From the
WPA Rules for 10-ball...
9.5 Call Shots & Pocketing Balls
Whenever the shooter is attempting to pocket a ball (except the break) he is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant.
For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call..
These are better rules than what were used in the Pacquiao tournament, but there are still issues with the way it is stated here. What exactly is an "obvious" shot? Nowhere in the rules is it precisely defined. Why can't one argue that a bank shot is obvious? Or that Shane's shot on the 10 in his forfeit to Alcano is
not obvious?
So even using WPA rules as they are written, I can still envision instances where the ambiguity of the term "obvious" could be the cause of similar controversies as to what we've seen in the Pacquiao tournament. To solve this, the rules simply have to provide an absolutely clear and completely unambiguous definition of what an "obvious" shot is. This is what I propose...
A shot is "obvious" if it meets ALL of the following criteria:
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.