Call shot rules - What's an "obvious" shot?

BeiberLvr said:

it wouldn't count under your stupid rules, unless the player called the 1 off the 5.

Click to expand...

Just to reiterate... It would count under the proposed rules. Nowhere does he suggest you have to call how the ball gets to the pocket. You never have to call the 1 off the 5 as you suggest. The point is, if you could possibly go off another ball then it isn't an "obvious shot" and the pocket needs to be called. Even if you tried to go off the 5 but missed the 5 and the 1 went in anyways it would still count. You aren't calling the full shot on the object ball. The way the ball gets to the pocket doesn't need to be called unless it is going off of rails other than the ones adjacent to the pocket.

The more I think about them the more I like these rules.

Ah yes, I got caught up in the same thinking I was arguing against! Once again, these rules aren't about dictating how the object ball gets there, it is just about when the pocket should be called.

jsp said:

Can I also not put a diagram of how "obvious" a angle-on, cross-side bank would be, with the OB close to the rail? Do you also think that it's "stupid" to call the shot on such an "obvious" bank?

Click to expand...

Banks can be "dead", but they are rarely obvious.

How many times have you seen a player face the shot you mentioned, and heard the commentator say, "Looks like he's going to go for the bank." Only to see the player shoot a safety instead, or vice versa.

Call shot is designed to prevent players from fluking in balls in an unintended pocket. What's an unintended pocket? If you can't tell which pocket a player is aiming towards, then I highly suggest you pick up a different hobby.

Here's a quest for you. Find 10 videos of professional players calling the pocket on a non-bank shot where the called object ball hits multiple rails, goes off other object balls (not near the intended pocket), and still makes it in the intended pocket.

Let me know when you give up.

jsp said:

... To solve this, the rules simply have to provide an absolutely clear and completely unambiguous definition of what an "obvious" shot is. This is what I propose...

A shot is "obvious" if it meets ALL of the following criteria:

1) The first thing the cue ball contacts (after being struck by the cue) is the pocketed ball.
2) The pocketed ball doesn't contact another object ball.
3) The pocketed ball doesn't contact a rail other than the two adjacent rails of the pocket in which it is pocketed.​

If any of the three criteria are not met on a particular shot, then the shot is NOT an "obvious" shot, and therefore should be called. ...

Click to expand...

My initial reaction to your proposal to clearly define an "obvious" shot is that it might cause more problems than it solves.

• Today's way -- no need to overtly call ball and pocket unless there is some chance of confusion. A bit ambiguous, sure, but never in all of my personal play nor in any pro event I have watched do I remember any protracted squabbles over whether a player made the intended ball in the intended pocket in a call-shot game.

• Your way -- no need to overtly call ball and pocket if (1) and (2) and (3). Well, that removes the ambiguity, right? No -- what proportion of players are going to actually remember the 3 criteria? What proportion of readers of this thread didn't understand exactly what you meant? What unknown new issues will the criteria create?

I just don't see any problem with today's rule. The problem at the MP Cup was not in the ambiguity of the word "obvious."

No need to change any rules here, they are clear. It is up to the referee's judgement to ask for a call before the shot is made, if he's not sure about the shot. The opponent has the right to ask for a call as well, again before the shot is made.

To add the criteria suggested in this thread would contradict the existing rules where shot elements are irrelevant, and wouldn't do anything really since they don't address the most important element which defines a shot as "obvious" or not: shot direction..

So an obvious shot is the one that according to the rules satisfies mainly the referee and the opponent after that, a relative experience is needed in order to judge.

Calling every shot is a "solution", but not the best as shown in reality, where even pro players forget to do it sometimes due to their rhythm, and it's not classy to lose a frame due to that.

Other than that, in tournaments where acceptable variations of the rules are applied, directors should announce them in written before the tournament, it's not professional to have them applied just because "it's done that way here".

In any case, calling obvious shots should be abandoned and WPA rules should be applied as they are.

There's also one more thing about not calling every detail of the shot. If that procedure was to be applied, it would eliminate most if not all of luck factor in shots, but at the same time it would eliminate part of the competitive elements of the game, including luck being one of them...

So rules are fine as they are, perhaps WPA should step in and announce that all tournaments should apply them correctly from now on...

jsp said:

From the WPA Rules for 10-ball...

9.5 Call Shots & Pocketing Balls
Whenever the shooter is attempting to pocket a ball (except the break) he is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant.

For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call..​

These are better rules than what were used in the Pacquiao tournament, but there are still issues with the way it is stated here. What exactly is an "obvious" shot? Nowhere in the rules is it precisely defined. Why can't one argue that a bank shot is obvious? Or that Shane's shot on the 10 in his forfeit to Alcano is not obvious?

