Opinions on this situation please....
- Thread starter 3andstop
- Start date
Of course this situation is rarely an issue since we are talking about what ... a 64th of an inch or so. The logical point in my mind is that with a half dozen balls surrounding the rack and the player trying to determine if a ball lies in the way of racking, the rack's outline is there to simulate the place the rack lies.
Now it would not be practical, or even possible in some situations to attempt to place the physical rack on the table to specifically see if that 64th of an inch is in play because of all the other interfering balls.
Never the less, a determination must be made now, in order to map out the rest of the rack in your mind.
The logical conclusion is that since the rack line simulates the rack, if it is touching it is in.
Funny how we perceive things differently, but in practical application, I can't image any sense in doing it any other way.
The goal line on a football field is 4 inches thick, but if you just touch the line you are in. You don't have to touch the inside of that line. Think of this the same way, breaking the plane.
It is not practical to draw an actual line UNDER the rack since the rack is in the way, so, in simulating that line by drawing it outside the rack, you simply consider it the rack.
Now it would not be practical, or even possible in some situations to attempt to place the physical rack on the table to specifically see if that 64th of an inch is in play because of all the other interfering balls.
Never the less, a determination must be made now, in order to map out the rest of the rack in your mind.
The logical conclusion is that since the rack line simulates the rack, if it is touching it is in.
Funny how we perceive things differently, but in practical application, I can't image any sense in doing it any other way.
The goal line on a football field is 4 inches thick, but if you just touch the line you are in. You don't have to touch the inside of that line. Think of this the same way, breaking the plane.
It is not practical to draw an actual line UNDER the rack since the rack is in the way, so, in simulating that line by drawing it outside the rack, you simply consider it the rack.
A analogy can be made to the headstring and the kitchen.Behind the line is in the kitchen,on the line is out of the kitchen. Rack outlines are nice,they are
only that-a outline.
If one was to rack the balls by moving the triangle back and fourth,prior to stopping on the spot,many balls could interfere with "racking"!
only that-a outline.
If one was to rack the balls by moving the triangle back and fourth,prior to stopping on the spot,many balls could interfere with "racking"!
---
Analogies are great. They help us reason things out. However, the foul pole in baseball is intentionally positioned within the field of play. Therefore, a ball hitting it is deemed a home run. The distance between the 1 yard line and the leading edge of the goal line in football is 1 yard. The remaining 4 inches of the line is technically within the end zone - therefore breaking the leading plane of the line is a touchdown.
I enjoy spirited debate as much as anyone and would have no problem if my position is proved wrong. At least I'll have learned something. I just didn't understand why the comparison was made between me and someone who has admitted to being a liar, a cheat and who has proven they have no integrity. Sorry for the drama. Just don't want to be put in the same group as that bad apple.
And 14-1StraightMan - if we were playing and it was your break ball on the line, I'd argue that the ball was outside the rack and you'd be able to continue your run. Rules cut both ways.
Now I gotta go. My damned Red Sox are on and they just gave up a run.
Ron F
Analogies are great. They help us reason things out. However, the foul pole in baseball is intentionally positioned within the field of play. Therefore, a ball hitting it is deemed a home run. The distance between the 1 yard line and the leading edge of the goal line in football is 1 yard. The remaining 4 inches of the line is technically within the end zone - therefore breaking the leading plane of the line is a touchdown.
I enjoy spirited debate as much as anyone and would have no problem if my position is proved wrong. At least I'll have learned something. I just didn't understand why the comparison was made between me and someone who has admitted to being a liar, a cheat and who has proven they have no integrity. Sorry for the drama. Just don't want to be put in the same group as that bad apple.
And 14-1StraightMan - if we were playing and it was your break ball on the line, I'd argue that the ball was outside the rack and you'd be able to continue your run. Rules cut both ways.
Now I gotta go. My damned Red Sox are on and they just gave up a run.
Ron F
:thumbup:
Here's the current rule from the WPA web page:My friend and I were playing today, and the inner edge of the 15th ball, if you drew a perpendicular line straight down was clearly touching the line of the rack. It wasn't however inside the line.
Even with the line being thin this ball was just touching it.
What do you rule. Since the line is drawn around the outside of the rack it would clear the rack, but on the other hand it was clearly on the line.
Is the ball in or out? I won't say which I was arguing yet.
...
4.8 Special Racking Situations
When the cue ball or fifteenth object ball interferes with racking fourteen balls for a new rack, the following special rules apply. A ball is considered to interfere with the rack if it is within or overlaps the outline of the rack. The referee will state when asked whether a ball interferes with the rack. ...
I guess you needed a determination on whether there was any overlap of edge of ball and the line. A tool for determining this is a small, accurate cube that can be moved up until it just touches the ball. Then the base of the cube covers all of the line at that point or it does not.When the cue ball or fifteenth object ball interferes with racking fourteen balls for a new rack, the following special rules apply. A ball is considered to interfere with the rack if it is within or overlaps the outline of the rack. The referee will state when asked whether a ball interferes with the rack. ...
