Depends on exactly what you mean by "so rare". IMO, making an unintended shot actually happens quite often, even at the pro level.
Call shot rules - What's an "obvious" shot?
- Thread starter jsp
- Start date
Having thought about it even more...
Criterion #1 can be rewritten as follows...
1) The first thing the cue ball contacts is the pocketed ball or the rail adjacent to the pocket in which the ball is pocketed.
If #1 is stated this way, then there would be no need to call the obvious shots where the OB is close to or touching the rail.
Or...
Criterion #1 can be rewritten as follows...
1) The first thing the cue ball contacts is the pocketed ball or the rail adjacent to the pocket in which the ball is pocketed.
If #1 is stated this way, then there would be no need to call the obvious shots where the OB is close to or touching the rail.
Somebody finally made sense. The term "Call Shot" is outright ridiculous. The only people who do that are the ones playing pool while waiting for a bowling alley to open up, and should be bowling.
No need to change terminology, according to WPA rules calling a shot includes calling a safety as well, and definition of "shot" is provided.
Rules are fine, no problem provided the referee has enough experience in order to apply them well.
Since due to player's concentration problems do occur even in pro level with non calling of obvious shots (a referee's judgement is more than sufficient to estimate a shot, rules point out he has to ask for a call BEFORE the shot is played if he's not sure), WPA should step in and ask for correct implementation of the rules, in order to provide good rhythm in matches and avoid unclassy loss of games.
If a rule is to be variated within acceptable limits, this has to be in WRITTEN before the tournament.
If these things apply, no problem should occur in the future other than having referees with some kind of certification.
Petros
Rules are fine, no problem provided the referee has enough experience in order to apply them well.
Since due to player's concentration problems do occur even in pro level with non calling of obvious shots (a referee's judgement is more than sufficient to estimate a shot, rules point out he has to ask for a call BEFORE the shot is played if he's not sure), WPA should step in and ask for correct implementation of the rules, in order to provide good rhythm in matches and avoid unclassy loss of games.
If a rule is to be variated within acceptable limits, this has to be in WRITTEN before the tournament.
If these things apply, no problem should occur in the future other than having referees with some kind of certification.
Petros
Call shot 10 ball actually originated in Philippines during the time of world 10 ball championships.
These shots are must call, bank, kick, caroms and combinations.
When these type shots are made without calling the ball/balls pocketed must be returned on the spot and the opponent has the option to shoot or pass.
These shots are must call, bank, kick, caroms and combinations.
When these type shots are made without calling the ball/balls pocketed must be returned on the spot and the opponent has the option to shoot or pass.
I disagree. If you're talking about a reply safety that happens to knock in a ball, then yes that happens quite a bit. I'm talking more about when a pro is running out, how often does it happen where he shoots for one pocket and makes it in another? Almost never. There are, however, situations in which the shooter knows there are balls near a pocket that create a "big pocket," and therefore make it easier to pocket the ob. In those situations, they might even make an un-intended ball, but they're aware of the possibility, and that increase in percentage likely drives the decision to shoot the shot. If a pro is making balls in the wrong pocket with any consistency, they are not going to remain at the table very long. One way to fix the "luck" on reply safeties is to play "call safe," that way your opponent can make you shoot if you land safe and didn't call it. Under those rules, players will typically call safe when kicking, and it won't matter if they luck in a ball.
It's just a difference in opinion, really. Some players just can't handle when they think their opponent benefitted from an un-intended roll. I actually like that different tournaments play differently. If I was the director, i wouldn't require a called shot or call safe, because I like the creativity you get from two-way shots, and I'm not too concerned about players making balls in the wrong pockets - or at least I'm not concerned about them winning matches because of it. I would also prefer to avoid the complaining about balls not properly called, and the discussions that have to be had before any non-obvious shot. I'd also not play all ball fouls, but I really enjoy watching the call shot and safe 10 ball tournaments I've seen lately. The subtle rule differences demand more complex strategy. If all tournaments were played identically, the strategy becomes a little more obvious, especially without a shot clock. Finally, if your tournament has strict rules, you have to have qualified officials who have the stones to make calls and the attention to make them consistently, otherwise the tournament will lose credibility.
