Mr. Jewett pointed out that the option was no longer in the rules. You must rerack and he attempts a legal break. If its not a legal break he must keep breaking until its accomplished. Correct??
14.1 ruling confusion
- Thread starter pulzcul
- Start date
Mr. Jewett pointed out that the option was no longer in the rules. You must rerack and he attempts a legal break. If its not a legal break he must keep breaking until its accomplished. Correct??
Thank you for the clarification, again, Bob.
Got it Thanks Bob
Here's the link to the World Standardized Rules:
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play
Here is the rule related to three fouls at 14.1:
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play
Here is the rule related to three fouls at 14.1:
4.11 Serious Fouls
For Rule 6.14 Three Consecutive Fouls, only standard fouls are counted, so a breaking foul does not count as one of the three fouls. A point is subtracted for the third foul as usual, and then the additional fifteen-point penalty is subtracted and the offending player’s consecutive foul count is reset to zero. All fifteen balls are re-racked and the offending player is required to shoot under the requirements of the opening break. ...
There is no option to take the table in position after the third foul.For Rule 6.14 Three Consecutive Fouls, only standard fouls are counted, so a breaking foul does not count as one of the three fouls. A point is subtracted for the third foul as usual, and then the additional fifteen-point penalty is subtracted and the offending player’s consecutive foul count is reset to zero. All fifteen balls are re-racked and the offending player is required to shoot under the requirements of the opening break. ...
Yes, with a penalty of 2 points for each illegal attempt, though keep in mind that you do have the option to take the balls in position after an illegal break attempt (still a two point penalty).
Back before I knew the rules very well, I once had three breaking violations in a row -- too thin each time -- and I took a 15 point penalty on top of the 6 points for the three 2-point fouls. My opponent was fine with me taking the penalty. In fact, a 2-point fouls is never the first of 3 fouls, as noted in the rule quoted above, even though there might also be another foul such as a scratch on the shot.
Now you got me confused again. Your saying 3 2point breaking fouls constitute a 3 foul 15 point deduction?
oops! Sorry I misread that.
Last edited:
No, I was saying that at one time I was so naive and ignorant that I took an unnecessary 15-point additional penalty for three consecutive 2-point fouls. As I mentioned above and more importantly as it says in the rule, a 2-point foul never starts a 3-foul sequence. It is theoretically possible to take 1000 consecutive 2-point fouls when shooting the opening break shot but I hope that the referee would forfeit the fouler out of the match for inability to continue.
In all reality, when a player has ball in hand behind the head string, no matter what the player does with the cue ball or his cue, it is not a shot until the cue ball crosses the head string. Meaning when he placed the cue ball in the corner pocket, then tapped it/froze it to the side of the pocket leaving you with nothing to shoot at....that is not a shot at that point, and is not considered a shot until the cue ball crosses the head string in to fair territory, then determined to be a foul or legal shot. The correct response at the point in which he placed the cue ball in the corner pocket and tapped it.....would be, "it's still YOUR shot, no foul has been committed yet, so...shoot on buddy, in which you wait for him to at least shoot the cue ball across the head sting by at least 50% of the cue ball. Failure to do so....it's still HIS shot, no foul.
Glen
Last edited:
Not the way I understand it, Glen. It is a foul as far as I know. In the specific situation in the OP where the opponent is required to complete an opening break, the rules of the opening break apply:
Even during play if a player has BIH behind the head string the corner hook attempt would be a foul (see below).
-------
But I've a question for you guys regarding bad play behind the head string. Here's the rule for reference:
My question is this: The way I read the second paragraph of this rule, it suggests perhaps that rail after contact is suspended when playing behind the head string because it says the CB must simply cross the line OR contact a ball in front of the head string. Is this true - does this rule supersede the normal rail after contact rule when playing from behind the head string?
Maybe Mr. Jewett can provide some insight. I noticed in the BCAPL rule book this second paragraph verbiage isn't present so it seems the rail after contact requirement as for most shots would apply in this situation. Perhaps Buddy can chime in and confirm this.
Last edited:
Bob, if I may ask, who is this mysterious "Rules Committee" made up of and when and where do they convene. I've often wondered who makes the rules for the various billiard games that we play and who subsequently makes the changes as well. I've only gotten vague answers to this question so far. Perhaps you could be a little more specific at this time. I've also been told that I could have input in this area but have yet to be contacted by anyone on the "Rules Committee." I've been waiting by the phone for several years now, and I need a shave.
