Hypothetical rules question - three fouls
- Thread starter dquarasr
- Start date
At 14.1, an illegal break -- two point penalty -- is explicitly exempt from the three-foul sequence and the opponent can have you rebreak.
At the other games, I think both of those have to be included in the three-foul sequence, and I think the rules do but maybe are not clear.
At the other games, I think both of those have to be included in the three-foul sequence, and I think the rules do but maybe are not clear.
Well, at nine ball some people feel a totally whiffed break shot should be something other than ball in hand anywhere with a full rack. Some want a rebreak. I think the rule is fine as it is. It occurs rarely and tests the other player's knowledge. And maybe the ref.
uk_9_ball_convert
Active member
Pretty sure Joshua Filler won a frame on the 3 fouls rule once when the first foul was the other player miscueing on the break.
I recall a recent loss in that situation when the fouler hit the one ball on the kick but then scratched for the third foul.
I think it was Albin who lost there.
As an aside, the OP mentioned an “illegal break”. I agree with your comments on a illegal break, but of course some people get confused with a break that fails to satisfy some rule like 3 balls past the headstring. Some commentators and others will call that an illegal break, but of course it’s not a foul. I prefer the term “non-conforming break”, which is less confusing.
uk_9_ball_convert
Active member
Found the clip, it was Filler v Albin. Was the 2nd foul he went in off, 3rd foul he got the escape but didn't hit a rail. First foul he managed to miscue breaking and didn't hit a single ball. Not sure what the final score was, but would take a good mentality to put that frame behind you and play your best for the rest of the match
Last edited: