Actually it is the players' job in a non-refereed match. The responsibility for enforcing, to the best of their ability, the rules falls on the players in all games, pool included. This is respect for the game and therefore the players who are playing. I'll be the first to argue that MR tournaments should have a referee for every game but this has no bearing on whether or not the rules should be enforced or relaxed if no referee is available. If you are playing a game with rules then respecting the game and the players includes playing by those rules. Surely that's the way we should play all games we take seriously?
Hunter v Frost, your stance?
- Thread starter u12armresl
- Start date
No, it's not their job to police their opponent for clothing fouls. That's taking it to an extreme. All ball foul rules were written with the intent that there ia a presiding referee over the match. You don't have to punish your players like this. It's totally unnecessary. You are not thinking of your players' benefit at all. This is about you and your unwillingness to change for the benefit of your players when there is not a presiding referee.
Last edited:
Coos Cues
Coos Cues
Eyewitness evidence is among the least reliable. This has been shown over and over again throughout history. It seems your agenda is to let us know how superior the Europeans are in every aspect of pool including integrity and it's tiresome as hell.
Oh and by the way Mr or Ms Swighey, I bet you don't even know the rules of cue ball foul only. Did you know that even while playing cue ball foul only, that it is a foul if the player is shooting over an object ball and touches that object ball with his cue during his execution stroke? Cue ball fouls only rules are reasonable and fair, and the players don't have to constantly try to decide whether or not to call over an official for practically every time their opponent leans over the table.
Can you supply where this rule is stated for Cue Ball foul only? I have never seen it.
AFAIK the BCA/WPA rules use all-ball-foul rule. Where i grew up playing we played like Fran described, no shirt-touch fouls but touching with cue was a foul. We still play this way today. Zero issues.
Depends on the shooter! When I have had people invoke this rule after blatantly fouling, I blatantly foul myself with them watching then proclaim, "no foul, call goes to the shooter!"
Cheating is only an advantage if the other player doesn't. The cheater cries loudly when they are met halfway, or a bit more. When gambling, after abuse of the shooter gets the call rule I sometimes raked the table down to the money ball, tapped it in, and proclaimed myself winner!
When the other player jumps up I calmly tell them, "no foul, call goes to the shooter." While this ends some matches it often results in settling down and playing pool. When similar happens in a tournament it is often the cheater that now wants an observer or referee on the table!
Another chuckle is pretending to cheat. Impossible to catch something that didn't happen, makes the opponent crazy! After over half a century of play I know moves most have never dreamed of.
Hu
Right. Like other things that get passed down, parts become missing, like the fact that it was assumed that someone would be refereeing the match with all ball foul rules. The WPBA's written rules have been for cue ball foul only, except when otherwise stated as in certain circumstances with a presiding referee or when having to follow certain WPA rules. Men's pro events in the U.S. have always been adapted to cue ball foul only when there were no referees at each table, but lately the players are being forced to now focus on their opponent's shirt fouls due to the influence of organizations like Matchroom and the WPA.
People here are criticizing cue ball foul only rules, and I guarantee they don't even know what they are. These rules don't give a player the right to push object balls around and leave them there. It has to be addressed before the player shoots --- and it is up to their opponent to determine how to address it. The opponent has the right to tell his opponent to go ahead and replace it or leave it where it landed, or he can get up and replace it himself. And if an object ball was moved by a player's arm or body part during their execution stroke and the cue ball winds up hitting that ball as it's traveling, or if it interferes with the outcome of the shot, it's a foul. If it's moved by their pool cue during the final stroke, it's an automatic foul. How much more fair do you want?
WPA rules are a compromise of all countries. They are not specific to any one country, so there will be compromises made by countries, some more than others, depending on what was voted in.
The all ball foul rule is idealistic at best in the absence of a presiding referee, and not a favorable choice for players who would rather spend their time focusing on playing. Forcing rules and ignoring common sense at the same time is a bad precedent. We in the U.S. recognize that and appreciate our players.
Last edited:
What I saw in the video and this thread is a conflict of culture/personality/psychology. Colin Cowherd made a distinction between football bettors and fantasy football players. Gamblers pick up the check, fantasy players split the check. Here we see American after hours gambler vs. a ref from another culture. Posters lauding the European club atmosphere vs. the American don't stick your nose in somebody else's game position. Get the check/split the check. I think it is interesting.
The only time it came up for me was being called for a shirt touching a ball by my opponent in a low level 3C tournament. I didn't feel it. I wasn't going to question my opponent or anything. On the other hand I don't think I would have bothered calling a foul on him if our roles were reversed. However, this was not a big tournament or money match, so I can't really say it has much to do with this situation.
I personally think the ref handled it poorly and that appears to be the case given what MR said. I think Scott handled it pretty well given how the ref handled it and comments from spectators without being asked. I think it is right to do what Scott asked and move on. And the split between gambler/ club player personality will continue. Knowing which camp you fall in may help navigate these situations. And having a ref for an all balls foul match.
The only time it came up for me was being called for a shirt touching a ball by my opponent in a low level 3C tournament. I didn't feel it. I wasn't going to question my opponent or anything. On the other hand I don't think I would have bothered calling a foul on him if our roles were reversed. However, this was not a big tournament or money match, so I can't really say it has much to do with this situation.