Bob, if I may ask, who is this mysterious "Rules Committee" made up of and when and where do they convene. I've often wondered who makes the rules for the various billiard games that we play and who subsequently makes the changes as well. I've only gotten vague answers to this question so far. Perhaps you could be a little more specific at this time. I've also been told that I could have input in this area but have yet to be contacted by anyone on the "Rules Committee." I've been waiting by the phone for several years now, and I need a shave.
Jay, it's pretty straight forward. World Standardized Rules are rules that are agreed upon by the world. That means the WPA. Each Continent may submit suggestions. If you have rules suggestions, simply put them in writing and send them to your WPA reps, Jerry Forsyth and Ivan Lee. Rules are adjusted every 5 years. Ask them when the next deadline for changes is so you know how much time you have to submit your suggestions. Their job is to make sure your suggestions get to the proper place.
No one will call you just because you say you would like to contribute. You actually have to do the work and send it in. Ask for a confirmation back that they received your suggestions. That's all you need to do. There will proably be some discussion on your suggestions and at that time you may receive a call from them or they may have someone contact you.
Last edited:
Until about 2000, the BCA had a Rules Committee. The members were selected by the BCA partly based on interest and experience but I'm not sure of the details. About 2000, the BCA decided that the Rules Committee was no longer necessary and got rid of it.Bob, if I may ask, who is this mysterious "Rules Committee" made up of and when and where do they convene. I've often wondered who makes the rules for the various billiard games that we play and who subsequently makes the changes as well. I've only gotten vague answers to this question so far. Perhaps you could be a little more specific at this time. I've also been told that I could have input in this area but have yet to be contacted by anyone on the "Rules Committee." I've been waiting by the phone for several years now, and I need a shave.
Somewhere around 1995 the WPA instituted a policy on a rules revision cycle such that no significant changes to the rules would happen for the five years after each revision.
The last major revision of the World Standardized Rules went into effect in January 2008. Prior to that the WPA contacted me to edit and propose a complete revision and rationalization of the rules. Over the years (between about 1980 and 2006) the rules had changed by being mended and patched and amended and repeated so that the document as it was needed a complete rewrite. I did that rewrite and posted my revision on-line so that anyone in the world who wanted to comment on them could easily do so. That revision is still available at http://www.sfbilliards.com/Rev1.html
Many people sent in comments which are listed along with the revision. I tried to take all the comments into account, but it was always necessary to keep the result as concise, clear, unambiguous, and consistent as possible.
In October of 2006 a working committee of 13 people from around the world met in Gary, Indiana for three days to discuss and modify my proposed revision and come up with a new set of rules to propose to the federations and confederations of the WPA. The committee was chosen by the confederations. Unlike some committees I've been on, I found the discussions and work of the committee to be very productive. Here is the news item about the committee on the WPA web site. For the WPA, the effort was headed by Thomas Overbeck.
The draft was sent to the federations and some comments came back which Thomas and I worked on to fold into the final draft keeping the discussions in Gary in mind. That final draft was voted on and accepted by the members of the WPA at a General Assembly which I believe was at the end of November in 2007. The new rules became effective on January 1st 2008.
Anyone who is interested in working on a revision of the rules should first contact their national federation to see how they can help. In the US, that would be the BCA. If anyone is interested in working on the rules, they will first need to understand the present rules, regulations and equipment specifications. Those are on the WPA website: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/home
Last edited:
This almost sounds like a joint session of Congress.
In actuality, it was probably a bunch of guys meeting up at Applebee's eating the orange chicken bowl while discussing if a rerack should be an option or not.
In actuality, it was probably a bunch of guys meeting up at Applebee's eating the orange chicken bowl while discussing if a rerack should be an option or not.
Thanks for the detailed response Bob. Interesting how the present ruies (particularly for Ten Ball) degenerated (YES DEGENERATED!) into what they've become. I'm not sure how to make a submission to the BCA or who to send it to (Jerry F. or Ivan Lee perhaps).
There is an old saying Bob that applies here: If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
And that is exactly what has happened with the rules for Ten Ball imo. I was, and have been, totally ignored in the above discussion and all other discussions regarding rules of play, particularly in games in which I have been the tournament director of major tournaments for THIRTY years now. In other words, I'm not just a guy in a diner talking crap.
