Straight pool rule question

Tennesseejoe said:
Under this rule the object ball can be barely in the kitchen and the cue ball can barely cross the line and still hit that object ball. This is a good hit if a rail is contacted after the balls contact each other.
Click to expand...

pdcue said:
Ughhhh... no.

An Object Ball that is in Balk - did I mention the kitchen is where one cooks -
is IN BALK, full stop. If the CB does not contact another OB or a rail past the headstring first,
the shot is a foul.

Dale
Click to expand...

pdcue, what Tennesseejoe said is correct (WPA rules):

"6.11 Bad Play from Behind the Head String
When the cue ball is in hand behind the head string, and the first ball the cue ball contacts is also behind the head string, the shot is a foul unless the cue ball crosses the head string before that contact."

So the OB can be behind the head string (because its base is behind the head string) but with part of the ball sticking over the head string. The CB can then be placed just behind the head string and shot across the head string to contact the OB. The OB can actually be cut into a head-rail pocket sometimes in this situation. Of course the situation will require careful refereeing to be sure the CB crossed the line before the contact.

And the OB need not even be hanging over the head string. The CB could be masséd, going across the line and coming back to contact the OB.

As Tennesseejoe pointed out, a rail must be contacted after the CB and OB collide (in both of the situations I mentioned) to avoid a foul.
 
3andstop said:
Please don't bastardize straight pool. None of you guys play it anyway, so please leave the purest form of pool pure for those of us who appreciate it.
Click to expand...

I play straight pool at times and ball in hand should rule. One is penalized when forced back across string when opponent made the foul. Senseless.
 
Quatsch83 said:
Player A scratches so player B has cueball in hand in the kitchen.

Can player B take an intentional foul by placing the cueball in the jaw of one of the corner pockets in the kitchen and just tapping it so that player A would be hooked on the nub of the pocket?

Seems to me this is contrary to the spirit of the rules, but would it be illegal? If so what would happen if B did that?
Click to expand...

giphy2.gif
 
AtLarge said:
pdcue, what Tennesseejoe said is correct (WPA rules):

"6.11 Bad Play from Behind the Head String
When the cue ball is in hand behind the head string, and the first ball the cue ball contacts is also behind the head string, the shot is a foul unless the cue ball crosses the head string before that contact."

So the OB can be behind the head string (because its base is behind the head string) but with part of the ball sticking over the head string. The CB can then be placed just behind the head string and shot across the head string to contact the OB. The OB can actually be cut into a head-rail pocket sometimes in this situation. Of course the situation will require careful refereeing to be sure the CB crossed the line before the contact.

And the OB need not even be hanging over the head string. The CB could be masséd, going across the line and coming back to contact the OB.

As Tennesseejoe pointed out, a rail must be contacted after the CB and OB collide (in both of the situations I mentioned) to avoid a foul.
Click to expand...

The OP's question was about Straight (14.1) Pool.

In 14.1 it is a foul.

But thanks for stopping in.

Dale
 
This is an interpretation of the rules so take this with a grain of salt. When the status of the cue ball is ball in hand and player A takes in intentional foul behind the headstring, the ball in hand status of the cue ball remains unchanged. The cue ball must cross the headstring to be in an "in play" status. Player A forfeits his shot, incurs a foul penalty, and player B gets ball in hand behind the headstring.

This removes any reason to play such an shot which is why you never see it.
 
Quatsch83 said:
Player A scratches so player B has cueball in hand in the kitchen.

Can player B take an intentional foul by placing the cueball in the jaw of one of the corner pockets in the kitchen and just tapping it so that player A would be hooked on the nub of the pocket?

Seems to me this is contrary to the spirit of the rules, but would it be illegal? If so what would happen if B did that?
Click to expand...

Knock the CB in the pocket, giving back Bih in hopes they do it again, cause I'd knock it back in the pocket if they did. He'll hit three fouls before me.

Since he fouled first, I'd try three fouling him to get 15 points.
 
Regardless how you read the rules, it's not allowed. If you're playing in a tournament, the referee will tell you no. If you're gambling, your fish will quit up. If you're playing with a friend, they'll never invite you over for dinner again.

It's really simple. You have to shoot out of the kitchen. That's it. End of story. Have a nice day.
 
Quatsch83 said:
For those that mentioned unsportsmanlike conduct (which, I agree with you on by the way), why aren't all intentional fouls unsportsmanlike conduct?

Is there a hard and fast way to determine this as unsportsmanlike, or is it more subjective?
Click to expand...

You can do a foul with a legal shot. For example tapping the cueball with your tip and just not contacting anything or shooting deliberately at the wrong ball. Those are all "legal" shots but are fouls and still result in some sort of penalty for the player.

