9 ball - 3 fouls

[Bob Jewett]

Perhaps I used the wrong term for pool. In snooker the fouling the player can be sent back in, and there is no limit if he keeps fouling.

So it is not "3 consecutive fouls" but 3 fouls in the same game/rack?

No. It is three fouls by the same player without that player making an intervening legal shot.

You scratch on the break.
I run two balls and then send the 3 ball up table and freeze the cue ball to the back of the 9 ball.
You fail to hit the 3 ball. I inform you that you are on two fouls (this warning is not required by the rules)
I play the 3-4-5 and play safe on the 6 ball.
As you come to the table, I warn you as required that you are on two fouls. You manage to hit the 6 ball but the cue ball scratches.
I win because you fouled three times without making an intervening legal shot.

 

[Coos Cues]

Perhaps I used the wrong term for pool. In snooker the fouling the player can be sent back in, and there is no limit if he keeps fouling.

So it is not "3 consecutive fouls" but 3 fouls in the same game/rack?

Yes in consecutive innings at the table. The only times in pool that I know of you can be put back in is after a push out which is not a foul just your opponent's option if he doesn't like where you pushed out to. Or in the game of ten ball if you make an unintended ball without fouling and your opponent doesn't care for the position of the cue ball it's again his option.

 

[David in FL]

It's called pocket billiards for a reason. You win by pocketing balls not by some sleazy technicality.

You win by defeating your opponent.

Three fouling is at best chicken %^%$. I don't enjoy playing with the type of player who feels like a win by three fouling has accomplished something.

If you’re that worried about being three fouled, then you’re right, you’re not ready for nine ball against any kind of competent competitor.

 

[Coos Cues]

You win by defeating your opponent.



If you’re that worried about being three fouled, then you’re right, you’re not ready for nine ball against any kind of competent competitor.

You don't have to be worried about something to not like it. I haven't kept track but my gut tells me I have won way more racks after "being on two" than I have lost. If you are a decent kicker they usually don't get you.

I simply feel it's an idiotic rule. Does anyone know where it originated? Had to come along about the time of or with the popularity of Texas express rules.

 

[David in FL]

You don't have to be worried about something to not like it. I haven't kept track but my gut tells me I have won way more racks after "being on two" than I have lost. If you are a decent kicker they usually don't get you.

If it’s that hard to do against you, why wouldn’t somebody feel like they have accomplished something if they managed to do it?

He doth protest too much, methinks.

Regardless, generally speaking, with the exception of silly eight-ball “call everything” bar rules, I neither like nor dislike the rules. I just play by them.

 

[bbb]

its 3 fouls

Perhaps I used the wrong term for pool. In snooker the fouling the player can be sent back in, and there is no limit if he keeps fouling.

So it is not "3 consecutive fouls" but 3 fouls in the same game/rack?

in a row
meaning 3 consecutive shots in a row
since when you foul your inning is over

 

[Bob Jewett]

its 3 fouls

in a row
meanining 3 innings in a row
since when you foul your inning is over

That's not exactly right. If a player who is on two fouls shoots a legal shot and then scratches on his next shot, he does not commit three fouls in a row. It has to be three consecutive shots.

 

[bbb]

its 3 fouls

Perhaps I used the wrong term for pool. In snooker the fouling the player can be sent back in, and there is no limit if he keeps fouling.

So it is not "3 consecutive fouls" but 3 fouls in the same game/rack?

in a row
meanining 3 innings in a row
since when you foul your inning is over

That's not exactly right. If a player who is on two fouls shots a legal shot and then scratches on his next shot, he does not commit three fouls in a row. It has to be three consecutive shots.

point well taken
i will correct my post

 

[Bob Jewett]

The downside of eliminating three fouls at nine ball is that there would be more stalemates. Players who are totally hooked would work to tie up balls in invincible clusters. That's not a huge problem, since you would just rerack and start another game, but everyone who plays pro pool is used to the current rule. Stalemates are very rare at nine ball -- I think I've never seen one.

 

[hang-the-9]

Perhaps I used the wrong term for pool. In snooker the fouling the player can be sent back in, and there is no limit if he keeps fouling.

So it is not "3 consecutive fouls" but 3 fouls in the same game/rack?

It is 3 consecutive fouls by the same player in the game. There is no rule like in snooker where the ball is reset after a foul and the other player can have the guy shoot again. 3 consecutive fouls means there was no legal hit done by the player between the shots. In games where 3 foul exists, 9 and 10 ball, after a foul the opponent gets ball in hand, they can try to hook them again, or run out. But if the other player gets to the table again and fouls again on the first shot, that is two fouls. Happens again later in the game, that is 3 and game over. In 14.1 3 fouls in a row by a player is a loss of 15 points.

 

[hang-the-9]

The downside of eliminating three fouls at nine ball is that there would be more stalemates. Players who are totally hooked would work to tie up balls in invincible clusters. That's not a huge problem, since you would just rerack and start another game, but everyone who plays pro pool is used to the current rule. Stalemates are very rare at nine ball -- I think I've never seen one.

I don't think I ran across a stalemate as a rule in 9 ball. With the 3 foul rule there can always be one guy that would reach 3 before the other if they just bunted balls around without touching a legal ball. Say when you surround a legal ball with others, you either foul not to break it up, or foul and break it up so next turn you don't do the same thing.

