Question about APA rule and also a funny rule you might not know of.

[lorider]

wow, so much debate over a simple rule that i think is clearly defined in the rule book. ome of you are spot on in your assesment of this rule but let me see if i call explain it it plain english for those that lack reading comprehension.

in the rule book under the equipment heading it states and i quote " players are not allowed to break down their cues or switch to specialty cues ( such as cues designed for jumping, and / or breaking ) to attempt a masse or jump shot.

PLAIN ENGLISH , IT MEANS YOU CANNOT SWITCH CUES IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INNING OR A MATCH TO MAKE A MASSE OR JUMP SHOT !!

i have a break cue with a g 10 tipless ferule on it. just for funsies i sometimes shoot with it during a match. if the occasion for a jump shot arises while i am shooting with it i can make all the jump shots i want to with it. but i cannot shoot with my main player and switch to the g 10 when a jump shot comes up.

it seems like a pretty simple rule to follow to me.

oh yea. the debate about what is a regular shooting cue. rule book states any standard pool cue used to shoot the majority of shots in a match.

refer to above about my break cue. a break cue is a standard pool cue. does not matter if it has hard leather, phenolic, or in my case a g 10. you can use it as your shooting cue all you want.

for the ones nit picking about this rule, i think after 2 innings it is pretty obvious as to a players cue he uses the majority of the time.

as another poster said, i dont think we need a 1,000 page rule book to define the spirit or intent of each rule there is.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Ah, I didn't notice him saying "let it go." To some hilarious degree, you two should be able (and I guess myself included) to go on forever discussing whether the English language has sufficient words to cover these scenarios or not. I personally am in the camp that I don't think so.

I'll have to go back and review your scenario... I haven't really gone too deeply into it.

What was interesting was that when you suggested your own version of how the wording should be, we easily found loopholes to those suggestions too... It isn't every going to be adequate to everyone...

Call me an optimist, but I believe that you *can* express the rules clearly and with minimal ambiguity if you know exactly what you *want* to capture.

For example, what loopholes can you find with "you can execute jump shots only with a full length cue". Then weight, tip, etc...are out the window. To be honest, without scrolling back I can't really remember any loopholes to the rule I suggested previously.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

First case scenario, since it is a cue with a leather tip it is safe to say it is designed for regular play and yes, you could use it.

In the second case, no, a cue with a phenolic tip is not designed for normal play, so no, you could not use it to jump.

Thanks. Again, a reasonable response that directly addresses my questions. I appreciate that. I also agree with you completely. I think justadub pretty much said the exact same thing.

I think that the important clarification that has come out of this is this: Previously APA Operator mentioned how the wording prevented the *player* from deciding what cue was designed for breaking and jumping, implying that the manufacturer makes that determination. While this is true to a degree, for the purposes of this rule, it makes more sense that *anyone* who alters the cue in any way becomes the "designer". Hence putting a particular tip on or whatever is essentially altering the design of the cue, and its intended purpose. To me, this is some small progress. So maybe a better definition of "regular shooting cue" would go something like this:
"Any cue which at the time it is used is configured in such a way, including tip, length, weight, and any other factors for the purpose of shooting the majority of shots in a game of pool."

Does it seem like that might work?

Thanks again,

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

PLAIN ENGLISH , IT MEANS YOU CANNOT SWITCH CUES IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INNING OR A MATCH TO MAKE A MASSE OR JUMP SHOT !!

You are quoting from an outdated version of the rulebook. You absolutely CAN switch cues in the middle of an inning...every other shot if you wish. The only stipulation in the *current* rule book is that you can ONLY use a "regular shooting cue" to execute the jump shot.

You clearly take great pride in your assumed ability to understand written English...probably best to make sure you have the right book first.

oh yea. the debate about what is a regular shooting cue. rule book states any standard pool cue used to shoot the majority of shots in a match.

refer to above about my break cue. a break cue is a standard pool cue. does not matter if it has hard leather, phenolic, or in my case a g 10. you can use it as your shooting cue all you want.

for the ones nit picking about this rule, i think after 2 innings it is pretty obvious as to a players cue he uses the majority of the time.

as another poster said, i dont think we need a 1,000 page rule book to define the spirit or intent of each rule there is.

Well, again it would appear that we at least need the *correct* shorter version of the rulebook. Check out the new team manual on the APA's website. You will quickly recognize that most of what you say in the last quote is no longer true.
I agree there is no need for a 1000 page rule book. One of the great things about people who are adept with language is that they can convey complex ideas articulately generally through the use of less rather than more words.

