The APA website, states, "A defensive shot (also called a Safety) is a shot where there is no INTENT to pocket a ball." Frequently, it's necessary to make a kick shot where the only intent is to make contact with the object ball and drive it to a rail without any intent to pocket the ball. I don't know of anyone in my league who scores such a shot as a safety. There seems to be an unwritten consensus that a safety has to have a true defensive component to it. With the way the rules read, it seems my league is not scoring the shot correctly, but, that having been said, how do other APA-types score it in their area: safety or not?
APA scorekeeping; safeties
- Thread starter Clusterbuster
- Start date
That is the problem with no "call shot" or "call safe" games. I prefer to call everything, but most people don't like that.
How about if I kick a ball that you had played a safety on and I can't hit head on and I then get a safety on you? Did I intend to pocket the ball or intend to just hit it? How about if I kick it, knowing full well there is no way the ball will go. There are a lot of balls that I will kick at instead of hitting it head on during normal play, in order to get a safety. If I accidentally make the ball and maintain my safe I'm screwed...should it be your shot since I didn't call the intent to make the ball?
I watch the APA league for a bit sometimes on Sundays when I've finished playing and I scratch my head and laugh at all their silly little rules, or lack thereof. It is funny watching them trying to figure out the rules when 3/4 of them can't make three balls in a row anyway.
Banks
Banned
It's a safety. All they have to do is read.
Non-offensive shots get marked. There is room for different opinions in some cases. Which is why each team keeps separate score sheets and they don't have to match exactly.
https://youtu.be/wzfvYHM3CEs
https://youtu.be/wzfvYHM3CEs
What the rules say is correct and the very description you gave is one of the most unmarked defensive shots out there. They have no intent of making the ball and they are just trying to get a good hit, thus they have just played safe. Now if, as the training video clearly shows and says, they hit it hard enough to try to make it somewhere that is another story.
No matter what the shot is, if they are not trying to continue at the table then they are playing a defensive shot. This can even be said for better players that make a ball but know they are leaving themselves in bad shape to not make another. You need to watch for this one from good 5's and 6's trying not to get raised.
The problem with APA is both teams always think they have to agree on everything, they do not. Particularly with safeties. If you think it's a safety, mark it a safety. By the rules, this shot should probably be scored a safety. It's really left up to you watching the game to judge intent though and you can score it however you think it should be scored.
They need to add a new rule to the APA rulebook that says "it's a rule to use common sense".
They need to add a new rule to the APA rulebook that says "it's a rule to use common sense".
Well if you don't hit it hard enough to make it somewhere then you played Defensive. If you picked a ball that you had no chance to make, such as putting my ball hanging in the corner in that was blocking yours, then you just played Defensive.
If you try to play a safe and accidentally make it, then it is not safe unless you announced before hand. If you say, Safe and put it in I have already marked your safe and you continue at the table. If you didnt announce and say, dang I meant to miss that. I mark it. If you then play a safe you will actually get 2 out of one inning from me.
It really isn't that hard of a concept. If you can't make a ball, are just trying to get a good hit or trying to safe me, then a defensive shot is marked.
Score sheets do not have to be the same as it is subjective. However, if they are consistently off by a team I can guarantee those players will be "watched" more than others.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, most of the time it is the low level players there just socializing that don't play practice games that is keeping score and they don't know what to look for if they are even looking to begin with.
When I'm playing, I will call safe if I don't intend to make anything, regardless of whether the shot is going to hook them or not. It's the intent of the shot that's important. I might not have a particular pocket in mind, but kick at a ball hard enough to hopefully get lucky somewhere. In that case, the intent was to get lucky and make a ball, making it not a defensive shot.
I mark non-offense shots as defensive shots when I'm scoring others' matches. I've had people get pissed about it, but they're wrong.
That's a good point. Low skilled players keep score a lot. I'd say as a general rule...if you're not sure of intent mark it a defense.
You already said the answer. There was no intention to pocket the ball. Therefore: safety. Every time. Your area apparently has an unwritten rule to cheat. That is exactly one of the ways that sandbagging happens. Your league operator should be all over that, as well as all his division reps. Yes, your league is scoring the shot incorrectly.
KMRUNOUT
On the APA scoresheet there is no check box yet for 'sandbagging'. Marking down safeties is one line of defense against perceived sandbagging. As other have summarized, the scoresheets do not have to match. The last APA league I played, there were point incentives for making sure the scoring for both matched and handed in on time.
In the latest APA video on defensive shots this type of scenario is specifically mentioned. It explains that in the case where a player has no clear shot and attempts to kick a ball if he/she hits it hard enough so that it's possible that a ball can be pocketed no defense should be marked. However, if the shooter hits it so that no ball can be pocketed it is a defensive shot. Of course common sense should prevail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzfvYHM3CEs Go to 4:40 to see example 3.
Marking defense or the failure to do so is the biggest flaw in the APA scheme it seems to me. Since defensive shots have a direct impact on player ratings any inconsistencies render the Equalizer System unequal. When less knowledgable players score they may not even recognize a defensive shot. Of course anyone who purposely fails to mark them destroys the integrity of the match.
So either accept it and have fun or quit because it isn't going to change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzfvYHM3CEs Go to 4:40 to see example 3.
Marking defense or the failure to do so is the biggest flaw in the APA scheme it seems to me. Since defensive shots have a direct impact on player ratings any inconsistencies render the Equalizer System unequal. When less knowledgable players score they may not even recognize a defensive shot. Of course anyone who purposely fails to mark them destroys the integrity of the match.
