Rules Question

mikemosconi

mikemosconi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Recently watching a dynamic European nine ball match Filler vs. Jonas Souto At one point Souto pockets the one ball, and then removes the one ball from the pocket and holds it above another ball on the table that appears to possibly be blocking the two ball from entering the same pocket. He was obviously seeing if the blocking ball was more than one ball's width away from the rail by measuring with the already pocketed one ball.

Filler called a foul, no ref present. Souto appeared to protest briefly that he did not allow the ball that he was holding in his hand to touch the rail or table bed or the blocking ball. Nonetheless, after a few seconds, Souto handed Filler the cue ball in hand conceding the called foul by Filler. Filler ran out that game.

I never saw this happen before, what is the ruling on using a pocketed ball to measure another ball's distance from the rail, if nothing is touched by that ball?

BTW- after this incident Souto caught fire, seemed to be in a trance and ran off 6-2 in the next 8 games to win 9-5!
 
I would think it's a foul and the same goes for placing a piece of chalk on the rail where you want to hit when kicking. Another sly trick is marking the rail with powder or with chalk from the tip.
 
CSI / BCAPL Rules

1-3 Use of Equipment

g. You may only use your vision to judge whether the cue ball or an object ball would fit through a gap, or to judge what ball the cue ball would contact first. You may not use any ball, cue, rack, chalk cube, or any other equipment or other part of your body as a width-measuring device. (AR p. 79). Penalty for (f-g): Foul immediately upon the violation, regardless of whether a shot is executed.

Don't know what rules set that Filler & Souto were playing under, but it very well could be similiar to the above.
 
Filler was correct that it is a foul. But, under world-standardized rules, it is actually an Unsportsmanlike Conduct foul for using equipment inappropriately. The penalty for such fouls, if a referee is present, is up to the ref -- ranging from just a warning to ejection from the event (possibly with forfeiture of prizes and points).

In this case, there was no ref, so I don't see anything wrong with Filler taking it as a standard foul with a ball-in-hand penalty. A milder reaction would have been for Filler to just explain the rule to Souto and warn him not to do it again.
 
Last edited:
Fore Rail said:
CSI / BCAPL Rules

1-3 Use of Equipment

g. You may only use your vision to judge whether the cue ball or an object ball would fit through a gap, or to judge what ball the cue ball would contact first. You may not use any ball, cue, rack, chalk cube, or any other equipment or other part of your body as a width-measuring device. (AR p. 79). Penalty for (f-g): Foul immediately upon the violation, regardless of whether a shot is executed.
Click to expand...

So, if Souto picked up the ball to set his finger width, and then dropped the ball back in a pocket before allowing his hand to come near the distance he was measuring, would it have still been a foul ??

What if he set his finger width from above (but not touching) a ball on the table and then went over to perform his measurement, would that be a foul ??
 
mikemosconi said:
Recently watching a dynamic European nine ball match Filler vs. Jonas Souto At one point Souto pockets the one ball, and then removes the one ball from the pocket and holds it above another ball on the table that appears to possibly be blocking the two ball from entering the same pocket. He was obviously seeing if the blocking ball was more than one ball's width away from the rail by measuring with the already pocketed one ball.

Filler called a foul, no ref present. Souto appeared to protest briefly that he did not allow the ball that he was holding in his hand to touch the rail or table bed or the blocking ball. Nonetheless, after a few seconds, Souto handed Filler the cue ball in hand conceding the called foul by Filler. Filler ran out that game.

I never saw this happen before, what is the ruling on using a pocketed ball to measure another ball's distance from the rail, if nothing is touched by that ball?

BTW- after this incident Souto caught fire, seemed to be in a trance and ran off 6-2 in the next 8 games to win 9-5!
Click to expand...
Clear foul.
 
MitchAlsup said:
So, if Souto picked up the ball to set his finger width, and then dropped the ball back in a pocket before allowing his hand to come near the distance he was measuring, would it have still been a foul ??

What if he set his finger width from above (but not touching) a ball on the table and then went over to perform his measurement, would that be a foul ??
Click to expand...
The answer to both your questions are in the rules.

1) You may only use your vision to judge whether the cue ball or an object ball would fit through a gap, or to judge what ball the cue ball would contact first.

2) You may not use any ball, cue, rack, chalk cube, or any other equipment or other part of your body as a width-measuring device.
 
Marking fouls are stupid. As long as you don't start drawing on the equipment, BFD. If you you subsequently make a contact foul, it's a foul.
 
straightline said:
Marking fouls are stupid. As long as you don't start drawing on the equipment, BFD. If you you subsequently make a contact foul, it's a foul.
Click to expand...
There have been rules that were stupid, but the one against marking has been with us for a long time and I don't think it's stupid.

In any case this discussion is about using out-of-play balls to measure clearances, not marking.
 
Reminds me of the common 14.1 practice, back in the day, of hovering the rack over an un-pencilled cloth to determine if a break ball was in the rack area (we thought it was legal if the triangle was never dropped). Likely would be a foul today (?).
 
DynoDan said:
Reminds me of the common 14.1 practice, back in the day, of hovering the rack over an un-pencilled cloth to determine if a break ball was in the rack area (we thought it was legal if the triangle was never dropped). Likely would be a foul today (?).
Click to expand...
The rules require the rack outline to be drawn. If that rule is violated, you have to figure out the best way to tell the shooter in/out for a potential break ball. Place the triangle on the cloth if it helps.
 
Bob Jewett said:
There have been rules that were stupid, but the one against marking has been with us for a long time and I don't think it's stupid.

In any case this discussion is about using out-of-play balls to measure clearances, not marking.
Click to expand...
Chalk was mentioned back there. According to some of the wording techiques like the 30 degree peace sign would be suspect as well.
 
David in FL said:
The whole point of this thread is that using a ball to check tolerances is not "perfectly acceptable" under the rules.
Click to expand...
No. It's just a rule - <the rule> in question. It stands as more of a cheap fix to other foul issues like disturbing those precious nanometers in question. People aim/measure with their sticks all the time; also technically foul and ignored as such. I'd guess because there is less threat of ball disturbance and no memorable arguments.

Question, if player has ball in hand, he can test fit that rock as he sees fit. Is that a foul?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top