KMRUNOUT

 

[APA Operator]

Thanks. Again, a reasonable response that directly addresses my questions. I appreciate that. I also agree with you completely. I think justadub pretty much said the exact same thing.

I think that the important clarification that has come out of this is this: Previously APA Operator mentioned how the wording prevented the *player* from deciding what cue was designed for breaking and jumping, implying that the manufacturer makes that determination.

I certainly did not imply that. I didn't even say what you say I said, I said the player doesn't get to decide what a regular playing cue is (i.e., "this stock BK2 is my regular playing cue because I shoot all of my shots with it"). I can see how you might infer what you did, though, and I think this may be the source of some of the confusion in our discourse. If you remember, when you asked about putting a phenolic tip on a "regular" cue, I said I would not let you shoot a jump shot with it. From that you can infer that I consider a modification to a cue to be a modification to the design of that cue.

While this is true to a degree, for the purposes of this rule, it makes more sense that *anyone* who alters the cue in any way becomes the "designer". Hence putting a particular tip on or whatever is essentially altering the design of the cue, and its intended purpose. To me, this is some small progress. So maybe a better definition of "regular shooting cue" would go something like this:
"Any cue which at the time it is used is configured in such a way, including tip, length, weight, and any other factors for the purpose of shooting the majority of shots in a game of pool."

Does it seem like that might work?

I'll give you this, it's different. That's something. I think it's wordy though. Perhaps take the current rule and replace the word "designed" with "configured"? All of the other stuff looks like redundant legalese to me.

 

[lorider]

You are quoting from an outdated version of the rulebook. You absolutely CAN switch cues in the middle of an inning...every other shot if you wish. The only stipulation in the *current* rule book is that you can ONLY use a "regular shooting cue" to execute the jump shot.

You clearly take great pride in your assumed ability to understand written English...probably best to make sure you have the right book first.



Well, again it would appear that we at least need the *correct* shorter version of the rulebook. Check out the new team manual on the APA's website. You will quickly recognize that most of what you say in the last quote is no longer true.
I agree there is no need for a 1000 page rule book. One of the great things about people who are adept with language is that they can convey complex ideas articulately generally through the use of less rather than more words.

KMRUNOUT

forgive me for being so crass in my post. i am not usually like that. had a bad day today.

i quoted from the 2011/2012 team manual. latest source i got. i will look up on the website and see how the wording has been changed once i get my foot outa my mouth.

 

[droveto]

For example, what loopholes can you find with "you can execute jump shots only with a full length cue". Then weight, tip, etc...are out the window. To be honest, without scrolling back I can't really remember any loopholes to the rule I suggested previously.

KMRUNOUT

Technically, there's nothing wrong with that rule, but then I could just as easily say why not just allow jumping cues? The rule you suggest basically allows a cue that could sufficiently and efficiently jump, although not quite as well as a shorter one. To decide why the APA would not go with your suggested rule you'd have to find out what they really have against people performing jump shots. Which I believe we covered already.

The reality is that the APA really doesn't want jumping happening (or full masse shots either for that matter). However, they don't want fouls called when a novice player scoops a ball, or maybe accidentally shoots a cue ball in the air on a jacked up shot.

I honestly prefer their initial rule of not allowing any change of cues after the break. Exceptions for malfunctioning equipment would be allowed, and in the case where there is an obstruction on the shot is present the player should use a house provided short cue. Of course, this presents problems if the house doesn't have a short cue, etc... The list of possible rules and possible loopholes for rules would go on.

With your earlier suggestion focused on cue length, the problems it posed was in cases of obstructed shots, or handicapped players who use a short cue as their normal playing cue...

 

[droveto]

I've never encountered any problem at all with any situation even close to what these rules are portraying in my 30+ APA seasons. It's really a non-issue and I don't think it deserves this much attention. I'd be very curious to hear the stories of the matches that happened which caused the APA to change up their rules because I'm sure it's full of nit-picking players and uneven tempers which is always a good time for a spectator. Maybe if I knew the specifics of a specific match or instance, I'd care more, but this just seems like a futile exercise of semantic indulgence.

My interpretation is that the APA doesn't want jump shots happening, but they don't want players calling a foul when a player switches cues or accidentally jumps a ball either legally, or with a scoop. I'm sticking with my interpretation and will continue to captain my team appropriately within those guidelines. If my opponent wants to try and jump a ball, I'm okay with them giving it a shot, unless of course the pool hall has a sign up that says "no jump shots," and then I'll point out the house rules prevent them from trying that shot...

