Search results

So in summary, would this updated diagram represent the generally accepted interpretation of the rules? I.e. illegal break takes precendence over a foul, but "accepting the table in position" after an illegal break actually means revisiting the rules as if it was a legal break? The reason I am...

Or he may choose to accept the layout as is and continue play. So a legal break is not a requirement for the game to have begun.

I just notice that in assuming the illegal break takes precedence, the rules also do not say what to do with the cue ball in case you choose to accept the table in position. BIH? Behind the head string? Also for non-scratch fouls? Or a choice, as in other fouls?

Thanks. It does make more sense this way, as the other way would be very exploitable. BTW, do you have any idea why the scratch (unlike any other foul) along with pocketing the eight gets a special treatment (3.3(f))?

Well, that is my question. The only indication that this is so would be that the rule is stated before the foul rules. Are WPA rules meant to be read strictly 'first-match' (meaning, as soon as you find a rule that matches the situation, stop reading)?

Touché. ;)

After playing Pool for about a year now, I have tried to read and understand the WPA rules for the 8-ball break -- and failed. I drew a little diagram of the rules, which made me at least understand why nobody else seems to completely know the rules (see attachment below). What happens when...