How would you rule this? Why?

[S.Tat]

This is not meant to be a bash thread on the APA or any other leagues and would like to keep away from that direction.

This is during APA team 8 ball summer session playoffs. The team score is 2-2 and the match is at 1-1 between two SL3s - we'll call them Player A and Player B.

So Player A gets hooked by Player B on the 8 ball. Player A lines up to do a short rail kick with the 8 near the side pocket. A scratch in the side is very likely. Player A has used both time outs and A's captain knows that. A's captain calls the time out and Player B's team calls the foul. A's captain says "I know" and gives Player B ball in hand. B's team calls the league operator over to find out the ruling to find out if there is any more severe consequence aside from the ball in hand given to Player B.

How does the APA rule this? (I cannot find anything in the team manual regarding a situation like this)

How would you rule this? Why?

I've chosen not to disclose what the outcome of the league operator was to try to get the most straight answer from my fellow AZers.

 

[JMuck]

Is there a section on unsportsmanlike conduct.If there is,check there.Just a guess.

 

[rrich1]

we just talked about this tonight. "technically" they can take more than the "suggested" time outs. fill out a form for unsportsman like conduct.

in the end it should just be a ball in hand foul.

 

[clickhiker]

"technically" they can take more than the "suggested" time outs. ...in the end it should just be a ball in hand foul.

_________________

While I agree it is ball in hand, "technically" it is a clear violation of two time-outs allowed to a SL3. What gives you the idea they are allowed to take a third TO "technically"? The rule is the rule, and it is not just a suggestion!

 

[OneIron]

I haven't played APA in a while but I don't believe taking more than 2 time outs is a foul. The opposing captain just tells the spotter the player has no more time outs and play continues.

If it's too late and advice has already been given, nothing can be done other than call an unsportsmanlike violation. Which I think normally carries no penalty. :frown:

 

[Celophanewrap]

we've had this happen before, so consequently I fired off an email to the APA. I was referred to rule 11(b) of the General Rules section:
...in any event, taking too many coachings will not be considered a violation of the rules, although consistent attempts to take too may coachings may result in a sportsmanship violation. It is up to you to notify your opponent if he is taking a coaching he does not have coming. disagreements are handled just as any other protest or dispute...
So what I was told a bit later in the email was that simply calling a time out when you don't have any is not a ball in hand violation, just remind your opponent that they don't have any time out left to take and continue with the game. As with any other situation where there is a strong disagreement, play the game out, don't sign the score sheet pay your dispute fee and wait for a ruling. The thought of putting extra cash in the envelope can put an end to many disputes. But in the end if you let them have ball in hand, I think you got hosed.

 

[MitchAlsup]

_________________

While I agree it is ball in hand, "technically" it is a clear violation of two time-outs allowed to a SL3. What gives you the idea they are allowed to take a third TO "technically"? The rule is the rule, and it is not just a suggestion!

Which gets to the question: Is it a time out, if the coach and player do not communicate (no words about the shot or table positiion), but just hand the ball to the incomming player?

The real question is at what stage of one pool playing should a player learn how to recognize situations where picking up the CB from the table and handing it to the incomming player is the BEST option?

 

[TheNewSharkster]

I had a situation like this come up. The opposing team player was lining up a shot that would have resulted in a scratch. The opposing captian calls a time out. We remind them they no longer have a time out. Since the captain tried to call a timeout the player (even though they never actually talked) changed the shot selection. Needless to say I was not happy about it because the outcome of the game of changed by a timeout call that shouldn't have happened.

 

[BasementDweller]

This sort of reminds me of the famous NBA Finals game back in 1976 between the Phoenix Suns and the Boston Celtics.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_foul

"In what has been called the greatest game ever played,[4] Game 5 of the 1976 NBA Finals between the Phoenix Suns and Boston Celtics, the Suns found themselves one point down with one second left in double overtime, no timeouts remaining and possession of the ball under their defensive basket after a John Havlicek bucket. Faced with the near-impossibility of sinking an 80-foot desperation shot, Suns guard Paul Westphal hit upon an unusual solution. He intentionally called a timeout the Suns did not have. While this gave the Celtics a free throw, which Jo Jo White successfully converted to increase the lead to two, it gave the Suns possession at halfcourt, and enabled Gar Heard to sink an 18-footer as time expired to force a third overtime. NBA rules were changed the following year to prevent a repeat occurrence."

Sometimes there's a fine line between gamesmanship and unsportsmanlike conduct. I'm curious what the ruling was in the OP's situation.

 

[BWTadpole]

If I were the first captain playing it like that, I wouldn't have said "I know" after calling the timeout. Put on your best dummy face and say something about "forgetting" that you were out of timeouts, but never give the opponent more reason to think that you're up to something. Thieves who brag will end up caught, you know.

Like I said, if I were the first captain playing it like that...

 

[S.Tat]

Perhaps it's a local bylaw or something, I'm not sure. There seemed to be a general agreement between both teams that it was a ball in hand foul on the shooter with the attempted time out. Keep in mind Player A's captain knew this and did it purposely to give up BiH and avoid the scratch on the 8 that was highly likely.

I took a quick check over the 2011 Team Manual and there's nothing in there that addresses this scenario. All the sportsmanship sections refer to physical and verbal altercations.

 

[GeoEnvi]

The real question is at what stage of one pool playing should a player learn how to recognize situations where picking up the CB from the table and handing it to the incomming player is the BEST option?

It is almost NEVER the best option to give up ball in hand without attempting to alter the layout in a way that will benefit you IF you return to the table.

As someone previously mentioned, calling a timeout when the shooter doesn't have any left is NEVER a foul, nor does it EVER result in BIH. It's a sportsmanship issue. Report it to the league Op.

Also, if the coach call's a timeout, it's a timeout. No words need be spoken. It's charged to the shooter. Also, a shooter cannot decline a timeout and attempt to "save it". Once it's called, use it or lose it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ClownFish]

sounds like a definite loop hole. at least they got ball in hand. kinda seems like an even exchange. I hope the opposing player ran out.

 

[Pushout]

sounds like a definite loop hole. at least they got ball in hand. kinda seems like an even exchange. I hope the opposing player ran out.

Yeah, did the incoming player get out? The whole thing smells, to me.

 

[driven]

I don't play league, but why not take the ball in hand either have your player run some balls and maybe get out or safe them even worse and inform opposing teams captain they have used all timeouts and deal with it.
steven

 

[thommy]

League play sounds like a playground for wannabe lawyers?

 

[DallasHopps]

There are a lot of players and captains who know 65% of the rules and make up the balance with whatever suits their needs. It can be frustrating or fun, depending on your personality or mood.

For the OP, I side with those of the opinion that the player at the table should have still been shooting (no giving up ball in hand) and the captain/coach informed that their player has no time outs remaining. It leaves room for playing the system, sure... but I have yet to hear of any rule set that doesn't have potentially undesired consequences.

 

[thommy]

I've got a copy of the 1966 rules for pocket billiards. Having read them then and again now, they seem to indicate that the goal of the shooter is to attempt to make a legal shot. Should he fail to do so, there is a penalty. Yes safeties are addressed and defined but as an adjunct to the goal of making a shot. there are no "ball in hand" penalties to my knowledge.

The more you teach folks to play defense, the more boring the game becomes for both players and watchers.

GROW A PAIR AND SHOOT THE F'ING SHOT

ya win ya lose, get used to it.

I'm not talking about 1 hole, so don't go there.

 

[Celophanewrap]

League play sounds like a playground for wannabe lawyers?

Yes, it is, and some real ones too

 

[Sandbag'nIt]

I think ball in hand is a strict enough penalty here.