Is it considered bad form to take a shot just to screw over your opponent?

M

MSmithAZ

Member
Hey folks,

So you're playing a game and you've got no shot. Nothing. But you could tap the ball a few inches forward, maybe leaving it in the center of a cluster of balls, for no other purpose other than to ruin any potential shot that your opponent may have. Is this considered bad form/cheap or is it part of the game?

Thanks
 
Safety shots are not bad form at all. They are a legitimate strategy. If I realize early on that I can't run out, I look for a pattern that allows me to setup a safety. When I played 9 ball in college, I would purposely play safeties when I got ball in hand to try and 3 foul someone out. Lots of people hated playing against me as a result.
 
Depends on what rules you are playing by and what circumstance it is. In almost all tournaments playing a safety shot is considered an appropriate shot. However if you are playing someone in say a bar it may be considered bad form depending on where you play. I always ask my opponent if safeties are allowed before we start playing, especially if it's for money I like to make sure we are clear on all of the rules beforehand
 
chenjy9 said:
Safety shots are not bad form at all. They are a legitimate strategy....
Click to expand...
That depends on the location and the opponent. In some bars you don't want to start that stuff. I used to play in a bar league where there was a rule: No Safes! Really. And that's the way we played.

But yes, if you play by the official rules or in any of the main leagues, safety play is allowed and sometimes cheered. There is the ball-in-hand issue which the OP seemed to be unaware of.
 
Bob Jewett said:
That depends on the location and the opponent. In some bars you don't want to start that stuff. I used to play in a bar league where there was a rule: No Safes! Really. And that's the way we played.

But yes, if you play by the official rules or in any of the main leagues, safety play is allowed and sometimes cheered. There is the ball-in-hand issue which the OP seemed to be unaware of.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, really? Haven't personally ran into that myself. Good to know, thanks!
 
Bob Jewett said:
There is the ball-in-hand issue which the OP seemed to be unaware of.
Click to expand...
I wasn't. Now that I got a table finally, I'm trying to learn these official rules, which some of the details have always been an open question for me and usually just fell into the category of house rules (i.e. someone says "I don't know...we always played this way" and you just roll with it). Good link from @Patrick Johnson and also found this too, which was good:
 
It depends. In BCAPL, safes are a legal shot. But.... intentionally fouling, as in shooting directly at your opponents ball to tie it up, is considered a sportsmanship violation.
 
MSmithAZ said:
I wasn't. Now that I got a table finally, I'm trying to learn these official rules, which some of the details have always been an open question for me and usually just fell into the category of house rules (i.e. someone says "I don't know...we always played this way" and you just roll with it). Good link from @Patrick Johnson and also found this too, which was good:
Click to expand...
I think you'll find the Ball-in-Hand rules make for a much better game. The bar rules don't really penalize bad play but they impede good play. I guess that stops bangers from getting blown off the table too quickly, which isn't always a bad thing. There are just some serious, easily exploited flaws that detract from the game. Mainly that if you pocket the cue ball, and the other player's balls are in the kitchen, you have gained a significant advantage due to poor play. Congratulations on getting a table, and sorry about all the other things in your life that will have to wait until just one more rack....wait, I can shoot better, one more rack...wait....
 
buckshotshoey said:
It depends. In BCAPL, safes are a legal shot. But.... intentionally fouling, as in shooting directly at your opponents ball to tie it up, is considered a sportsmanship violation.
Click to expand...

If you mean poking the cueball into the opponent's ball, no it is not.

If you mean poking the opponent's ball intentionally, this is a sportsmanship violation
 
MSmithAZ said:
...and also found this too, which was good:
Click to expand...
That appears to be for an APA league. The APA has their own private set of rules. Unless you are playing in the APA, you would be much better off looking here:

www.playcsipool.com

BCA Pool League Rules

Rules used by the BCA Pool League
www.playcsipool.com

While not quite the World Standardized Rules, they are pretty close and they have a lot of explanations.
 
buckshotshoey said:
It depends. In BCAPL, safes are a legal shot. But.... intentionally fouling, as in shooting directly at your opponents ball to tie it up, is considered a sportsmanship violation.
Click to expand...
So far as I know, a bad hit is just a foul in BCAPL regardless of whether it was intentional or not. Do you have a rule quote to the contrary?
 
Bob Jewett said:
That appears to be for an APA league. The APA has their own private set of rules. Unless you are playing in the APA, you would be much better off looking here:

www.playcsipool.com

BCA Pool League Rules

Rules used by the BCA Pool League
www.playcsipool.com

While not quite the World Standardized Rules, they are pretty close and they have a lot of explanations.
Click to expand...
I just noticed that in BCA, a frozen ball must contact another cushion and in WPA, the ball may leave the cushion and contact it again. I don't know what other differences there are but that one came up the other day.
 
tomatoshooter said:
I just noticed that in BCA, a frozen ball must contact another cushion and in WPA, the ball may leave the cushion and contact it again. I don't know what other differences there are but that one came up the other day.
Click to expand...
The BCAPL allows the frozen ball to hit another ball and then return to the cushion. The WPA rules do not require another ball to be the reason for the return. Also, the BCAPL/CSI rules allow a frozen ball to rattle between the jaws of the side pocket and counts that as a rail even though the frozen ball did not contact some other ball (see page 88 in the CSI rules).

(The BCA is very different from the BCAPL. The BCA uses the WPA World Standardized Rules.)
 
Last edited:
tomatoshooter said:
I just noticed that in BCA, a frozen ball must contact another cushion and in WPA, the ball may leave the cushion and contact it again. I don't know what other differences there are but that one came up the other day.
Click to expand...
I don't remember what league or tournament but for a while there was a rule that if a ball was frozen to a rail then the CB and/or the OB had to contact a different rail. If you hit a frozen ball and the CB contacted the rail the ball was frozen on and nothing else hit a rail, it was a foul.

I think the intent was to avoid the ticky-tack safety battles that would sometimes occur. I was not a fan of that rule.
 
ideologist said:
If you mean poking the cueball into the opponent's ball, no it is not.

If you mean poking the opponent's ball intentionally, this is a sportsmanship violation
Click to expand...
Bob Jewett said:
So far as I know, a bad hit is just a foul in BCAPL regardless of whether it was intentional or not. Do you have a rule quote to the contrary?
Click to expand...
Yes. Striking the opponents object ball with your cue stick. Ive seen people try that crap.

I have had situations where I shot the cue ball directly at an opponents ball and gave ball in hand. That is legal.
 
sixpack said:
I don't remember what league or tournament but for a while there was a rule that if a ball was frozen to a rail then the CB and/or the OB had to contact a different rail. If you hit a frozen ball and the CB contacted the rail the ball was frozen on and nothing else hit a rail, it was a foul.

I think the intent was to avoid the ticky-tack safety battles that would sometimes occur. I was not a fan of that rule.
Click to expand...
I think whoever put that rule in didn't understand that if the cue ball contacts a cushion after the object ball, the sequence is unlikely to go on for long. I can't think of a situation where it wouldn't end fairly quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top