 

[Sheldon]

Intentional fouls can be abused in certain games. I think this is the main reason for the 3 foul rule. I agree with the people who moan about it being used to crucify weaker players, but I feel like that's less of an issue than players being able to intentionally foul over and over again. In tournaments with weak players, 3 fouls can be eliminated, but for better players I feel like it's an important part of the game.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I don't think I ran across a stalemate as a rule in 9 ball. With the 3 foul rule there can always be one guy that would reach 3 before the other if they just bunted balls around without touching a legal ball. Say when you surround a legal ball with others, you either foul not to break it up, or foul and break it up so next turn you don't do the same thing.

There is a stalemate rule in all pool games in the World Standardized Rules. Here it is for 9-ball:

2.9 Stalemate​

​

If a stalemate occurs the original breaker of the rack will break again. (See 1.12 Stalemate.)​

The only way I can think it might happen is if the object ball is close to the cushion, the cue ball is close and straight out, and neither player is willing to do anything but lightly tap the cue ball onto the ball. In addition, the table would have to be a little funny for the ball to not freeze after a few shots. I think most players would try to do something else after a few shots. All of this is very, very unlikely.

On a related note, 14.1 also has a stalemate rule now. On another related note, at one pocket a stalemate is even more unlikely because of the difference in target pockets.

 

[hang-the-9]

There is a stalemate rule in all pool games in the World Standardized Rules. Here it is for 9-ball:

2.9 Stalemate​

​

If a stalemate occurs the original breaker of the rack will break again. (See 1.12 Stalemate.)​

The only way I can think it might happen is if the object ball is close to the cushion, the cue ball is close and straight out, and neither player is willing to do anything but lightly tap the cue ball onto the ball. In addition, the table would have to be a little funny for the ball to not freeze after a few shots. I think most players would try to do something else after a few shots. All of this is very, very unlikely.

On a related note, 14.1 also has a stalemate rule now. On another related note, at one pocket a stalemate is even more unlikely because of the difference in target pockets.

I have not seen that rule in 9 ball, interesting. In over 30 years of playing, I have not heard of any 9 ball game end in a stalemate. 8 ball, personally I have played in a few over those 30 years and also made a few calls on other games that occurred, so maybe 10 total in 30 years.

 

[Coos Cues]

Intentional fouls can be abused in certain games. I think this is the main reason for the 3 foul rule. I agree with the people who moan about it being used to crucify weaker players, but I feel like that's less of an issue than players being able to intentionally foul over and over again. In tournaments with weak players, 3 fouls can be eliminated, but for better players I feel like it's an important part of the game.

As I recall the last time you and I played a match over at Roseburg you tried to three foul me out hill-hill.

So yes it was an important part of the game, you may have run out had you not tried that skullduggery.

 

[WilliamK]

There is no rule like in snooker where the ball is reset after a foul and the other player can have the guy shoot again.

There is such a rule and although it is not popular, it is played worldwide.

In snooker the "Foul and Miss" rule (FAM) was introduced many years ago to prevent players from making an intentional miss that might otherwise leave an opponent an easy shot.

Whether by miscue or intent, if a player fails to contact the ball on, FAM can be called, leaving the opponent a choice of playing from where the cue ball lies, or replacing all balls for the offending player to play from the original position.

While the rule is about preventing intentional misses, there is no grey area and zero tolerance. At a referee seminar it was demonstrated on a table that even when playing a one cushion out and passing between two reds with only 2 mm to spare on both sides, it is still a FAM.

It is a bitch of a rule and one that I am against, especially when the original snooker was by fluke or by simply running up behing a colour in balk which required almost no skill. Some events are played applying FAM only when obviously an intentional miss. But that is against the rules and as TD for one handicap tournament where we were trying to welcome new players who had little comp experience, when I announced that the FAM can be played at players discretion and only if a obvious intentional miss, the state director for referees heard this and started banging on about how he wanted to cancel my referee accreditation.

There is no limit to how many times FAM can be called in snooker, and it has often meant losing/gaining as many as 30+ points.

 

[Bob Jewett]

...

While the rule is about preventing intentional misses, there is no grey area and zero tolerance. At a referee seminar it was demonstrated on a table that even when playing a one cushion out and passing between two reds with only 2 mm to spare on both sides, it is still a FAM.
...

On the pro tour, this is not always true. I have seen referees not call FAM when the ball could be hit but with difficulty. There are several examples on YouTube but I don't have a specific link. I have also seen players reluctant to put the other player back in when it seemed they had made a best effort to hit the ball.

There is one limit on number of FAMs and that is when the fouler finally needs snookers.

 

[WilliamK]

I have seen referees not call FAM when the ball could be hit but with difficulty.

True. But not often. It is at referee discretion but the referee can be at fault. Players can and will claim preferential treatment so to be safe, the ref will call a FAM at all times. Although some snookers can be almost impossible and after 2-3 attempts the ref can realise that and not call FAM

 

[hang-the-9]

There is such a rule and although it is not popular, it is played worldwide.

In snooker the "Foul and Miss" rule (FAM) was introduced many years ago to prevent players from making an intentional miss that might otherwise leave an opponent an easy shot. There is such a rule and although it is not popular, it is played worldwide.

In snooker the "Foul and Miss" rule (FAM) was introduced many years ago to prevent players from making an intentional miss that might otherwise leave an opponent an easy shot.

Yes that is a snooker rule, what I said was that there is no rule in pool like that when replying to the post. I maybe should have added "there is no rule like there is in snooker", I just said "there is no rule like in snooker".