Foul or not?

[Flats]

Playing BCA rules 8 ball, opponent has out ball in front of pocket and I hook him behind 5 ball, he pulls out jump cue and makes the out ball but the 5 ball moves forward. I start toward table as its a foul, he says no foul; he hit 5 ball with his cue and not the cue ball...foul or not?
Thanks ...Flats

 

[sbpoolleague]

FOUL.

BCAPL RULE 1.34.2
If you attempt to jump over or massé around an impeding illegal object ball then Rule 1.33, Disturbed Balls, does not apply to the impeding ball for that shot. If the impeding illegal object ball moves during the stroke it is a foul regardless of whether it was moved by your equipment or any part of your body.

 

[Bob Jewett]

FOUL.

BCAPL RULE 1.34.2
If you attempt to jump over or massé around an impeding illegal object ball then Rule 1.33, Disturbed Balls, does not apply to the impeding ball for that shot. If the impeding illegal object ball moves during the stroke it is a foul regardless of whether it was moved by your equipment or any part of your body.

So the opponent can claim it was his cue stick (or finger) that moved the blocking ball, but it doesn't make any difference if it was. It is still a foul.

 

[Chopdoc]

I don't care what organization's rules you are playing. You move object balls with your cue and I will call a foul. :wink:


.

 

[West Texan]

But if a judge was not called before the shot, the aguement of foul or not will always go to the shooter. It was still a foul.

WT

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

FOUL.

BCAPL RULE 1.34.2
If you attempt to jump over or massé around an impeding illegal object ball then Rule 1.33, Disturbed Balls, does not apply to the impeding ball for that shot. If the impeding illegal object ball moves during the stroke it is a foul regardless of whether it was moved by your equipment or any part of your body.

could the shooter claim that the impeding ball was moved by his cue *after the stroke*?

I guess you would have to know if the impeding ball stayed still as the cueball went over or is the time that you are withdrawing your cue also considered to be part of the stroke?

best,
brian kc

 

[sbpoolleague]

could the shooter claim that the impeding ball was moved by his cue *after the stroke*?

I guess you would have to know if the impeding ball stayed still as the cueball went over or is the time that you are withdrawing your cue also considered to be part of the stroke?

best,
brian kc

Yes, if you stroke through on a jump or masse, then, AFTER the cue ball has clearly passed the object ball, you lift up your cue and move the once-impeding object ball, that would not be a foul. It has to be clear that whatever was done to move the object ball had nothing to do with the stroke. This is one of many rules that cause arguments.

 

[fastone371]

Yes, if you stroke through on a jump or masse, then, AFTER the cue ball has clearly passed the object ball, you lift up your cue and move the once-impeding object ball, that would not be a foul. It has to be clear that whatever was done to move the object ball had nothing to do with the stroke. This is one of many rules that cause arguments.

If we are talking about the Op's original shot the way I read it is it is a foul regardless of how or when the opponents object ball moved. The BCA ruling clearly says that the disturbed ball rule does not apply in this situation. The playing jumped a ball and the impeding ball moved, does not matter how, when, or why its a foul.

BCAPL RULE 1.34.2
If you attempt to jump over or massé around an impeding illegal object ball then Rule 1.33, Disturbed Balls, does not apply to the impeding ball for that shot. If the impeding illegal object ball moves during the stroke it is a foul regardless of whether it was moved by your equipment or any part of your body.

 

[pocketsplitter]

But if a judge was not called before the shot, the aguement of foul or not will always go to the shooter. It was still a foul.

WT

True. But in this case the dispute was not whether or not the ball moved, but whether or not the facts admitted to by the shooter (that the ball was moved by his cue) is indeed a foul. As long as someone can pull up the rule it would be a foul I think.

 

[iusedtoberich]

This is why all rule books, tournaments, and gambling matches should switch to all ball fouls.

 

[sbpoolleague]

If we are talking about the Op's original shot the way I read it is it is a foul regardless of how or when the opponents object ball moved. The BCA ruling clearly says that the disturbed ball rule does not apply in this situation. The playing jumped a ball and the impeding ball moved, does not matter how, when, or why its a foul.

BCAPL RULE 1.34.2
If you attempt to jump over or massé around an impeding illegal object ball then Rule 1.33, Disturbed Balls, does not apply to the impeding ball for that shot. If the impeding illegal object ball moves during the stroke it is a foul regardless of whether it was moved by your equipment or any part of your body.

The rule clearly states "DURING THE STROKE". Once the stroke is over, then the disturbed ball rule goes back into effect.

