Why Did The BCA Drop The Traditional Rack?

[mosconiac]

I just discovered that the 2008 (yes, I'm really late to the party) rules dropped the 1B & 5B corners requirement on the full rack. I had not looked at the rules since the 2006 version was released, which was the last time that tradition was upheld.

Anyone know why the BCA would remove that requirement? IMO, it was a respectful thing to do for your opponent.

 

[sfleinen]

I just discovered that the 2008 (yes, I'm really late to the party) rules dropped the 1B & 5B corners requirement on the full rack. I had not looked at the rules since the 2006 version was released, which was the last time that tradition was upheld.

Anyone know why the BCA would remove that requirement? IMO, it was a respectful thing to do for your opponent.

mosconiac:

I know, isn't it sad to "omit" (or even outright remove) an obvious "gentleman's courtesy"?

FYI, Wikipedia hadn't been updated since the BCA rule change, so here it is (the 1 and 5 ball courtesy, that is), in all its glory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_pool

Now, as for the question of why this obvious gentleman's courtesy was removed, I have no idea. Isn't AZB's own Jerry Forsyth a rep for the BCA? I'll alert him to the existence of this thread.

-Sean

 

[dmgwalsh]

Wpa

I believe it was the WPA that made the rule change. The BCA just follows the WPA rules. You might do better asking Bob Jewett.

A lot of rules were changed in the 2008 revision. They got rid of the option to take the table as it lies after your opponent three fouls. They added that you may re-rack after spotting a ball to an undisturbed 14 ball rack. They got rid of the rule limiting the number of safes that could be played to the same rail.

Last night, I said something when my opponent racked the 8 ball on the right corner. He replaced it with the one. I am not sure I can really insist upon that under the current rules. It might make sense to rack the 6 and 8 for your opponents and expect the same. What do you guys think?

 

[Bill S]

I just discovered that the 2008 (yes, I'm really late to the party) rules dropped the 1B & 5B corners requirement on the full rack. I had not looked at the rules since the 2006 version was released, which was the last time that tradition was upheld.

Anyone know why the BCA would remove that requirement? IMO, it was a respectful thing to do for your opponent.

In "The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League" it is still a rule that the 1-ball and 5-ball must be recked in the back two corners. There are two reasons for this as has been stated. One, the visibility of the balls and two, it has been that way historically.

FYI, CueSports International is in the beginning stages of bringing back the US Open Straight Pool Championship. We are planning to bring it back in 2013 when the BCAPL National Championships move to the Rio. No other information is available at this time as we are in the planning stages.

Bill Stock
CueSports International

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

The only reason I can think of that they would have omitted this rule is to simplify the rules, getting rid of any rules they feel have no practical impact on how the game is played. In other words, you can't legislate morals or manners.

Not saying I agree with it, just trying to throw a possible reason behind it from their perspective. In any event, I continue to rack in the traditional manner as I'm sure many long time straight pool players do. Tradition is very much honored among those of us who have played the game a long time and I hope this is one that continues.

-----

Bill, I asked this in the other thread as well. Where are the BCAPL 14.1 and 1 Hole rules? The complete rule book download on the playbca website only includes 8 & 9 Ball.

 

[mnhighrunlist]

In "The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League" it is still a rule that the 1-ball and 5-ball must be recked in the back two corners. There are two reasons for this as has been stated. One, the visibility of the balls and two, it has been that way historically.

FYI, CueSports International is in the beginning stages of bringing back the US Open Straight Pool Championship. We are planning to bring it back in 2013 when the BCAPL National Championships move to the Rio. No other information is available at this time as we are in the planning stages.

Bill Stock
CueSports International

I do agree that the 1 and 5 are more clearly visible. Even though it is not required by the world standarized rules..I would rack 1 and 5 in the corners as a courtesy. But... there is a need for just ONE set of rules used everywhere.

 

[Makey98]

I am new to this. Can you guys explain why this is tradition? Solely visibility? 1 and 5 in the back corners, okay. 6 and 8 where? Thanks.

 

[dmgwalsh]

I am new to this. Can you guys explain why this is tradition? Solely visibility? 1 and 5 in the back corners, okay. 6 and 8 where? Thanks.