There are several wrinkles with this rule:
If you are not using a normal triangle (Magic Rack or similar), you still need to draw an outline. The Sardo rack is unique in that it has only two sides of the triangle. I suppose you had to draw in something appropriate for the back.
In/out will depend on the thickness of the triangle. Diamond triangles are nice and solid, but their points can run into break balls that most triangles permit.
In/out will also depend on how carefully and thinly you draw the outline.
If no line is drawn on the table, the shooter or his opponent may use the triangle to try to estimate in/out, although normally players are not supposed to be messing with the triangle.
If a ball that has been declared as (just) out of the rack settles later towards the rack there is a problem, especially if no one notices when the ball settles and moves over the line. I would rule that you have to go with where the ball is at the time of racking and not at the time of the early determination.
I don't even understand the original question. If the 15th ball interferes with the racking of the balls, it is in the rack. If it doesn't interfere, it isn't. The use of the word "outline" is just for obfuscatory purposes. you could outline the rack with a blunt piece of chalk or a .1mm pen. There are no definable limits whereas the edge of a rack is a hard physical entity and if it hits the ball it's case closed.
That's not the way the rule is worded. Maybe the rule is worded badly, and maybe the rule is no good, but if you're going to play by something other than the rules, you should decide ahead of time with your opponent which rules will be changed for your match.
How would you propose that the rule be changed?
And how could I determine ahead of time whether a ball is in the rack? Players in a refereed game are not permitted to touch the triangle, and in any case it is not always possible to try to place the triangle while balls are still on the table.
And the word "outline" was not intended to be obfuscatory -- it was intended to refer to the line that is required in 14.1 to be drawn around the triangle. What different wording would you propose for the rule?
It is not the outline itself that is critical, it is the inner edge of the outline. The fact that a ball might touch the line doesn't account for the possibility that the ball might not be affected by the rack itself. I think the term inner edge would clarify the rule.
I am playing in an area where few tables are marked and the pens used vary in quality so the lines themselves are blurry. On top of that most of the racks are almost `1/2" thick so that almost everything ends up in the rack or so it seems
I am playing in an area where few tables are marked and the pens used vary in quality so the lines themselves are blurry. On top of that most of the racks are almost `1/2" thick so that almost everything ends up in the rack or so it seems
I'm Mixed Up
I am not sure after reading all these comments what is the correct rule anymore. One thing I know for sure. I was taught how to play by some old great players and they always played a ball on the rack line was in the rack. That is the way I will continue to play.
Ron: once again there was no comparison between you and that liar. I stated that there were saying that we use.
Ron, now I know why we butted heads....... Your a Red Sox fan......
My Yankees won today......... :>)
I am not sure after reading all these comments what is the correct rule anymore. One thing I know for sure. I was taught how to play by some old great players and they always played a ball on the rack line was in the rack. That is the way I will continue to play.
Ron: once again there was no comparison between you and that liar. I stated that there were saying that we use.
Ron, now I know why we butted heads....... Your a Red Sox fan......
My Yankees won today......... :>)
Last edited:
Ron, now I know why we butted heads....... Your a Red Sox fan......
My Yankees won today......... :>)[/QUOTE]
Well this isn't fair. You, Steve, Heather, Charlie...all Yankees fans. There has to be some other Red Sox fans here! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
PS: My Red Sox won yesterday too
Ron F
My Yankees won today......... :>)[/QUOTE]
Well this isn't fair. You, Steve, Heather, Charlie...all Yankees fans. There has to be some other Red Sox fans here! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
PS: My Red Sox won yesterday too
Ron F
Last edited:
New York
Pretty hard not to be a Yankee fan when you were born & grew up in NY City watching Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, and the rest of them in the 60's play ball.
Funnest thing. My wife who is from Dallas, Texas. Her Dad who was born in Dallas played 2nd base for the New York Giants in the 50's.
Took the relay throw from Willie Mays when he made that famous catch during the 54 World Series against Cleavland. His name is Davey Williams, played in the 51 WS & the 53 All-Star game for the National League.
Were a big baseball family. He would of been out in San Fran as a honored guess last WS but he passed away the year before.
Pretty hard not to be a Yankee fan when you were born & grew up in NY City watching Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, and the rest of them in the 60's play ball.
Funnest thing. My wife who is from Dallas, Texas. Her Dad who was born in Dallas played 2nd base for the New York Giants in the 50's.
Took the relay throw from Willie Mays when he made that famous catch during the 54 World Series against Cleavland. His name is Davey Williams, played in the 51 WS & the 53 All-Star game for the National League.
Were a big baseball family. He would of been out in San Fran as a honored guess last WS but he passed away the year before.
I'm with you and Bob Jewett. If the ball is touching the line it is IN THE RACK. I've played with a lot of old-schoolers; and all to my knowledge agree.
I was surprised anyone played it as out of the rack....not traditional.