What goes into the flagrant or unsportsmanlike fouls are things like just grabbing the cueball or another ball with your hand, hitting the object ball with your cue, hitting the cueball with the cue not using a proper stroke, etc...
 
Perhaps it's easier to look at this from another perspective. In 9ball, it's permitted, even encouraged, to force your opponent to commit three fouls in a row. In 14.1, the spirit of the rule is different. Here, it's employed to force a shooter to perform a legal shot and proceed with the game.

The reason why shooters are forced to shoot outside the kitchen is to prevent exactly what you're trying to attempt - a corner hook. Corner hooks are allowed but you can't just tap them into place when you have BIH. The game has always prevented this.

In sum, the game limits your opportunities to force your opponent to kick for a legal hit in 14.1. In fact, over the past 25 years I've played 14.1, I can't think of a single instance where I was witness to a situation where the shooter was on two fouls and had to kick to avoid a third.


As for those that think 14.1 should change to BIH anywhere on the table, I say this - nearly every single fan of 14.1 (and this includes most of its participants) are incredibly respectful of its traditions. This is why many 14.1 tournaments are played with formal attire, why lagging is the most common way to determine who breaks and why the game has seen very few rule changes over the past century. When the day comes that someone breaks Mosconi's official record (or the several unofficial records out there), that shooter will want to know that the same game was played, nothing different.
 
AtLarge said:
Yes, I was speaking about 14.1. And no, it is not a foul in 14.1 under current WPA (world-standardized) rules.

We had a thread on this situation just 3 months ago: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=399809&highlight=mass%E9. In particular, see Bob Jewett's post #25.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was a similar debate on azb a couple of years ago that also included Bob Jewett's input. I think this is an unfortunate reinterpretation of the headstring. In my opinion, the base of the ball should determine if it's playable or not and the debate should end there. When it's just the base, the ruling always happens *before* the shot. "This ball can/can't be played" and that's that.

Now, there's a neutral zone where whether or not the ball is playable is determined by how it was played because of where it lies. It provides very little additional real estate for the shooter and makes the job of the referee much more difficult. What happens when the referee determines that there's just enough ball over the line to pocket it but if the shooter under-cuts, it must be a foul and you get a skid? How can a referee determine with near certainty *where* an object ball was contacted? When, in the history of pool, has it ever been foul/no foul simply based on *where* you contacted an object ball that you were allowed to shoot at?

Last, what's the ruling when you do hit it too fat and the referee determines you shot at a ball behind the line? It's a foul, I presume but probably not a sportsmanship violation, right? Like I said, I think this is a really unfortunate rule change and I strongly urge anyone with influence to reconsider.
 
PoolBoy1 said:
I play straight pool at times and ball in hand should rule. One is penalized when forced back across string when opponent made the foul. Senseless.
Click to expand...

And I would say it is BIH that was senseless.

Back when this was still America - all pool was ball-in-hand-behind-the-headstring on a scratch.
CB anywhere on the table was a modification to speed up 9 Ball
tournament matches - which eventually pretty much ruined 9 Ball.

Dale
 
PoolBoy1 said:
I play straight pool at times and ball in hand should rule. One is penalized when forced back across string when opponent made the foul. Senseless.
Click to expand...

I believe this image perfectly summarizes my feelings about this post.
 

Attachments

  • 300x300.jpg
    300x300.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 163
Here's the answer folks....

Play does not start for the inning until the cue ball crosses the head string. So, a foul into the jaws of a corner pocket behind the head string can't happen because the cue ball never passed the head string to start.

Sheesh. Straight pool 101
 
pdcue said:
Just because the WPA thinks they have the right to hijack 14.1 doesn't mean they do.

Dale
Click to expand...

If you play or watch 14.1 and haven't actually read the WPA 14.1 rules since their revision effective 1/1/2008, I'd recommend you do so. A few other things might be different from what you remember.
 
Last edited:
NYC cue dude said:
Here's the answer folks....

Play does not start for the inning until the cue ball crosses the head string. So, a foul into the jaws of a corner pocket behind the head string can't happen because the cue ball never passed the head string to start.

Sheesh. Straight pool 101
Click to expand...

This isn't entirely accurate. There are plenty of infractions the shooter can incur behind the head-string, especially if he's doing it intentionally. If I were a referee, I would insist that the head-string is crossed. Any shot taken that had no intention of crossing the line can be viewed as unsportsmanlike conduct. The first penalty *can be* a warning with the shot being played over. In a professional setting, the warning might be given during the players' meeting and a 15-point penalty could be levied on the first infraction.
 
Ok I seem to remember that if you wanted to play an intentional foul after the ball in hand puts the ball in the kitchen, always an option in 14.1, you did have to cross the head string for it to be legal. The results would be the original shooter on the first foul and the second shooter also on one foul. Been a while since I played so I might be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top