BCAPL 8-Ball Rule Question

Did player A or B spot the ball? Your post seems to say both.

The situation is not now, nor has it ever been, contemplated by the CSI rules. Nor is there any guidance under the CSI rules as to who, in the absence of a referee, is responsible for spotting balls. It just never came up during the writing process. Certainly a gap that would be immediately filled, one would think, but I'm retired and out of the process, so I can't say if it will be.

That being said, if I were called on to make a decision as a TD or asked for advice as a head ref, I would tend to lean toward no foul, unless there was almost certain evidence that the act was intentional. I just can't find any basis for a foul shy of that. The closest approximation under the rules as written would be non-player interference. But that would be a stretch, since the rule was written only with the contemplation of interference by a spectator, referee, or player at another table. Accidental interference by Player B or the non-shooting player was never specifically discussed during the writing process. And Rule 1-33 only contemplates acts by the shooter, so while you would think that 1-33-7-a would cover it, it is not within the intent of the rule as currently written.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to stretch 1-33-7-a to cover the situation, there is no specific language preventing it. If I advised a TD to call no foul and they called a foul anyway citing 1-33-7-a, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it..

If I were still editing the rules, I would recommend adding two paragraphs to Rule 1-46, one to define responsibility for spotting, and another to specify penalties, if any for disturbing balls when spotting.

For an official decision, you will have to contact the CSI National Office.

Buddy

It's definitely a foul if the shooter does it, so I think it has to be a foul when the non-shooter does it.

nvm... I misread it, the non-shooter touched the ball.

BRussell said:

It's definitely a foul if the shooter does it, so I think it has to be a foul when the non-shooter does it.

Click to expand...

I always thought that in the absence of a referee, the non-shooting player acts as a referee when spotting balls. If a referee did it, clearly it wouldn't be a foul, so by extension it wouldn't be a penalty.

But I cannot find the first proposition in the rules. Maybe I imagined it.

Gideon

sbpoolleague said:

This happened at our All-Star tourney last night.

Player A breaks and sinks the 8-ball.
Player B spots the 8-ball so that Player A can see how the table is and decide whether or not to re-rack.
When lifting his hand after spotting the 8-ball, Player B brushes the cue ball, which was very close to the foot spot.

Foul? Or should this be an exception to the rule? I couldn't find anything in the BCAPL rule book about disturbing balls while spotting a ball.

Click to expand...

That's a foul.

No rule in bcapl covering this situation ? Hmmm.

Apa rules clearly state the cue ball is live at all times. It's a bih foul for the opposing player

GideonF said:

I always thought that in the absence of a referee, the non-shooting player acts as a referee when spotting balls. If a referee did it, clearly it wouldn't be a foul, so by extension it wouldn't be a penalty.

But I cannot find the first proposition in the rules. Maybe I imagined it.

Gideon

Click to expand...

I also believe this to be true.

The idea of a non-shooting player getting a foul that results in BIH for the person already shooting seems wrong. What is the upside for player B to do this if he knows that it's a foul if he touches it? He would "waste" the time of having a ref called over to do it.

Reminds of the first year of the Magic Racks at BCA Nationals, it stated that if you brushed a ball as you picked it up then it was a foul. I (and many, many others) wasn't willing to take that risk so ref's were constantly having to waste their time picking up magic racks.

I prefer to work under the assumption my opponent is not going to screw me and and cheat me every chance he gets, and vice versa.

That my opinion, which are wrong a lot.

GideonF said:

I always thought that in the absence of a referee, the non-shooting player acts as a referee when spotting balls. If a referee did it, clearly it wouldn't be a foul, so by extension it wouldn't be a penalty.

But I cannot find the first proposition in the rules. Maybe I imagined it.

Gideon

Click to expand...

Except if a shooter commits a foul like an illegal hit, without the presence of a referee and the non shooter didn't ask for a hit to be watched, it is up to the shooter's discretion. Therefor the non shooter isn't a referee and can't be even if his is acting as one in this situation.

Also, moving the cue ball at all, regardless of intent by the non shooter, that would place the shooter in a less favorable position would be a foul IMO because you then have to debate where the cue ball was initially.

Cue ball fouls only applies to both players. I know one pocket rules are suspect but if you move the cue ball unintentionally, its a foul at any point during the game.

lorider said:

No rule in bcapl covering this situation ? Hmmm.



Apa rules clearly state the cue ball is live at all times. It's a bih foul for the opposing player

Click to expand...

Nothing ever spots in APA so player B would have no business being at the table.

What if the cueball was on the spot? Then the eight should spot frozen to it on the line.

It is impossible to foul when acting in an official capacity. Other player should get the choice to accept it as it lies or attempt to correct the position to a mutually agreeable set.

jojopiff said:

I also believe this to be true.

The idea of a non-shooting player getting a foul that results in BIH for the person already shooting seems wrong. What is the upside for player B to do this if he knows that it's a foul if he touches it? He would "waste" the time of having a ref called over to do it.

Reminds of the first year of the Magic Racks at BCA Nationals, it stated that if you brushed a ball as you picked it up then it was a foul. I (and many, many others) wasn't willing to take that risk so ref's were constantly having to waste their time picking up magic racks.

I prefer to work under the assumption my opponent is not going to screw me and and cheat me every chance he gets, and vice versa.

That my opinion, which are wrong a lot.

Click to expand...