My personal observation regarding the current rules for Ten ball are that by using the Magic Rack (used in many major events) and other quality racking instruments, the ten ball rarely goes in on the break. I believe it is a good thing to be able to win the game on the break. This one shot has an excitement factor that makes the crowd erupt more than anything else. Why would we in our infinite wisdom take a thrilling shot like that out of the game? Alternate breaks is another bad idea imo. The crowds love to see players string racks. IT'S EXCITING! And guess what, there are just as many thrilling hill-hill matches with the winner breaks format. The worst decision imo is making the game Call Shot. This one rule did away with the two way shot, only one of the coolest shots in pool.
In effect, the Rules Committee has dumbed down the excitement level in the game of Ten Ball to the detriment of all concerned. Maybe they've forgotten about the audience who buys tickets to see these players perform. The crowds loved the old way the game was played, sitting on the edge of their seats and rejoicing in the twists and turns during the course of a match. Once again imo the rules are going the wrong way in trying to take the luck factor out of the game. What I've observed is that even with the old rules (and all the luck involved) the best players still won! There's a good reason for this too. The best players perform the best under pressure!
Okay, thanks to Fran and Bob I will make these suggestions to the BCA, or maybe I just did, since the "right" people are reading this post anyway.
Last edited:
Jay, Jerry and Ivan represent the BCA in the WPA. You can also copy Rob Johnson if it makes you feel more comfortable. All of their email addresses are easily accessible.
Sorry in advance for being off the 14.1 topic. This is in response to Jay's post on 10 Ball:
Regarding the new 10 ball rules, 10 Ball was the exact same game as 9 Ball, except for the more difficult rack, and was about to diminish 9 ball into a lesser discipline or to even phase it out completely. What does that do for those sponsors of events like the 9 Ball world Championship, who spend hundreds of thousands each year for that event? How about the effect on promoters like Barry Behrman and the U.S. Open 9 Ball, and other long running 9 Ball events, like the Amway Cup and others?
What hurts the sponsors, hurts the players, like when the 9 Ball sponsors start pulling out after hearing that 9 Ball is inferior, and 9 Ball events are canceled. You may say, "So what, let the game phase out," but the players lose more prize money. No, the money won't just switch over to 10 Ball. For example, you will never have two 10 Ball world championships, and things get complicated on a continental level. Sponsors don't necessarily jump continents.
So, with the diminishing or phasing out of 9 Ball, everybody loses.
The new 10 Ball rules came from many interactions with the top pros all around the world; and since the rules came from them, they approve.
Unfortunately, as you know, it's the spectator who doesn't know any better who stands up and cheers when a 10 ball goes in on the break in the old rules.
Hopefully the specators of the present and future will appreciate more about pool than the luck factor.
Anyway, we shouldn't be diminishing the spectators' ability to appreciate the game by catering to the ones who don't know any better.
Last edited:
I've read this twice and it still sounds like jibberish Fran. So now you're telling us that the players made the new rules, not some "committee?" Which is it, them or the "committee?" And now you're taking on the spectators "who don't know any better?" You told on yourself there Fran. And this is why we keep losing spectators, because of attitudes like that. Without all these uninformed spectators, there will be no more professional pool tournaments.
In case you hadn't noticed, some of the most successful tournaments today are old fashioned 9-Ball, with all the luck still attached! I for one am glad that we have both 9-Ball and Ten Ball events, the more the better. I work on both types of events and I see the beauty of both games. The fact that there are more Ten Ball tournaments today is a good thing, not a bad one.
I will say this once more so you and others GET IT! Winning at pool (just like in other sports) is ALL about heart, and less about the rules of the game. The "luck factor" has little if anything to do with who ultimately wins major championships.
The fact that there are a few Ten Ball tournaments does not in any way negate the existing 9-Ball tournaments. It only enhances them imo. My opinion remains that there can be both 9-Ball and Ten Ball tournaments co-existing at the same time and both can thrive. The players will play if the money is there! Attracting sponsors has more to do with how an event is promoted and how big an audience it will have than what game is being played and what the rules are. The Mosconi Cup and World Cup of Pool are two 9-Ball events that continue to do well year after year. As does the U.S. Open.
Jay, I'm sorry you are so upset. I didn't mean to cause you any pain.
I think it's a really good thing that players are involved in the rule-making process. After all, it is they who are doing the playing, right? In fact, after the first World 10-Ball event with the new rules, the WPA got some great player feedback and were able to make rule adjustments based on that feedback. It's all good.
You know I don't hate the spectators, Jay, and for you to accuse me of any sort of negativity towards them is way out of line. We have both been in the pool world for a very long time. I thought you knew me better than that and there is no need for those kinds of accusations.
I wish you a very happy new year with much prosperity and healthy blood pressure.
Last edited: