happened to be a referee in that area. According to the rules, it's always an unsportsmanlike conduct and after a brief conversation with the head referee, he told me that if the act is intentional, it's always automatically -15 points for the shooter and he/she will play the break shot again. ...
Click to expand...
While this rule may have been added for your competitions, it doesn't seem to be part of Rule 6.11. The only thing that would have made it unsportsmanlike would be if he had intentionally played on an object ball behind the line. Or if the shooter is hoping that his opponent does not know the rule and there is no referee present and he is trying to cheat his opponent, but that is a hard call to make.

Nudging the cue ball behind the line without hitting anything or crossing the line is equivalent in 14.1 to playing the cue ball directly into a side pocket, according to the present wording of 6.11.

When I have cue ball in hand after a scratch, I sometimes place the cue ball near the head spot and shoot very softly to make the cue ball just barely cross the line. By your rules, if I fail to cross the line, would I lose an additional 15?
 
Bob Jewett said:
While this rule may have been added for your competitions, it doesn't seem to be part of Rule 6.11. The only thing that would have made it unsportsmanlike would be if he had intentionally played on an object ball behind the line. Or if the shooter is hoping that his opponent does not know the rule and there is no referee present and he is trying to cheat his opponent, but that is a hard call to make.

Nudging the cue ball behind the line without hitting anything or crossing the line is equivalent in 14.1 to playing the cue ball directly into a side pocket, according to the present wording of 6.11.

When I have cue ball in hand after a scratch, I sometimes place the cue ball near the head spot and shoot very softly to make the cue ball just barely cross the line. By your rules, if I fail to cross the line, would I lose an additional 15?
Click to expand...

I disagree on your first part (bolded). It's obviously unsportsmanlike conduct if you for instance freeze the cueball to the jaw of either head corner pockets. The wording on the rule 6.11 does not cover all the unsportsmanlike shots you can make, because it mentions the object ball. It's also clearly an unsportsmanlike conduct if you do not try to shoot over the kitchen line. That is mentioned in the second paragraph of that rule, but it doesn't mean it cannot be an unsportsmanlike conduct. I'd put emphasis on the word intentional here. Pretty much every intentional shot that you do not try to shoot over the kitchen line according to the rules can and should be interpreted as unsportsmanlike conduct.

On your second question (bolded) I wouldn't call that an unsportsmanlike conduct. It's obvious that you are trying to nudge the cueball over the kitchen line and not intentionally trying to avoid shooting over it.

And it's not my rule, it's how EPBF interpret this (poorly written) rule in the European Championships. I just enforce it as a referee. Though, it is on my discretion if a foul shot concerning the kitchen line was done intentionally or not. And you know that EPBF has one former WPA official who went through with the whole process of creating these new rules, he's usually giving us refs the idea how to interpret these rules.
 
Last edited:
mjantti said:
I ... It's obviously unsportsmanlike conduct if you for instance freeze the cueball to the jaw of either head corner pockets. ...
Click to expand...
If you shoot that shot, you give up ball in hand behind the line to your opponent. Usually for unsportsmanlike conduct to apply, the player is taking some kind of unfair advantage outside the normal way the game is played. The only advantage he gains, since he is giving up ball in hand behind the line in the kitchen, is that he is not shooting the slightly more difficult shot to accomplish the same result: shoot the cue ball into a side or foot pocket.

The main point of adding the "cue ball remains in hand for the incoming player" rule was to prevent the jaw freeze as a useful strategy.

It is almost time to begin revision of the WPA rules for January 2013. Perhaps this is one of the things that needs to be clarified, perhaps in the Regulations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top