If you expect the OB will graze another ball, then call the shot. Simple as pie.
Last edited:
Call shot rules - What's an "obvious" shot?
- Thread starter jsp
- Start date
Yes, it would expand the number of shots that have to be called. If you can think of that as a con, then so be it. The pro side is that there is absolutely no ambiguity with the rules. Nothing comes for free. I would rather have to call a possible carom than get into a quarrel of whether a particular combination is "obvious" or not.
If a player doesn't understand "obvious," said player should not be allowed out of his/her padded room!
The 4 rail bank Bob Jewett described above is a legal pot. Although frustrating to the player on the opposing end, one can only shake the head and move on. I've been on both ends of that very shot. It counts and I knew it counted when I was on both ends. To me, this whole situation is just another sign of the decline of society. Everything has to be perfectly clear, in black and white. No need for common sense. No need for individual thinking and decision making. Grasp at straws and look for loopholes to make a wrong into a right. In both of these publicised cases during the MP tournament, the players calling these "fouls" showed a complete lack of not only sportsmanship, but guts as well! In my opinion, they both should be banned from all major events in the U.S. the longer we allow this kind of thing to go on, the worse it's going to get. A statement needs to be made, and made NOW! SVB got it started by his voluntary forfeiture. America needs to show some guts and support him by letting these spineless, gutless wonders know that shyt doesn't fly over here!
Just my .02 worth...
The 4 rail bank Bob Jewett described above is a legal pot. Although frustrating to the player on the opposing end, one can only shake the head and move on. I've been on both ends of that very shot. It counts and I knew it counted when I was on both ends. To me, this whole situation is just another sign of the decline of society. Everything has to be perfectly clear, in black and white. No need for common sense. No need for individual thinking and decision making. Grasp at straws and look for loopholes to make a wrong into a right. In both of these publicised cases during the MP tournament, the players calling these "fouls" showed a complete lack of not only sportsmanship, but guts as well! In my opinion, they both should be banned from all major events in the U.S. the longer we allow this kind of thing to go on, the worse it's going to get. A statement needs to be made, and made NOW! SVB got it started by his voluntary forfeiture. America needs to show some guts and support him by letting these spineless, gutless wonders know that shyt doesn't fly over here!
Just my .02 worth...
Either draw the line there, or don't draw the line at all and allow for ambiguity. Where else can the line be drawn? If people are a fan of ambiguity in the rules, then so be it. I'd rather not be debating what constitutes as "obvious" during a match.
For the record, you're giving an 8-sigma scenario. Would people really cry foul if the shot that is fluked in the way you described it doesn't count as a point?
Old Nine Baller
Banned
An "obvious shot" is what a 6' 6" drunk in a strange bar tells you it is:wink:.
ONB
ONB
No. Rule remains the same except for the added definition of what constitutes an "obvious" shot.
If I don't call a bank shot (or a carom or a kick), and I argue it was obvious, what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it, given the way the rules are presently stated.
I guess I am just not getting it. If i am shooting at a shot up to say a spot shot it's pretty obvious. Now banks or combos sure. But what I am reading from the op is you think all thing should be called.
1) The first thing the cue ball contacts (after being struck by the cue) is the pocketed ball.
2) The pocketed ball doesn't contact another object ball.
3) The pocketed ball doesn't contact a rail other than the two adjacent rails of the pocket in which it is pocketed.
If any of the three criteria are not met on a particular shot, then the shot is NOT an "obvious" shot, and therefore should be called.
So given the addition of the above criteria to the rules, there can be no question as to whether a shot should have been called or not. Both Shane's and Biado's shot would be obvious. Any combination, carom, or kick shot would NOT be obvious. A shot grazing another OB when going to a pocket would NOT be obvious. If there is any chance the shot could fail one or more of the above criteria, it is your responsibility to call the shot.
No ambiguity whatsoever. I say we add the above criteria to the rules and eliminate the second paragraph of 9.5.
I'm not sure how I can make things more clear.
A shot that is not obvious has to be called. Nothing has changed here.
But what is an obvious shot? Presently, there is nothing in the rules that define what an obvious shot is. I'm defining it by the below criteria...
The following determines whether a shot is obvious...
1) The first thing the cue ball contacts (after being struck by the cue) is the pocketed ball.
2) The pocketed ball doesn't contact another object ball.
3) The pocketed ball doesn't contact a rail other than the two adjacent rails of the pocket in which it is pocketed.
If the shot doesn't meet all of the above criteria, then it is not an obvious shot.
Give me any shot you can think of and there will be no doubt was to whether the shot should be considered obvious or not. That's the entire point of adding the criteria.
And there are people who want to play our game without having to worry about calling every single shot in the risk of your opponent claiming a shot isn't obvious. Or likewise, there are people who want to play our game without having the opponent fluke in a shot and claiming that it was obvious.
Again, nothing comes for free. If you're okay with the status quo, then so be it. Given the fiasco with the MP tournament, I've come to realize that I'm not okay with the status quo.
But such scenarios could still happen with the WPA rules as they are written.
How are you going to prove that Shane's shot was obvious? The bottom line is that YOU CAN'T (the way the WPA rules are written).
Most all of us have played in tourneys or leagues where it is a gentleman's call ball and pocket. If you really, REALLY don't know when it is necessary to call a ball and pocket, then you wouldn't be much of a pool player. You wouldn't look at AZBilliards, or post in these threads. Anyone, ANYONE who plays pool regularly and wants to argue over a uncalled "obvious" shot saying they didn't know what the intention was, is just simply a liar, looking for a way to legally "cheat."
This is not to say that many won't try it and it is within the current rules therefore making it legal to "cheat." Those are the ones with no self respect or integrity. Those are the ones to whom this message of intolerance for such behavior needs to made loud and clear.
I'm pretty sure you're not one of those but you have opened up quite a can of worms for discussion! I'm enjoying reading and participating in this one! :grin-square:
Last edited:
Exactly. If a player doesn't nominate a pocket then who knows where the ball might be headed.
Ever watched a game from off the table?
Sure, your perspective can change.
Sometimes it's difficult to judge what a player is going to do sometimes, even when you think it's obvious.
Never assume.
If the rules demand a called pocket (for a winning ball), then that's what a player MUST do every time.
I've thought about this before and here is a possible solution. It's not perfect but it eliminates most of the problem.
For call shot, you need a ball and pocket. If there is no explicit call, the ball and pocket are set by the situation as follows. The default ball is the first ball struck by the cue ball. The default pocket is the pocket closest to the line the object ball is driven along after being hit by the cue ball.
That's it. I suppose you could add special cases for if the cue ball nicks an obstructing ball before contacting the true object ball and what to do on miscues and such. Personally, I think that if the referee is satisfied in whatever manner that the player made the intended shot, the shot should stand.
For call shot, you need a ball and pocket. If there is no explicit call, the ball and pocket are set by the situation as follows. The default ball is the first ball struck by the cue ball. The default pocket is the pocket closest to the line the object ball is driven along after being hit by the cue ball.
That's it. I suppose you could add special cases for if the cue ball nicks an obstructing ball before contacting the true object ball and what to do on miscues and such. Personally, I think that if the referee is satisfied in whatever manner that the player made the intended shot, the shot should stand.
That's not how the current rules are written for call shot games.