Visibility. On the opening break it is important to get an exact cut on a corner ball so that two balls go to the rail, and you don't sell out. The 1 and the 5 would be put on the corners. The 6 and the 8 could be anywhere. They are not as visible. Their dark color blends in with the cloth a little.

 

[FranCrimi]

I believe it was the WPA that made the rule change. The BCA just follows the WPA rules. You might do better asking Bob Jewett.

A lot of rules were changed in the 2008 revision. They got rid of the option to take the table as it lies after your opponent three fouls. They added that you may re-rack after spotting a ball to an undisturbed 14 ball rack. They got rid of the rule limiting the number of safes that could be played to the same rail.

Last night, I said something when my opponent racked the 8 ball on the right corner. He replaced it with the one. I am not sure I can really insist upon that under the current rules. It might make sense to rack the 6 and 8 for your opponents and expect the same. What do you guys think?

Dennis, maybe you were thinking of the opening break, when the breaker doesn't drive 2 balls to a rail --- you can either accept the table as is or have your opponent rebreak. That rule still holds.

But when someone 3-fouls, there is an automatic rerack and that player must perform an opening break. That's the way I've always known the rule to be. As far as I can remember, there was never an option for the incoming player to take the table as is. Over the many decades of 14.1, many great players were known to take the third foul intentionally when they knew they were in a no-win situation for the sole purpose of the mandatory rerack after the 3rd foul.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I am new to this. Can you guys explain why this is tradition? Solely visibility? 1 and 5 in the back corners, okay. 6 and 8 where? Thanks.

In the original rules of 14.1 or close to them, the order in the entire rack was set with the 15 in front and then rows of stripes finishing with the 1-5 on the back row. I can't find the set of rules that requires the full arrangement right now, but here is what the rules said in 1914:



As for why the rule disappeared, in the 2006 rules committee meeting pretty much everyone felt that the rule was a strange anachronism that was never observed in normal play.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... But when someone 3-fouls, there is an automatic rerack and that player must perform an opening break. That's the way I've always known the rule to be. As far as I can remember, there was never an option for the incoming player to take the table as is. ...

This points out several things including the necessity to reread the rule book from time to time. Here is the 3-foul rule from 2000. Note the passage in double quotes at the end of the first paragraph.



Although I was listed on the BCA Rules Committee at that time, I don't remember ever discussing that rule change and I certainly would have opposed it if it had been proposed. This rule was changed back to the traditional rule (no choice, must rerack) in the January 2008 World Standardized Rules revision.

Unfortunately, people who read the rules between 2000 and 2008 got the wrong rule implanted. There are still a lot of old, wrong rule books out there.

We recently discussed this same rule change in another thread.

 

[dmgwalsh]

This points out several things including the necessity to reread the rule book from time to time. Here is the 3-foul rule from 2000. Note the passage in double quotes at the end of the first paragraph.

View attachment 200642

Although I was listed on the BCA Rules Committee at that time, I don't remember ever discussing that rule change and I certainly would have opposed it if it had been proposed. This rule was changed back to the traditional rule (no choice, must rerack) in the January 2008 World Standardized Rules revision.

Unfortunately, people who read the rules between 2000 and 2008 got the wrong rule implanted. There are still a lot of old, wrong rule books out there.

We recently discussed this same rule change in another thread.

Thanks for saving me the time. I knew it was out there, but hadn't spotted it yet. I had not realized that the rule was only in effect from 2000 to 2008, but then I was not really playing pool much before 2000.

 

[FranCrimi]

This points out several things including the necessity to reread the rule book from time to time. Here is the 3-foul rule from 2000. Note the passage in double quotes at the end of the first paragraph.

View attachment 200642

Although I was listed on the BCA Rules Committee at that time, I don't remember ever discussing that rule change and I certainly would have opposed it if it had been proposed. This rule was changed back to the traditional rule (no choice, must rerack) in the January 2008 World Standardized Rules revision.

Unfortunately, people who read the rules between 2000 and 2008 got the wrong rule implanted. There are still a lot of old, wrong rule books out there.

We recently discussed this same rule change in another thread.

Wow, that's really surprising. I wonder if there were any 14.1 tournaments between 2000 and 2008 that actually followed that rule. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was an error where someone confused it with the beginning-game opening break option.

