A new rule?

[thommy]

Yes, basically that is what I'm saying. Every time you attempt to make a definitive rule to solve a problem some wannabe lawyer looks for a loop hole to that rule, requiring a new rule to solve that problem, and on and on and on.

the 1966 rules were pretty basic and easy to understand. Just took common sense and someone to enforce them. They would work today if someone would just say, STFU and shoot, I've ruled on your protest.

It is impossible to stay ahead of the wannabe lawyers with new rules, you are fighting a losing battle.

Just my 2 cents on what is wrong with the world . . .

Good luck with your situation,
I'm out.:grin:

 

[PGHteacher]

Good luck with your situation,
I'm out.:grin:

Good luck with trying to get back to the 1966 rule book, I think I might be going in a better (or at least more feasible) direction

 

[OneIron]

Seems like a pretty simple rule to write and understand. Interfering with the cue ball in motion is loss of game. And it doesn't really save any time to pick it up before it stops. How long can a cue ball roll?