I go by the WPA rules which the BCA currently follows. The marked line determines when the ball interferes.What rulebook/sanctioning organization do you currently consider the most relevant re: 14.1? Back in the day, it was BCA, and I still have an old book that verifies my statement. It makes absolutely no mention of your marking/replacing rule.
Suppose....
We are playing rack your own. My standard side-of-the-rack break ball is a little low and it looks like I'm barely going to nick the corner of the rack even if I play the shot softly with draw. I move the rack towards the foot rail as far as I can and still leave the back row within the marked outline. With the triangle were using, that happens to be a full inch. I break with stun and smash the balls wide open.
That's the kind of situation I'm talking about and I think it is what Danny was talking about above in the original post.
I think it is blatant cheating to rack like that.
All of this nonsense goes away if you have an actual ref at important matches. But whatever... 9 ball on mini tables is all the rage...
Better to lose ONE bet than to ever again play an opponent of such questionable morals. Couldn’t be simpler.
The only precise way to rack for serious competitive 14.1 play when the outline of the rack being used is not clearly drawn on the cloth, is you must have both vertical and horizontal crosshairs drawn on the cloth through the center of the footspot. The vertical line extends from above the footspot far enough up to make sure the top point of the rack is centered and that line extends all the way below the bottom of the rack in order to properly line up the center back ball when racking. The horizontal crosshair line is drawn through the center of the footspot must extend out beyond both sides of the rack to be able to confirm that head ball is not being racked too high or too low. It is even recommended to have an extra cue ball and place it on the footspot when racking the other 14 balls, to assure the rack is set with both crosshairs going directly through the middle of that head ball, which is then removed after lifting up the rack. In tournament play, some feel that if the break ball and/or cue ball is not located real close to that rack line, a slight variance (racking slightly high or low) may be permitted to try to obtain as tight a rack as possible, but that should certainly be communicated to all players who are playing and racking as to whether or not that will be permitted.No. That gives too much margin for ball placement. The triangle placement should match the drawn outline as closely as possible.
It is always blatant cheating to rack any other way than to....:
‘Place the head ball space directly over the footspot, lower and pull the triangle (3rd side parallel to the footrail) rearward until contacting the front pair while simultaneously forcing the remaining balls forward until all are touching’. That is the position the triangle is required to be in when the pencil line is drawn.
I think some confusion might exist with indelible lines that remain on tables where their original triangles have gone missing, and been replaced with larger models. Thus my earlier comment re: how a pencil line might not always be considered an official demarcation, but rather merely a guide. The VENERABLE rules of the game are very simple, regardless of what model triangle is available:
IF THE BALLS CANNOT BE RACKED IN THE PROSCRIBED MANNER (see above) BY LOWERING THE TRIANGLE STRAIGHT DOWN WITHOUT DISTURBING THE 15TH BALL......THEN IT GOES ON THE HEADSPOT! It either interferes, or it doesn’t (not complicated)! Any arguing, whining, calling over 3rd parties, or marking/moving the breakball, is demonstrating (IMHO) just as silly a form of behavior as those who constantly argue with the referee in ANY sport, thus revealing their LACK of sportsmanship!
So, I guess this would mean that those who play on all-Diamond equipment had better learn to select their behind-the-rack breakshots closer to the footrail!
Danny Harriman ....‘Grateful Dead’...[/QUOTE said:I could never comprehend justification for the extent of their popularity, unless you were in the audience when they were tossing out free ‘Owlsleys’ (?).
I could never comprehend justification for the extent of their popularity, unless you were in the audience when they were tossing out free ‘Owlsleys’ (?).
Danny Harriman) ...it's imperative to use the same rack as the one originally traced...[/QUOTE said:So, using your rationale, then if there is a previously drawn indelible line on the cloth, and only a larger than original triangle is available, and the proprietor won’t allow you to draw a second line...., then that table cannot be used to play 14.1?
I think you might find that most who play straight pool are flexible enough to adapt, and will traditionally use ‘triangle interference’ as the deciding factor when determining whether the breakball is indeed in or out.
I've been seriously playing straight pool for over 5 years and have always questioned why there is not a regulation 14.1 rack to end all this nonsense. Nobody has an answer as to why there is not one.
I understand why it doesn't matter in today's world, because 99% of the players are playing games where there is no connection from one rack to the next. But one would have thought 100 years ago when 14.1 was the only game played some rack standardization would have been instituted.
Rack size variance is obscene today. The Diamond rack is almost 3 2x4's put together (OK I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get the point) and should never be used for 14.1. The depth of that rack actually penalizes a player who wants to play a "behind the rack break" if you are using the edges of that rack to determine whether the break ball is inside the rack.
I think the table should be marked with 3 lines that indicate the actual edge of the 14 balls. If the edge of the break ball is outside that line it stays, even if you need to mark the break ball to rack the balls with whatever rack you use.
Not having a regulation rack for 14.1 is no different than playing with balls other than a 2.25" diameter. When you think about it, it is just another example of how so many rules of pool have gray areas open to interpretation and launch points for cheating.
So, using your rationale, then if there is a previously drawn indelible line on the cloth, and only a larger than original triangle is available, and the proprietor won’t allow you to draw a second line...., then that table cannot be used to play 14.1?
I think you might find that most who play straight pool are flexible enough to adapt, and will traditionally use ‘triangle interference’ as the deciding factor when determining whether the breakball is indeed in or out.
So, using your rationale, then if there is a previously drawn indelible line on the cloth, and only a larger than original triangle is available, and the proprietor won’t allow you to draw a second line...., then that table cannot be used to play 14.1?
I think you might find that most who play straight pool are flexible enough to adapt, and will traditionally use ‘triangle interference’ as the deciding factor when determining whether the breakball is indeed in or out.
I've been seriously playing straight pool for over 5 years and have always questioned why there is not a regulation 14.1 rack to end all this nonsense. Nobody has an answer as to why there is not one.
I understand why it doesn't matter in today's world, because 99% of the players are playing games where there is no connection from one rack to the next. But one would have thought 100 years ago when 14.1 was the only game played some rack standardization would have been instituted.
Rack size variance is obscene today. The Diamond rack is almost 3 2x4's put together (OK I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get the point) and should never be used for 14.1. The depth of that rack actually penalizes a player who wants to play a "behind the rack break" if you are using the edges of that rack to determine whether the break ball is inside the rack.
I think the table should be marked with 3 lines that indicate the actual edge of the 14 balls. If the edge of the break ball is outside that line it stays, even if you need to mark the break ball to rack the balls with whatever rack you use.
Not having a regulation rack for 14.1 is no different than playing with balls other than a 2.25" diameter. When you think about it, it is just another example of how so many rules of pool have gray areas open to interpretation and launch points for cheating.
I think the table should be marked with 3 lines that indicate the actual edge of the 14 balls.
There are some spots your idea would allow for a break ball where the break ball would be unplayable. Is that what you want?...
I think the table should be marked with 3 lines that indicate the actual edge of the 14 balls. If the edge of the break ball is outside that line it stays, even if you need to mark the break ball to rack the balls with whatever rack you use.
...