 

[OneIron]

But you sure said a mouthful. If the rules are so simple to get around, perhaps they should be reworded?

Rewording would be nice since it's obvious from the posts that it's not 100% clear. And adding to the confusion is the fact that LO's have the opportunity to enact "local by-laws" that override the national rules. Anyone besides me think that local rules are insane? Doesn't it compromise the integrity of a national handicap system?

You want to simplify the rule. Let me take a couple of jabs at it:

1. Jump shots are not allowed in the APA.

Or...

2. Jump shots are allowed in the APA. You may use your playing cue or break cue but you are not allowed to break the cue down to jump.

Anyone?

 

[Ghosst]

We don't have APA here, but I appreciate what KM is pointing out. It's a shame not everyone understands. This is an interesting discussion I enter only out of the same interest.

If you remember, when you asked about putting a phenolic tip on a "regular" cue, I said I would not let you shoot a jump shot with it. From that you can infer that I consider a modification to a cue to be a modification to the design of that cue.

I dislike when people bring up impossible situations and then try to back you into a corner so understand it's not my intention but ...

How do, "you" (not you specifically but the APA as an organization), interpret what tip is supposed to be on my cue? There was a discussion that people thought Samsara tips were phenolic at one point. What if the ref in this case thought my Samsara was a pure phenolic and it cost me a match that took me out of the money. All over a simple misunderstanding of what the "right" tip is for my cue.

I ask because I've now seen both answers to, "Can I switch to my break cue to make a jump shot". So it is ambiguous because it's been called illegal and legal. Which is it?

Why is the question important? Well if I can make a jump shot that wins me the game and brings me into the cash I'd like to know. But if Billy NoMate is allowed to use his break cue to jump but I am not because you don't agree with my choice of tip then I am being held to a different standard.

Now if, "regular playing cue", means I can't switch cues in order to jump, period, that solves my question but again, I've seen that I am and I am not allowed to do so. Which is it?

 

[justadub]

Technically, there's nothing wrong with that rule, but then I could just as easily say why not just allow jumping cues? The rule you suggest basically allows a cue that could sufficiently and efficiently jump, although not quite as well as a shorter one. To decide why the APA would not go with your suggested rule you'd have to find out what they really have against people performing jump shots. Which I believe we covered already.

The reality is that the APA really doesn't want jumping happening (or full masse shots either for that matter). However, they don't want fouls called when a novice player scoops a ball, or maybe accidentally shoots a cue ball in the air on a jacked up shot.

I honestly prefer their initial rule of not allowing any change of cues after the break. Exceptions for malfunctioning equipment would be allowed, and in the case where there is an obstruction on the shot is present the player should use a house provided short cue. Of course, this presents problems if the house doesn't have a short cue, etc... The list of possible rules and possible loopholes for rules would go on.

With your earlier suggestion focused on cue length, the problems it posed was in cases of obstructed shots, or handicapped players who use a short cue as their normal playing cue...

This is the best post in the whole thread.

Your suggestion would be the best option, in my opinion. One cue to play with, another for breaking only. Simple.

(Provisions for obstructions and broken equipment being necessary, I suppose.)

APAOperator, is there a reason why it can't be written like this?

 

[BrokeStroke]

This is the best post in the whole thread.

Your suggestion would be the best option, in my opinion. One cue to play with, another for breaking only. Simple.

(Provisions for obstructions and broken equipment being necessary, I suppose.)

APAOperator, is there a reason why it can't be written like this?

I agree here. It would probably be fairly easy to word this into the rule book without leaving much leeway for argument.

But Ghosst pretty much simplified this entire thread in his one post. I will try to simplify it further..

Since you can now switch to your break cue to jump, what design qualities is it or is it not allowed to have in order to make it a legal cue in which to preform a jump shot with? It has been asked over the last 5 pages without a clear answer.

 

[TheNewSharkster]

I agree here. It would probably be fairly easy to word this into the rule book without leaving much leeway for argument.

But Ghosst pretty much simplified this entire thread in his one post. I will try to simplify it further..

Since you can now switch to your break cue to jump, what design qualities is it or is it not allowed to have in order to make it a legal cue in which to preform a jump shot with? It has been asked over the last 5 pages without a clear answer.

You cannot switch to your break cue unless your break cue isn't anything more than a regular cue (i.e. not designed for break shots).

 

[droveto]

I just switched from my laptop to my desktop in this thread. Is that a foul?

 

[Ghosst]

Mouse in hand for me. I'm switching to my kitteh cue to deal with the lay of the table.

 

[Ghosst]

You cannot switch to your break cue unless your break cue isn't anything more than a regular cue (i.e. not designed for break shots).