Last edited:
I also recently played in a 9 ball tournament, where it was call ball, except it was assumed you were calling the lowest ball, which meant you rarely actually called anything. In other words, you only needed to call combinations, or billiards. Caroms, where the ob is made after caroming off another ball, were not necessary to be called, because if you were playing the combination, you would have had to call that. It eliminated much of the luck, especially in reply safeties. However, it was still possible that a player might have shot at the lowest ball, missed, and had it go a few rails into another pocket. I never saw that happen, but it's possible. More importantly, there weren't any complaints or disagreements, which is really nice in a tournament without referees.
I thought that the call-shot rules for 10 ball originated in 2008. When was the tournament you're thinking of?
Aound that time, those were the times Raya Sports were the promoters. They made this rule and it was approved by the WPA
This is a pretty decent compromise for rotation games. In other words, calling a ball is only required if you're planning to pocket a ball that isn't the lowest ball on the table.
Unfortunately, that doesn't eliminate slop on the 9 if it's the only ball left on the table. It happens, especially when there is no obvious shot on the 9 (hit and pray).
Still, the compromise obviously can't apply to non-rotation games like 8-ball and straight pool.
But they are NOT clear. Nowhere does it define what an "obvious" shot means.
And if there is no referee? It becomes one player's definition of "obvious" versus the other player's definition.
It does no such thing.
Nowhere in this thread have I proposed "calling every detail of the shot". I'm simply defining unambiguously what an "obvious" shot means. That is all. The rest of the rules remain the same.
After reading the OP and scanning the replies, I determined that using the word "absurd" to describe how I feel about this thread would not make my incredulity obvious to readers. So, with the help of thesaurus.com, I present you with all the things I feel this thread is:
crazy
foolish
goofy
illogical
irrational
laughable
ludicrous
nonsensical
preposterous
silly
stupid
unreasonable
wacky
loony
tomfool
batty
campy
daffy
dippy
flaky
fooling around
for grins
freaky
gagged up
idiotic
inane
incongruous
jokey
joshing
nutty
off the wall
sappy
screwy
I want you to know that I use three pieces of criteria to determine if something I say is obvious to others.
First, they heard (or in this case, saw) me
Second, they are awake and sober enough to read it all
Third, I did not contact any other object ball while typing this
And here's my serious answer:
You have a solution that is looking for a problem and your solution is going to cause more confusion and problems than it will solve. Could you just imagine two guys yelling at each other because the shot only satisfied 2 out of 3 on the "obvious checklist"?
crazy
foolish
goofy
illogical
irrational
laughable
ludicrous
nonsensical
preposterous
silly
stupid
unreasonable
wacky
loony
tomfool
batty
campy
daffy
dippy
flaky
fooling around
for grins
freaky
gagged up
idiotic
inane
incongruous
jokey
joshing
nutty
off the wall
sappy
screwy
I want you to know that I use three pieces of criteria to determine if something I say is obvious to others.
First, they heard (or in this case, saw) me
Second, they are awake and sober enough to read it all
Third, I did not contact any other object ball while typing this
And here's my serious answer:
You have a solution that is looking for a problem and your solution is going to cause more confusion and problems than it will solve. Could you just imagine two guys yelling at each other because the shot only satisfied 2 out of 3 on the "obvious checklist"?
Why would there be an argument? If it's part of the rules and the rules are written completely unambiguously, then it's simply a matter of following the rules.
With the rules as they are now, I can definitely imagine two guys yelling at each other and arguing whether a shot is "obvious" or not.