 

[dmgwalsh]

Wow, that's really surprising. I wonder if there were any 14.1 tournaments between 2000 and 2008 that actually followed that rule. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was an error where someone confused it with the beginning-game opening break option.

I imagine it was used for the World Championships from 2006 on and maybe down at the tournaments at Derby City. I know our leagues used the rules as written during that time period.

Someone had to have actually written it down and moved it over to the section dealing with three fouls.

On a related issue, one of the refs at the World Championship this year started to rack the balls after an illegal opening break. When people said "Wait, he has a choice", he replied "No, they changed that rule"

Alex said it didn't matter. he was going to make the guy re-break anyway.

 

[FranCrimi]

I imagine it was used for the World Championships from 2006 on and maybe down at the tournaments at Derby City. I know our leagues used the rules as written during that time period.

Someone had to have actually written it down and moved it over to the section dealing with three fouls.

On a related issue, one of the refs at the World Championship this year started to rack the balls after an illegal opening break. When people said "Wait, he has a choice", he replied "No, they changed that rule"

Alex said it didn't matter. he was going to make the guy re-break anyway.

Were there even any 14.1 World Championships during that time? I would have thought that someone would have contacted the WPA to question the rule. If I had seen it, my first thought would have been that it had to have been a mistake where someone who didn't know the game thought it was originally left out and put it in to be consistent with the opening game break.

 

[dmgwalsh]

Were there even any 14.1 World Championships during that time? I would have thought that someone would have contacted the WPA to question the rule.

If I had seen it, my first thought would have been that it had to have been a mistake where someone who didn't know the game thought it was originally left out and put it in to be consistent with the opening game break.

2006 was when Dragon Promotions did its first World Championship Straight Pool. I know the first few were sanctioned. They probably played the rules as written.

I came back to pool after a long layoff sometime around the early 2000s. I probably had last played straight pool before that in 1977. I had not played that much straight pool before then and I just played with the rules as they were.

I do not think it would have been as simple as calling them and telling them they made a mistake, do you? I am guessing that Bob Jewett, who was probably in a straight pool league during the time that the rule was in effect played by the rules as they were written.

 

[tatcat2000]

Bill, I asked this in the other thread as well. Where are the BCAPL 14.1 and 1 Hole rules? The complete rule book download on the playbca website only includes 8 & 9 Ball.

It's there Dogs - 14.1 is Section 6 and 1P is Section 5...sorry if this info is redundant to another thread...

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook.aspx

Buddy

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

:embarrassed2:

It's there Dogs - 14.1 is Section 6 and 1P is Section 5...sorry if this info is redundant to another thread...

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook.aspx

Buddy

Buddy, thanks!! Seriously thought, am I crazy and missed them, or were they recently added to the website? Could have sworn they weren't there when I checked.

Regards,

Mitchell

 

[mnhighrunlist]

Am I correct here? The BCA is the North American representative in the World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA) and by that relationship should have input and vote on the WPA world standardized rules changes. The BCA Pool League (BCAPL) is a separate entity and not the Billiard Congress of America (BCA). Isnt it important to play 14.1 (and other games) by a world standardized set of rules?

-Dennis

 

[FranCrimi]

2006 was when Dragon Promotions did its first World Championship Straight Pool. I know the first few were sanctioned. They probably played the rules as written.

I came back to pool after a long layoff sometime around the early 2000s. I probably had last played straight pool before that in 1977. I had not played that much straight pool before then and I just played with the rules as they were.

I do not think it would have been as simple as calling them and telling them they made a mistake, do you? I am guessing that Bob Jewett, who was probably in a straight pool league during the time that the rule was in effect played by the rules as they were written.

I think as a rule, we should always question something that doesn't make sense to us. The process would have been to contact the North American WPA representative --- John Lewis, at that time, and ask him to inquire about how the rule came about. John would have questioned Bob who was on the rules commmittee and would have found out and Bob did not encounter the change. So obviously it was changed outside of the committee.

If it was a mistake, it could have been corrected. If not, then I think it's important to find out who decided to make that change and why. If it was intentional, then maybe they didn't realize their logic was flawed and they needed to hear from someone who understood the game and it's logic better than they did.