I personally think the ref handled it poorly and that appears to be the case given what MR said. I think Scott handled it pretty well given how the ref handled it and comments from spectators without being asked. I think it is right to do what Scott asked and move on. And the split between gambler/ club player personality will continue. Knowing which camp you fall in may help navigate these situations. And having a ref for an all balls foul match.
either way, scott is doing great in the comm box!
I would be astonished if that ref understood how to make that call. That's what was most obvious on the video.
Having moved balls interfere with the out come of a shot or move thru the path of the CB or OB is the same whether it’s all ball or CB foul only.
I’ve been reading rule books for 50 years. I haven’t seen a specific rule about moving an object ball behind the CB on the final stroke is a foul. I have seen a rule that might apply but no one has mentioned it. What about moving two balls that don’t interfere with anything, where’s that in the mysterious CB foul only section?
I’ll be waiting for an expert response with references. Thanks
This is how we played it.
If you were setting up and bumped ball...the opponent can opt to put it back.
If you bumped a ball and it hit another ball....that was a foul and the player can opt to respot the balls.
You think I may be making this up? I'm not going to hold your hand and teach you. Go research it yourself if you don't believe me. Oh, and unlike you, I actually put my name behind my words, and probably unlike you, I actually contribute to the sport.
Former WPBA President, many times board member, Former touring professional player, Former tournament director and referee for professional and amateur tournaments, Tournament overseer for World Junior 9 Ball Championship in Managua Nicaragua and trained the referees for the event, Former WPA Executive Board member representing the U.S. and Canada, Recipient of the BCA President's award for excellence and service to our industry, Billiard consultant for film and television, PBIA Master Instructor. Overseer of the World Wheelchair championships. Recipient of the NWPA President's award "For outstanding and dedicated service in promoting wheelchair billiards worldwide".....and more.
Last edited:
I play all over the country, gambling and tournaments. If you’re not a full time pro, you don’t have the exposure I have. When a rule question comes up, I have to prove what the rules say. I’m not doubting that you know the rules, but throwing all those titles around doesn’t mean anything if you can’t back it up with proof. I’m asking you to show me the rule. I’ve spent hours reviewing BCA, WPA, CSI, rules just today. You don’t have to hold my hand, and as for teaching me something, you lost a lot of credibility throwing around a bunch of titles and you can’t demonstrate your knowledge of rules when asked.
World Standardized Rules 1.16.1, Cue Ball Fouls only, “it is not a foul to accidentally touch stationary balls located between the cue ball and the shooter while in the act of shooting”. This rule contradicts what you and a few others have stated.
something_pool
Registered
He was quoting the BCA rules, which are, last I checked, in America. See: https://bca-pool.com/general/custom...a referee is,balls to their correct positions.
This thread is incredibly frustrating. Many times in this thread, someone has made a bold claim while providing absolutely no evidence. Then, when someone asks for evidence, they're met with vitriol and condescension ("You think I may be making this up? I'm not going to hold your hand and teach you. Go research it yourself if you don't believe me."). If you make a claim, you need evidence. Appeals to authority are not good enough.
I expected such a response. I'm telling you how cue ball fouls only rules are played in the United States, and yes, at the highest levels when they are not required to play all ball fouls. Get yourself out of your WPA bubble and learn a few things and maybe you too, can make some positive contributions to our sport.
Instead of saying, okay, well maybe this person who happens to have a ton of experience and a boatload of credentials, is sharing something interesting here THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW, and maybe it's something you should be considering ---- your immediate response like a bobo is, Duh....show me! Duh....prove it!
If I had this conversation with Ralf Souquet, he wouldn't question if I was telling the truth, even if he wasn't familiar with cue ball fouls only rules, because he knows who I am and has no reason to doubt my word.
Use your brain! Think! Figure out solutions. What's good for the players? How can compromises be reached so that both players and organizers are treated fairly, and if current WPA and European rules need to be challenged, then challenge them!
Last edited:
Interesting! I have never seen pool played that way. I find it particular interesting that the rule says "balls". Can more than one ball be moved and still no foul?
I welcome answers from you, Fran, or both. Granted I shied away from tournaments but I don't think I have ever played when this wasn't a foul although one ball might be waived and the foul ignored, putting the moved ball back in place if the cue ball wasn't struck.
A sincere question, if somebody had told me this wasn't a foul when it came up in play I would have thought BS.
Hu
It's not a foul unless the ball that was moved by a body part while the player is executing the shot interferes with the outcome of the shot. For example, if the ball that was moved, is moved into the path of a moving cue ball which hits it. I believe that the opponent can request that it be returned to it's original place, even after the player executed the shot. I'm about 90% sure on that second part --- but only if it didn't interfere with the outcome of the shot. Once the cb hits it, then it can't be returned to it's original position.
However, if an object ball is moved by the pool cue during the execution stroke, then it's considered to be affecting the players' stroke and therefore an automatic foul because it's considered to interfere with the execution of the shot.
Last edited:
Yeah but what’s your Fargo? 550 maybe? Jtompilot could give you the 5 out!