Rules Question

[Meezer Girl]

BCA 2012-2014 rulebook - 8 ball and General Rules

page 40 "Loss of Game" 2-10.d loss if you violate any General Rule that requires loss of game as a penalty

page 31 "General Rules" 1-40.c Deliberate Foul - object balls - intentionally stop or deflect object ball in motion...........
Penalties for first violation .....it is loss of game if it is the game winning ball

 

[softshot]

BCA 2012-2014 rulebook - 8 ball and General Rules

page 40 "Loss of Game" 2-10.d loss if you violate any General Rule that requires loss of game as a penalty

page 31 "General Rules" 1-40.c Deliberate Foul - object balls - intentionally stop or deflect object ball in motion...........
Penalties for first violation .....it is loss of game if it is the game winning ball

similar to this

WPA rule 6.6

"It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of any object ball except by the normal ball-to-ball contacts during shots. It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot. The shooter is responsible for the equipment he controls at the table, such as chalk, bridges, clothing, his hair, parts of his body, and the cue ball when it is in hand, that may be involved in such fouls. If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct."

I agree with the spirit of the rule here.. it seems the grey area is in the definition of CB fouls only...

I can't seem to find any written rule explaining what "CB fouls only" actually means and which types of fouls it is limited to.

 

[TheNewSharkster]

Definitely a danger.
But a call must be made, and without seeing it personally, there's no way to guarantee the call will be correct. So the danger is unavoidable.

Unless you want to make a blanket rule like "if the ref didn't see it, it never happened"...
then you have to pick the lesser of two evils:

A: Some calls will be blown because dishonest people give the ref a biased opinion.
B: Some calls will be blown because the ref had his back turned and never saw the shot.

With A:, as long as the majority of people are honest, you should get the correct call usually. And in my experience, most people are honest. If someone makes a bad hit on my team then I'll say so.

With B:, it doesn't matter how many people are honest, if the shooter is dishonest then the correct call doesn't get made.

So in my opinion, A: is the better way of handling it, even though it's imperfect.

APA says the call goes to the shooter. So have somebody watch any questionable shots. I actually like this because it at least gives you a defense.

I do not like a TD making a call on a shot that he didn't see (with the exception of it being a clarification of rules).

 

[Meezer Girl]

similar to this

WPA rule 6.6

"It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of any object ball except by the normal ball-to-ball contacts during shots. It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot. The shooter is responsible for the equipment he controls at the table, such as chalk, bridges, clothing, his hair, parts of his body, and the cue ball when it is in hand, that may be involved in such fouls. If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct."

I agree with the spirit of the rule here.. it seems the grey area is in the definition of CB fouls only...

I can't seem to find any written rule explaining what "CB fouls only" actually means and which types of fouls it is limited to.

I don't know WPA rules at all so I can't comment on them - but - the OP was under the impression that he was only going to receive BIH because of his opponent's action of moving the 8 ball. He was asking about options under different rule sets so I supplied the BCA ruling for the situation.

I should have also asked what his league's rules are for "concessions" as his situation might have been covered by that

BCA does not allow concessions - every ball must be shot.

I personally don't like cue ball fouls only because they can cause too many "discussions" about what really happened to all the balls involved.

If you want to PM me your email address I'll send you PDF of the full rulebook - very good reading (sorry, I don't know how to attach & it's probably too large anyway)

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I agree with the spirit of the rule here.. it seems the grey area is in the definition of CB fouls only...

I can't seem to find any written rule explaining what "CB fouls only" actually means and which types of fouls it is limited to.

In the BCAPL cue ball fouls only are covered under section 1.33 of the general rules - Disturbed Balls (Cue Ball Fouls Only). It is rather lengthy but can be found here beginning on page 28:

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


As for the World Standardized Rules (WPA) cue ball fouls only is covered under section 20 of the Regulations:

20. Cue ball fouls only
If there is no referee presiding over a match, it may be played using cue ball fouls only. That is, touching or moving any ball other than the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the shot by either touching another ball or having any ball, including the cue ball, going through the area originally occupied by the moved ball. If this does not happen, then the opposing player must be given the option of either leaving the ball where it lies or replacing the ball as near as possible to its original position to the agreement of both players. If a player shoots without giving his opponent the option to replace, it will be a foul resulting in cue ball in hand for the opponent.

http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations#20

 

[Inferno]

You might want to go and re-read those rules...

Nah, I read them once. That's enough.

What's going on here is the OP got butthurt because he wanted to "win" without actually having the skill to win.

No matter what anyone says he will argue that there's an exception just for him.

This thread became TMWTOTD

 

[Bob Jewett]

Nah, I read them once. That's enough.

What's going on here is the OP got butthurt because he wanted to "win" without actually having the skill to win.

No matter what anyone says he will argue that there's an exception just for him.

As I see it, what's going on here is that the OP's opponent cheated and the OP wanted some confirmation that it was, in fact, cheating. It was, in fact, cheating if the secondary contact with the eight ball was intentional.

 

[TheNewSharkster]

Nah, I read them once. That's enough.

What's going on here is the OP got butthurt because he wanted to "win" without actually having the skill to win.

No matter what anyone says he will argue that there's an exception just for him.

This thread became TMWTOTD

That is BS. What if the OP played a great defensive shot and the other player was going to scratch the 8ball because of it? Winning on a defnesive shot it totally legit. Even if that isn't the case how can you blame the OP for what happened in this situation? I would be hot if it were me.

 

[Inferno]

I read it as the OP is the shooter in this scenario.

 

[tatcat2000]

I agree with the spirit of the rule here.. it seems the grey area is in the definition of CB fouls only...

I can't seem to find any written rule explaining what "CB fouls only" actually means and which types of fouls it is limited to.

The term "cue ball fouls only" is an unfortunate misnomer that has plagued the WSR for a long time, but is so ingrained in the vernacular of pool that it is impossible to dispose of.

The BCAPL rules briefly address the situation in Applied Ruling 1.33:

"General Discussion: The term "cue ball fouls only", while a misnomer, is so commonly used that the BCAPL will continue its use. However, as the rule describes, it clearly does not mean that no fouls can occur if the cue ball is not involved. The term applies to fouls involving disturbed balls under Rule 1-33."

Basically, you just have to accept that the term is not very accurate when taking in the context of WSR or BCAPL rules.

Buddy

 

[CreeDo]

APA says the call goes to the shooter. So have somebody watch any questionable shots. I actually like this because it at least gives you a defense.

I do not like a TD making a call on a shot that he didn't see (with the exception of it being a clarification of rules).

You're confusing two different scenarios.
"Call someone to watch the hit, or it goes to the shooter" only applies to one of them.


Scenario 1:
A player is trying to hit a ball that is very close to another ball, for example kicking a stripe when a solid is very close, or shooting when the cue ball is very close to an object ball and risking a push.

In scenario 1., the foul is PREDICTABLE. You can see the foul might occur, because the balls happen to be close to each other. So it's easy to predict a foul might happen, and you can call a ref to watch. Even then, it might be tough to say what ball got hit first. In that case, it goes to the shooter.

Scenario 2:
A dishonest player is committing an intentional sportsmanship foul. This kind of foul is UNPREDICTABLE because it can happen at any time. He can see he's about to scratch and then use his stick to knock it away from the hole. He can nudge the table to knock in a hanger. He can place his bridge hand and knock one of his balls closer to the hole.

You cannot protect yourself by calling a ref to 'watch the hit' because there's no hit to watch. It's a routine shot, not a close hit. You can't say "well when in doubt, it goes to the shooter" because there's zero doubt. He's flat out cheating.

If you make the rule "the ref has to see it", then he can simply cheat as much as he wants, as long as he knows the ref/league operator is on the other side of the room.

At some point, you have to let common sense take over: if everyone on his team said "yeah, bob cheated", and everyone on your team said "yeah, bob cheated", and 10 spectators say "yeah, bob cheated"... then the ref/LO has to penalize him.