What do you have against the American Rotation Rules? I'm essentially proposing the same thing that has already been written down by the American Billiard Club (of which I was initially unaware). The criteria that I proposed simply determines for you whether a shot involves "a bank, kick, kiss, carom, or combination", whereas in the AR rules it is assumed that you know what "a bank, kick, kiss, carom, or combination" means.
Are you an engineer or software developer by chance? This is the same logic that is applied when talking about fixing software problems and it completely ignores the human element. In our case, the human element is that no one remembers all the WPA rules even though we can access them on our phones. There will most definitely be arguments.
I don't have anything in particular against those rules. I believe, however, that it is a solution looking for a problem. At least Joe Tucker expresses it simply. Your 3-point criteria is unnecessarily wordy.
Hmmm... Suppose the 7 is frozen to the middle of the foot cushion and I run it right along the cushion with inside english to spin the cue ball out for the next shot. Have I shot an obvious shot according to those rules? I made no call, as everyone in the room knew what I planned to do.
I think most of the responses in this thread are missing the salient difference between "call pocket", which is what the rule is discussing, and "call shot", which is how many of y'all are characterizing it.
Call pocket (indicate the ball to be made and the intended pocket) only requires that you call a ball and a pocket.
Call shot, i.e., call the rails, caroms, combos, rattles, wind gusts, tectonic forces, etc., isn't the rule in any tournaments.
If your object ball is all by itself, then you don't have to call the ball. If you're shooting it straight into a pocket, then you don't have to call the pocket. If either of those aren't true, then clarify what you're doing before you do it. Simple.
If you call a straight-in shot, and you rattle, go four rails, and drop in the same pocket, then... the intended ball went into the intended pocket. Shot made, keep shooting. It's really not that complicated.
Call pocket (indicate the ball to be made and the intended pocket) only requires that you call a ball and a pocket.
Call shot, i.e., call the rails, caroms, combos, rattles, wind gusts, tectonic forces, etc., isn't the rule in any tournaments.
If your object ball is all by itself, then you don't have to call the ball. If you're shooting it straight into a pocket, then you don't have to call the pocket. If either of those aren't true, then clarify what you're doing before you do it. Simple.
If you call a straight-in shot, and you rattle, go four rails, and drop in the same pocket, then... the intended ball went into the intended pocket. Shot made, keep shooting. It's really not that complicated.
There is no WPA "call pocket" rule, there is only "call shot" rule which includes calling pockets for object balls intended to be pocketed, as well as safety shots:
"1.6 Standard Call Shot
In games in which the shooter 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. Only one ball may be called on each shot.
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.
In call shot games, the shooter may choose to call “safety” instead of a ball and pocket, and then play passes to the opponent at the end of the shot. Whether balls are being spotted after safeties depends on the rules of the particular game."
Yes, I'm engineer. I guess it's the engineer in me that has a revulsion towards ambiguity. Imagine a civil engineer being asked to build a bridge that would support "heavy loads". Uh, okay.
That's the reason why laws are written down, as detailed and unambiguously as possible. Does it matter that the average citizen hasn't memorized all their state's laws? No, we would rather just have them all clearly written down somewhere when disputes arise.
Would you be okay if your state's driving laws are summarized into one simple law?...
Driver's shouldn't drive recklessly.
And leave it up to the "human element" during court when you're charged driving while talking on your cell phone in a school zone?
I can deal with the criticism that the 3-point criteria is "wordy" compared to Joe Tucker's. But it's essentially the same thing.
The 3-point criteria becomes very necessary when a player doesn't know the definition of a "kick" or a "carom". And I noticed that Joe Tucker's rules has no mention of a "billiard". What happens when a player shoots a very non-obvious billiard and claims that it was "obvious" because nowhere in the rules does it mention concretely that billiards are not to be considered obvious? Is there really a difference between a "billiard" and a "carom"? You can't tell from AR's rules. However, it doesn't matter at all with the 3-point criteria.