Rule Question

DogsPlayingPool said:

I guess that could be the case. But then your opponent could simply take the lag foul as in the OP scenario and in all likelihood leave you worse off anyway than if you had ball in hand. So I think you are still better off even if you don't like the table.

Click to expand...

Nah, make him shoot across the line. He might miscue into the stack and leave you something.:smile:

Click to expand...

More seriously, I think the opponent should be required to shoot across the line. If he plays the lag foul as you say, sure you could be in a worse position than if you had BIH. But there is no guarantee that he will do that. He might try to play a safe off the stack and leave you something. Or, he might try to play a safe or take an intentional foul into the back of the stack and leave you something. Or, he might over- or under-hit on the lag foul and send the CB who knows where.

Just nudging the CB off the head rail with a one-point penalty, even yielding BIH, should not be allowed.

AtLarge said:

More seriously, I think the opponent should be required to shoot across the line. If he plays the lag foul as you say, sure you could be in a worse position than if you had BIH. But there is no guarantee that he will do that. He might try to play a safe off the stack and leave you something. Or, he might try to play a safe or take an intentional foul into the back of the stack and leave you something. Or, he might over- or under-hit on the lag foul and send the CB who knows where.

Just nudging the CB off the head rail with a one-point penalty, even yielding BIH, should not be allowed.

Click to expand...

Well, you are correct that he might play a safety off the stack or take a foul into the back of the pile. But my thought process is that he would almost for sure take the lag safety because, since he didn't want to shoot the CB out of the kitchen to begin with but is only required to because of your requirement to cross the head string, he would do the next best thing and play the lag foul rather than disturb any balls.

I guess it just seems to me the rule as it is provides enough assurance the player will not play the head rail nudge but will indeed shoot the CB out of the kitchen, because he is far more likely to leave his opponent worse off than giving him BIH. So even with the current rule, he would either attempt a legal safety or play the lag foul, just the same as if he was forced to play the CB out of the kitchen with your rule.

Good discussion.:wink:

A couple things:

If you really want to leave the cue ball as close as possible to the head, you can choose a BIH position close to the head string and side rail and shoot across the head string (out of the kitchen) at the opposite side rail with English to spin the CB back into the kitchen possibly get close to the head rail.

I'm sure Mr. Jewett could explain this better than I can, but I'll give it a try. Regarding the unsportsmanlike conduct concept related to the bad play behind the head string, it might be useful to read the lists of examples of UC that are listed in rule 6.16:


6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct
The normal penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is the same as for a serious foul, but the referee may impose a penalty depending on his judgment of the conduct. Among other penalties possible are a warning; a standard-foul penalty, which will count as part of a three-foul sequence if applicable; a serious-foul penalty; loss of a rack, set or match; ejection from the competition possibly with forfeiture of all prizes, trophies and standings points.
Unsportsmanlike conduct is any intentional behavior that brings disrepute to the sport or which disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly. It includes
(a) distracting the opponent;
(b) changing the position of the balls in play other than by a shot;
(c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing;
(d) continuing to play after a foul has been called or play has been suspended;
(e) practicing during a match;
(f) marking the table;
(g) delay of the game; and
(h) using equipment inappropriately.

In other words, bad play from behind the head string is not acceptable as an intentional foul and from what I've been reading in some of the posts, the term intentional foul is also part of the confusion. An example of an intentional foul is playing a safety shot where the CB barely moves and nothing drives the rail. This is acceptable and part of the game. What is not acceptable and not part of the game is to pick up the 13 ball and place it wherever you want. Yes, of course, it is an intentional foul because that was your intention. So I guess you can think of the phrase "intentional foul" as "acceptable intentional foul."

Hope this helps.

DogsPlayingPool said:

... I guess it just seems to me the rule as it is provides enough assurance the player will not play the head rail nudge but will indeed shoot the CB out of the kitchen, because he is far more likely to leave his opponent worse off than giving him BIH. ...

Click to expand...

But rules are not written just for knowledgeable/experienced players. And even those guys sometimes have brain spasms under the heat.

Edit: I just remembered something from this week's "world" event. In the 11 AM match on Thursday it was Eberle vs. Schmidt. Max scratched on the opening break (1-point foul). John wasn't sure what to do, asking others (including spectators) whether he had to shoot across the line rather than just hitting it backwards to the head rail!

AtLarge said:

But rules are not written just for knowledgeable/experienced players. And even those guys sometimes have brain spasms under the heat.

Edit: I just remembered something from this week's "world" event. In the 11 AM match on Thursday it was Eberle vs. Schmidt. Max scratched on the opening break (1-point foul). John wasn't sure what to do, asking others (including spectators) whether he had to shoot across the line rather than just hitting it backwards to the head rail!

Click to expand...

Well, he's no expert, LOL! Could have been a brain fart in the heat of competition but much more likely he didn't want to get it wrong so he asked. I see that a lot on the PGA tour where sometimes players will ask for a ruling even on a simple situation where they surely know the rule. By getting a ruling from an official they are absolved from a penalty even if the ruling is incorrect. John plays a lot of golf.

Certainly John knows enough that if he thought he didn't have to shoot out of the kitchen he would know the correct play would be the corner hook, not shooting back to the head rail.