 

[MitchAlsup]

Playing BCA rules 8 ball, opponent has out ball in front of pocket and I hook him behind 5 ball, he pulls out jump cue and makes the out ball but the 5 ball moves forward. I start toward table as its a foul, he says no foul; he hit 5 ball with his cue and not the cue ball...foul or not?

It is a foul in any tournament or event with referees.

In my league, we would let it go.

 

[jay helfert]

This is why all rule books, tournaments, and gambling matches should switch to all ball fouls.

Thank you for that. All Ball Fouls are played almost worldwide (not in the Philippines), except for in the USA. The only game where we have always played All Ball Fouls is Straight Pool. Finally that is starting to change, as well it should. Then, there is no controversy on a shot like the one described.

 

[cardiac kid]

Used to frequently play a few events on the Joss Northeast Tour. Mike Zuglan put a rule in place that is basically all ball fouls. The only caveat is, if you move a ball BEFORE your shot stroke, it is not a foul as long as you notify your opponent and give THEM the opportunity to replace the ball to it's original position.

Have no problem with all ball fouls except when applied before you even address the shot you are going to take. Once you are in position to shoot, foul! Remember I'm still an amateur and the "pro" game should be different.

Lyn

 

[Swighey]

The whole notion of "all ball fouls" is ridiculous. A foul is a foul. The rules of a league or match or tournament should lead by example by respecting the game.

 

[cardiac kid]

The whole notion of "all ball fouls" is ridiculous. A foul is a foul. The rules of a league or match or tournament should lead by example by respecting the game.

Think you need more experience playing at a high level of competition to understand why a rule like this is necessary. There are way too few players I would trust to call fouls on themselves. Probably just my sixty years of playing the game we love.

Lyn

 

[Lurkinglurch]

Guys iv read this site for years and never made a post. Sorry for not introducing myself earlier as I will in a diff thread but wanted to add what I have seen far too often. Locals and ameatuer players mainly beginners have enough trouble making a sturdy bridge. So if they extend out their fingers and touch a ball with a pinky or a thumb or have to bridge over a ball and move it should they lose their turn at the table? I’m just curious as to which rules people generally like better. All ball fouls seems a bit rough unless your talking about big time money matches or pro tournaments.

 

[Swighey]

Think you need more experience playing at a high level of competition to understand why a rule like this is necessary. There are way too few players I would trust to call fouls on themselves. Probably just my sixty years of playing the game we love.

Lyn

I'm not sure if you got my point or not - that "all ball fouls" as a concept should not exist. The idea of playing anything other than all ball fouls is just ridiculous. A foul is a foul. "Cue ball fouls only" and all that just encourages players to take advantage of the fact that fouls can be got away with.

My point was that there should be no let up and that any foul is a foul. At a high level there should be a referee who calls the fouls, or a level of trust commensurate with the sum of money being transferred from one player to another. I endeavour to play to the highest standards, if not the highest level. My opponents generally do the same. Some don't - and the same thing happens at any level. That doesn't change the fact that not playing "all ball fouls" stinks of a lack of respect for the game at whatever level you play at.

 

[Swighey]

Guys iv read this site for years and never made a post. Sorry for not introducing myself earlier as I will in a diff thread but wanted to add what I have seen far too often. Locals and ameatuer players mainly beginners have enough trouble making a sturdy bridge. So if they extend out their fingers and touch a ball with a pinky or a thumb or have to bridge over a ball and move it should they lose their turn at the table? I’m just curious as to which rules people generally like better. All ball fouls seems a bit rough unless your talking about big time money matches or pro tournaments.

If you are playing winner stays and your opponent messes up while bridging, you can say never mind play again. This is your choice, and your opponent can accept it. This doesn't change the fact that the rules you should be playing by should be the actual rules.

 

[cardiac kid]

I'm not sure if you got my point or not - that "all ball fouls" as a concept should not exist. The idea of playing anything other than all ball fouls is just ridiculous. A foul is a foul. "Cue ball fouls only" and all that just encourages players to take advantage of the fact that fouls can be got away with.

My point was that there should be no let up and that any foul is a foul. At a high level there should be a referee who calls the fouls, or a level of trust commensurate with the sum of money being transferred from one player to another. I endeavour to play to the highest standards, if not the highest level. My opponents generally do the same. Some don't - and the same thing happens at any level. That doesn't change the fact that not playing "all ball fouls" stinks of a lack of respect for the game at whatever level you play at.

With all due respect, you don't appear to understand the history of the game of billiards. Next time you have an opportunity to speak with a top professional player, ask them if they would trust their opponent to do the right thing if their back was turned without a referee. Somehow the statement "if you snooze, you lose" came into being. Whether in league play or world championship play, trust is not the defining factor. Sad but true. Made worse by "cue ball only fouls".

Lyn