So what about this:

The cue ball is near the spot and the magic rack is tied up on the 8,9 or 10. Non shooter pulls the rack out and doesn't disturb the object but does disturb the cue ball and moves it 6 inches. Would that be a foul or does the shooter have to play the ball as it lies or do both players get in a debate about where the cue ball was.

Drop The Rock said:

So what about this:

The cue ball is near the spot and the magic rack is tied up on the 8,9 or 10. Non shooter pulls the rack out and doesn't disturb the object but does disturb the cue ball and moves it 6 inches. Would that be a foul or does the shooter have to play the ball as it lies or do both players get in a debate about where the cue ball was.

Click to expand...

The question your posing is what the thread is about except you've taken it from brushing a ball to moving 6". As stated, I'm not sure what the rule is. But, if you're asking me what I'd do if I was the shooter in you scenario then I'd simply work with the non-shooter (person who accidentally moved the ball) to try and obtain original position.

Admittedly, I'm not a letter of the law guy and more of a spirit of the rule. I don't want to gain an advantage (getting BIH) simply because my opponent made an honest mistake.

And in your scenario you say "debate about where the cue ball was". In my dealings with most people, it's usually not really a debate. Most people are honest and aren't looking to gain an advantage by lying/cheating. In my experiences, it's a pretty quick and agreeable conversation.

jojopiff said:

The idea of a non-shooting player getting a foul that results in BIH for the person already shooting seems wrong.

Click to expand...

To me it seems like an even worse foul, because what the hell are they even doing at the table? I assume they're just trying to be helpful, but good intentions never protect someone from a foul.

BRussell said:

To me it seems like an even worse foul, because what the hell are they even doing at the table? I assume they're just trying to be helpful, but good intentions never protect someone from a foul.

Click to expand...

Good point and this is correct. No reason to be at the table. I was answering the question as asked however. Had he asked should player B have been at the table to begin with, the answer is no.

jojopiff said:

The question your posing is what the thread is about except you've taken it from brushing a ball to moving 6". As stated, I'm not sure what the rule is. But, if you're asking me what I'd do if I was the shooter in you scenario then I'd simply work with the non-shooter (person who accidentally moved the ball) to try and obtain original position.

Admittedly, I'm not a letter of the law guy and more of a spirit of the rule. I don't want to gain an advantage (getting BIH) simply because my opponent made an honest mistake.

And in your scenario you say "debate about where the cue ball was". In my dealings with most people, it's usually not really a debate. Most people are honest and aren't looking to gain an advantage by lying/cheating. In my experiences, it's a pretty quick and agreeable conversation.

Click to expand...

I was just trying to compare moving object balls with the magic rack vs. the cueball.

I'm coming at this from a TD standpoint because I am one. If its me playing the match I'd probably move the cue ball back. However, if I'm the guy who moved the cue-ball, I'd call the foul on myself because it's cue-ball fouls.

Another hypothetical: Shooter finishes shooting and his inning is over. He reaches across the table to grab a piece of chalk and moves the cue-ball, is this a foul? I realize that the difference is acting "in the capacity of a ref" by doing something like moving the magic rack or spotting a ball but if that is not the non shooter's responsibility, then the road to hell is paved with good intentions is the rule of thumb for me personally.

As a TD, I will call a foul on any player in a match the moves the cue ball in any capacity during the match that is not a legal hit. If a player on the table over somehow moves the cue ball my accident, then the shooter is not awarded ball in hand, but he can accept it where it lies or both players can come to an agreement as to where the cue ball was.

If player A moved the cue ball, he would just have to say I am opting for the rerack.

AF pool guy said:

Nothing ever spots in APA so player B would have no business being at the table.

What if the cueball was on the spot? Then the eight should spot frozen to it on the line.

It is impossible to foul when acting in an official capacity. Other player should get the choice to accept it as it lies or attempt to correct the position to a mutually agreeable set.

Click to expand...

Sort to.inform you that you are incorrect. :smile:

Drop The Rock said:

I was just trying to compare moving object balls with the magic rack vs. the cueball.

I'm coming at this from a TD standpoint because I am one. If its me playing the match I'd probably move the cue ball back. However, if I'm the guy who moved the cue-ball, I'd call the foul on myself because it's cue-ball fouls. If it's cue ball fouls(that would entail this situation) I wouldn't ever be in the position of placing the 8 to obtain said foul, it'd be a ref or the TD to place if it's that tight.

Another hypothetical: Shooter finishes shooting and his inning is over. He reaches across the table to grab a piece of chalk and moves the cue-ball, is this a foul? I would say yes it's a foul because their turn isn't over until they've left the table. Not sure if you're trying to get a "gotcha" here but I think this is not in the general vicinity of the same thing that happened in OP.

I realize that the difference is acting "in the capacity of a ref" by doing something like moving the magic rack or spotting a ball but if that is not the non shooter's responsibility, then the road to hell is paved with good intentions is the rule of thumb for me personally. Yes, the question of should player B even of been at the table is obviously relevant for you regarding running tournaments. In general, a resounding NO is the answer. But, the OP wasn't asking that so I didn't originally address it.

As a TD, I will call a foul on any player in a match the moves the cue ball in any capacity during the match that is not a legal hit. If a player on the table over somehow moves the cue ball my accident, then the shooter is not awarded ball in hand, but he can accept it where it lies or both players can come to an agreement as to where the cue ball was.

Click to expand...

No one can complain so long as you're consistent. I have no issue with this being a foul if I'm playing in a tourney that it's stated clearly. My initial post is what makes the most sense to me, might not be the rule or correct but I try to operate in a manner that common sense prevails.