Then by that ruling MD should be banned from the APA for using a BK2 and all monies won are to be returned to the players as whether or not it is used as a regular playing cue it was not designed to be one and is therefore illegal.

Now you see where the confusion comes from.

 

[TheNewSharkster]

Then by that ruling MD should be banned from the APA for using a BK2 and all monies won are to be returned to the players as whether or not it is used as a regular playing cue it was not designed to be one and is therefore illegal.

Now you see where the confusion comes from.

I don't know who MD is or what he/she did. I can infer that MD was allowed to use a BK2 as a playing cue. If that is indeed the case he must have got permission to use it because it was his main player. Really though I have no clue.

 

[Ghosst]

I don't know who MD is or what he/she did. I can infer that MD was allowed to use a BK2 as a playing cue. If that is indeed the case he must have got permission to use it because it was his main player. Really though I have no clue.

Well it's a good thing you're not sure who he is then. Why can he use a BK2 but according to what you posted, I can't? How does another player get permission, but no one else can?

I'm not asking or contributing here out of the need for argument. As I said, we have no APA so it's moot for myself. I'm trying to figure out the rules from the view of neutrality and not as a player expecting to find a loophole.

What I posted originally stands ... can I or can I not use a break cue to make a jump shot with? If I can't because it's not a "normal playing cue" then shouldn't that be used across the board for all players? Or do I have to add an extra $5 to my monthly dues? Do I need special shoes?

I've run a rack with a phenolic tip. It wasn't easy, but it was doable. With a little practice I could probably do it more. I have done the same with a Samsara. Are these now legal, "normal playing cues"? If so, can I use either one to play my jumpshot?

I get the idea behind the ruling, and kicks are always options. Sometimes a better option, sometimes not. I'm trying to take away the grey here and get a real answer.

 

[droveto]

Well it's a good thing you're not sure who he is then. Why can he use a BK2 but according to what you posted, I can't? How does another player get permission, but no one else can?

I'm not asking or contributing here out of the need for argument. As I said, we have no APA so it's moot for myself. I'm trying to figure out the rules from the view of neutrality and not as a player expecting to find a loophole.

What I posted originally stands ... can I or can I not use a break cue to make a jump shot with? If I can't because it's not a "normal playing cue" then shouldn't that be used across the board for all players? Or do I have to add an extra $5 to my monthly dues? Do I need special shoes?

I've run a rack with a phenolic tip. It wasn't easy, but it was doable. With a little practice I could probably do it more. I have done the same with a Samsara. Are these now legal, "normal playing cues"? If so, can I use either one to play my jumpshot?

I get the idea behind the ruling, and kicks are always options. Sometimes a better option, sometimes not. I'm trying to take away the grey here and get a real answer.

As with all sports, the ruling of the referee trumps all written rules. I've mentioned it several times, and feel lame always mentioning it, but in Vegas at Nationals, my opponent clearly double hit the cue ball on a shot. The referee called out "good hit," which means that regardless of physics and the rule book, it was a good hit. There's no going back and one referee's poor interpretation doesn't set precedence like it does in the legal system when a judge makes a ruling. It's just a bad call and everyone moves on...

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I've never encountered any problem at all with any situation even close to what these rules are portraying in my 30+ APA seasons. It's really a non-issue and I don't think it deserves this much attention. I'd be very curious to hear the stories of the matches that happened which caused the APA to change up their rules because I'm sure it's full of nit-picking players and uneven tempers which is always a good time for a spectator. Maybe if I knew the specifics of a specific match or instance, I'd care more, but this just seems like a futile exercise of semantic indulgence.

My interpretation is that the APA doesn't want jump shots happening, but they don't want players calling a foul when a player switches cues or accidentally jumps a ball either legally, or with a scoop. I'm sticking with my interpretation and will continue to captain my team appropriately within those guidelines. If my opponent wants to try and jump a ball, I'm okay with them giving it a shot, unless of course the pool hall has a sign up that says "no jump shots," and then I'll point out the house rules prevent them from trying that shot...

Actually, I would also like to hear about what caused the changes. Like you say, and like I said in a previous post, this stuff almost never comes up for anyone I've ever heard of.

I absolutely consider this an exercise in semantics. "Semantics" is the study of the meaning of words, and the ability of humans to express meanings through words. We are trying to get at the exact meaning of the rules. No questions it is semantics.

I actually think this is one of those few threads that took a positive turn at the end. Sometimes all it takes is a few more posts. Thanks to those people that helped!

KMRUNOUT