So even using WPA rules as they are written, I can still envision instances where the ambiguity of the term "obvious" could be the cause of similar controversies as to what we've seen in the Pacquiao tournament. To solve this, the rules simply have to provide an absolutely clear and completely unambiguous definition of what an "obvious" shot is. This is what I propose...

A shot is "obvious" if it meets ALL of the following criteria:

1) The first thing the cue ball contacts (after being struck by the cue) is the pocketed ball.
2) The pocketed ball doesn't contact another object ball.
3) The pocketed ball doesn't contact a rail other than the two adjacent rails of the pocket in which it is pocketed.​

If any of the three criteria are not met on a particular shot, then the shot is NOT an "obvious" shot, and therefore should be called.

So given the addition of the above criteria to the rules, there can be no question as to whether a shot should have been called or not. Both Shane's and Biado's shot would be obvious. Any combination, carom, or kick shot would NOT be obvious. A shot grazing another OB when going to a pocket would NOT be obvious. If there is any chance the shot could fail one or more of the above criteria, it is your responsibility to call the shot.

No ambiguity whatsoever. I say we add the above criteria to the rules and eliminate the second paragraph of 9.5.

Click to expand...

First thing they should do is get rid of the term "call shot" and replace it with "call pocket".

I would also add that the ob has to be clear to the pocket. If you have another ball near the pocket, that could be used as a combo even though your object ball also can go without the combo, then you should call which ball you intend to make.

Take a look at American Rotation rules at americanbilliardclub.com

Don

jsp said:

Given the current rules, it's your definition of "obvious" against your opponent's.

You: Uh, you didn't call that bank.
Opponent: Didn't have to. The bank was dead and therefore obvious.
You: No banks are obvious.
Opponent: This one was obviously obvious.
You: No it wasn't.
Opponent: Yes it was.
You: Uh uh!
Opponent: Uh huh!
You: Uh uh!
Opponent: Your mama's so fat...


It's also designed to fluke an unintended ball. You never answered my question about moving the 5 ball in your example closer to the pocket. What if the player intends to pocket the 1 ball but pockets the 5 instead, and he didn't call the shot. You cry foul but he claims it was an obvious combination. Now what?


Why would I do that?

Click to expand...

Please explain how call shot is designed to fluke an unintended ball. In your stupid example of the 5 being closer, if the player still calls the 1, but makes the 5 instead, then it's not a legal shot.

Edit: And again, banks are not obvious, which is why they must be called when playing call shot. If you and I are playing call shot, and you bank a ball without calling it, then I have no idea if you were going for the bank or playing safe and just happened to make the bank.

All this disagreement is why I favor no call rules. It's so rare, at the pro level, that a player makes the intended object ball in a non-intended pocket. It seems more likely that a pro would forget to call the money ball, especially when it's a hanger, than he'd make it in the wrong pocket. Also, it just looks silly seeing a world class shot-maker have to illustrate his intentions to another world class player, especially when he's gotten himself straight-in on the money ball. It's almost demeaning, really. Just shoot it in and rack 'em up.

I agree, straight pool requires a call of ball and pocket. I've never thought that was necessary in most other disciplines. However, when pool is being played at lower skill levels, balls are lucked-in with more frequency. Some people can't handle those swings, emotionally. Except for straight pool, I prefer when we take out all of the calls; it eliminates the questions. But then again, I can live with it when someone lucks a ball in against me, and some can't. Eventually, these things will even out. Unfortunately, I live hours away from a decently sized city, so I'm stuck playing with some antiquated, deep-woods, bar-inspired rules. I have to initiate a formal discussion at least once or twice a game about the rails and balls that will be involved in the ensuing shot. We always call the money ball, even with ball in hand. "Hey guys, I'm shooting it in the side!" Otherwise, I lose. A gentleman's game, right?

jmhanson_21 said:

All this disagreement is why I favor no call rules. It's so rare, at the pro level, that a player makes the intended object ball in a non-intended pocket. It seems more likely that a pro would forget to call the money ball, especially when it's a hanger, than he'd make it in the wrong pocket. Also, it just looks silly seeing a world class shot-maker have to illustrate his intentions to another world class player, especially when he's gotten himself straight-in on the money ball. It's almost demeaning, really. Just shoot it in and rack 'em up.

Click to expand...

The voice of reason!!! If someone gets lucky it is better than this "call shot" problem.

jsp said:

If you expect the OB will graze another ball, then call the shot. Simple as pie.

Click to expand...

I thought I made it clear that I did NOT expect it to graze, but it did. I hate having to explain three times.

Out.

Dave

Bob Jewett said:

Snooker is a slop game and from time to time a champion slops ("flukes") in ball. There are some famous flukes including one in the middle of a televised 147 (IIRC). They add memorable situations and "texture" to the game.

Where slop is a really bad idea is at 14.1.

Click to expand...

Cliffs famous 147 starts with a fluke (bank). Iirc it was the first televised 147.

Dave