So either accept it and have fun or quit because it isn't going to change.
Last edited:
In APA play offense is defined as trying to actually SINK (key word here) one of your own balls. If you are not playing offense, then you are playing defense. Defensive shots are to be recorded for that specific shooter. No need for both teams/shooters/coaches/captains/score keepers to agree on the intent. Many times there is a lot of gray area here and the shooter can be given reasonable benefit of a doubt, after taking into consideration shooter's SL, score of the match and situation on the table. Each team records its own opinion of the shot on THEIR OWN sheet. No need to argue.
This way the LO can ascertain each team's "track record" of score keeping and eventually determine who is fudging on the score sheet and who is trying to be honest. One week proves little, but the same pattern, from the same player/team over several weeks can help the LO to determine if a player's SL should be adjusted.
If you are honest this works to your advantage. If you're not, it doesn't.
This way the LO can ascertain each team's "track record" of score keeping and eventually determine who is fudging on the score sheet and who is trying to be honest. One week proves little, but the same pattern, from the same player/team over several weeks can help the LO to determine if a player's SL should be adjusted.
If you are honest this works to your advantage. If you're not, it doesn't.
Like the one on page 5, perhaps?
Unfortunately it's not a requirement that every team have a "Common Sense" person on their team. Most teams have certain elements:
Every team has a best player (though not always the smartest player),
I think pretty much every team has a "Control" person who isn't always the captain,
every team has a whiner - they whine about everything from the color of the balls and weak beer to the sandbagging that everyone but the whiner is guilty of, and
most teams have a "What-can-I-get-away-with" person.
Some teams have a rule person, a team drunk (some have two),
some have the overly serious APA fanatical guy that has all his patches and pins displayed neatly on his APA jacket, wears an APA hat and t-shirt to every match,
has the APA key chain and luggage tags and has the APA logo as his screen saver and the phone number to the St. Louis office on his speed dial and thinks he
is on a first name basis with the St. Louis Administrative staff. There are others that are mainly role fillers,
but anyways... the Common Sense person should be a requirement.
Your common sense guy can become infected by the control guy or the what-can-I-get-away-with guy or even the team drunk.
Your common sense guy needs to be well grounded and smart and strong enough to say 'no' or to be able to stand his ground and defend his team against the other team's fanatic,
or the opponents what-can-I-get-away-with guy, the commons sense guy must maintain his cool in the face of adversity, sometimes even at the hands of his own team
and they must have the strength to do what's right. Once infected by the drunk or the what-can-I-get-away-with guy, or the fanatic, or the control guy the ability to say no and
show common sense goes out the window.
To few APA teams have a Common Sense guy.
Every team has a best player (though not always the smartest player),
I think pretty much every team has a "Control" person who isn't always the captain,
every team has a whiner - they whine about everything from the color of the balls and weak beer to the sandbagging that everyone but the whiner is guilty of, and
most teams have a "What-can-I-get-away-with" person.
Some teams have a rule person, a team drunk (some have two),
some have the overly serious APA fanatical guy that has all his patches and pins displayed neatly on his APA jacket, wears an APA hat and t-shirt to every match,
has the APA key chain and luggage tags and has the APA logo as his screen saver and the phone number to the St. Louis office on his speed dial and thinks he
is on a first name basis with the St. Louis Administrative staff. There are others that are mainly role fillers,
but anyways... the Common Sense person should be a requirement.
Your common sense guy can become infected by the control guy or the what-can-I-get-away-with guy or even the team drunk.
Your common sense guy needs to be well grounded and smart and strong enough to say 'no' or to be able to stand his ground and defend his team against the other team's fanatic,
or the opponents what-can-I-get-away-with guy, the commons sense guy must maintain his cool in the face of adversity, sometimes even at the hands of his own team
and they must have the strength to do what's right. Once infected by the drunk or the what-can-I-get-away-with guy, or the fanatic, or the control guy the ability to say no and
show common sense goes out the window.
To few APA teams have a Common Sense guy.
Last edited:
Ha! You are correct sir/ma'am!...
"Relax, enjoy yourself and play within the Spirit of the Rules as well
as the written rule. It is impossible to cover every situation 100%
with rules. Common sense must prevail. Teams that try to gain
advantage by creating their own interpretations are subject to
sportsmanship violations. Win at the table and not from the chair is a
generality that promotes harmony, camaraderie and good times."
Last edited:
Whether or not a shot is scored as a defensive shot is at the discretion of the score keeper.
If a good player misses and did not leave himself cue ball position for a following shot.......... it may be scored as a defensive shot............. the score keeper's discretion.
For a 2 or a 3..... maybe not.... probably not.
As for kicking to hit a ball......... it is supposed to be scored as a defensive shot because no pocket was intended..............
How about if I I am snookered by my opponent and I kick to hit my ball but I call a pocket????? A shot was intended......... so is it still a defensive shot????
Kim
If a good player misses and did not leave himself cue ball position for a following shot.......... it may be scored as a defensive shot............. the score keeper's discretion.
For a 2 or a 3..... maybe not.... probably not.
As for kicking to hit a ball......... it is supposed to be scored as a defensive shot because no pocket was intended..............
How about if I I am snookered by my opponent and I kick to hit my ball but I call a pocket????? A shot was intended......... so is it still a defensive shot????
Kim
If your intent was to try to make the ball then clearly it is not defensive. However, if you call it but never try to get an angle or hit it hard enough to even come close, then I would mark it.