APA rules question

A

APA Operator

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The real issue is that people want to "what if" every rule you write. I guarantee that if you put specific weights, lengths, or tips in the book you would have to be able to measure those values on league night, in a bar, because someone would say "this cue is 15.98 ounces, not 16 as required." How do you even measure such a thing on league night? There's a reason it's called a team manual and not a rule book.

The only reason the cue is not allowed is due to pressure from host locations. We can defer to their rules but some of them like to leave the rule vague such that they get to decide who can and can't use one. We outlaw the cue so we can't be blamed if the cue is used by someone who doesn't know how to use one. We can't outlaw the shot because every time the cue ball leaves the table it could be considered a jump shot, and we'd have teams/players shouting "foul" every other shot. Then there are those partial-ball jumps where you might not even know it's a jump shot.

So we put the last paragraph in that section of the team manual. It basically says do what the OP has done, ask APA if it's unclear. I'm not sure what they will say in this situation, but my guess would be the cue is allowed. It has no features specifically designed for jumping or breaking (like a phenolic tip) so APA corporate would probably allow it. It's not unreasonable for someone to make it their player, so it's likely a player. Even if you use it only for breaking or jumping, it's not a specialty cue unless it's unreasonable to consider using it as a player. I would allow it, but I'm not APA corporate.
 
U

UGC

Registered
APA Operator said:
The real issue is that people want to "what if" every rule you write. I guarantee that if you put specific weights, lengths, or tips in the book you would have to be able to measure those values on league night, in a bar, because someone would say "this cue is 15.98 ounces, not 16 as required." How do you even measure such a thing on league night? There's a reason it's called a team manual and not a rule book.

The only reason the cue is not allowed is due to pressure from host locations. We can defer to their rules but some of them like to leave the rule vague such that they get to decide who can and can't use one. We outlaw the cue so we can't be blamed if the cue is used by someone who doesn't know how to use one. We can't outlaw the shot because every time the cue ball leaves the table it could be considered a jump shot, and we'd have teams/players shouting "foul" every other shot. Then there are those partial-ball jumps where you might not even know it's a jump shot.

So we put the last paragraph in that section of the team manual. It basically says do what the OP has done, ask APA if it's unclear. I'm not sure what they will say in this situation, but my guess would be the cue is allowed. It has no features specifically designed for jumping or breaking (like a phenolic tip) so APA corporate would probably allow it. It's not unreasonable for someone to make it their player, so it's likely a player. Even if you use it only for breaking or jumping, it's not a specialty cue unless it's unreasonable to consider using it as a player. I would allow it, but I'm not APA corporate.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply. Still waiting on the official answer from APA, but will post it here when I receive it.
 
jviss

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
garczar said:
Are you going to "What if" the entire rule book? If it has never come up why are you sweating it so hard?? I wouldn't worry about it until it does.
Click to expand...
If you don't worry about it 'til it happens, that will be too late.
 
Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
jviss said:
If you don't worry about it 'til it happens, that will be too late.
Click to expand...
No, it will be perfect timing if you want to work on your interpersonal communication skills and negotiating techniques. Bad rules favor the smart, aggressive player. :thumbup:
 
jviss

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
surffisher2a said:
If you brought a cue to be used for jump shots it is considered a jump cue and can't be used. The rule is clear as day no matter how much you try and muddy it up.

Rules can't dictate personal integrity (ie true intentions of the cue)
Click to expand...

That's B.S. You are just making things up. Nowhere in the rule book does it say anything about intended use of a cue. That's your personal slant on this, your interpretation, your "muddying up" of this whole thing.

The rule is not clear, at all. It fails to define a break cue or a jump cue.
 
U

UGC

Registered
Bob Jewett said:
No, it will be perfect timing if you want to work on your interpersonal communication skills and negotiating techniques. Bad rules favor the smart, aggressive player. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

lol. True. But I'm friends with just about everyone in the league in my area. I couldn't do that to them. That's why I'm asking first. Don't want to ruffle feathers. :D
 
jeremy8000

jeremy8000

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The book isn't well written, but even so, I think the answer here is fully and adequately provided, as follows, unless you are willing to willfully attempt to circumvent the spirit of the rules just to try to gain an edge - and even then, any APA official with an understanding of the intent of the rules should see through and bar against that effort:

REGULAR SHOOTING CUE: Any standard pool cue designed to shoot the
majority of shots in a game of pool. These cues may be used to perform jump
shots, massé shots, and break shots in all APA League play.
Click to expand...

The key word here is "majority." I'm going to assume we can all agree that majority can be defined as being greater than 50%, limiting the number of Regular Shooting Cues (hereafter "RSC") for a player to a single cue to be represented by a player as the cue they choose to use for the majority of shots because any other cue is, by definition, limited to being one they would use for less than 50%, i.e. a minority, of shots.

Therefore, any cue that is not the one you are using for the majority of your shots does not meet the definition of RSC as that definition applies to you, and does not have the freedom of eligibility of use for jump or masse shots enjoyed by your actual RSC.

"Majority" makes it clear cut - someone can't sustain the argument that they would use two different cues, each for a majority of shots, in a game. One has to win out, and that one has to be the only one allowed for those restricted shots.
 
U

UGC

Registered
jeremy8000 said:
The book isn't well written, but even so, I think the answer here is fully and adequately provided, as follows, unless you are willing to willfully attempt to circumvent the spirit of the rules just to try to gain an edge - and even then, any APA official with an understanding of the intent of the rules should see through and bar against that effort:



The key word here is "majority." I'm going to assume we can all agree that majority can be defined as being greater than 50%, limiting the number of Regular Shooting Cues (hereafter "RSC") for a player to a single cue to be represented by a player as the cue they choose to use for the majority of shots because any other cue is, by definition, limited to being one they would use for less than 50%, i.e. a minority, of shots.

Therefore, any cue that is not the one you are using for the majority of your shots does not meet the definition of RSC as that definition applies to you, and does not have the freedom of eligibility of use for jump or masse shots enjoyed by your actual RSC.

"Majority" makes it clear cut - someone can't sustain the argument that they would use two different cues, each for a majority of shots, in a game. One has to win out, and that one has to be the only one allowed for those restricted shots.
Click to expand...

Great point. And I actually agree with you. It's logical thinking. I'm curious what the APA's answer is going to be. One person posted earlier that in Vegas, they let him switch to his break cue for a jump shot. - I think I'm more confused now, than when I posted this question to start with...lol
 
jeremy8000

jeremy8000

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
UGC said:
Great point. And I actually agree with you. It's logical thinking. I'm curious what the APA's answer is going to be. One person posted earlier that in Vegas, they let him switch to his break cue for a jump shot. - I think I'm more confused now, than when I posted this question to start with...lol
Click to expand...

Even in Vegas, the referees have inconsistency and are subject to not only poor interpretation of poorly worded rules, but occasional misunderstanding of clearly stated ones.

The rules could be simplified by changing the language used to read something more along the lines of "While a player may opt to use a different cue for the break shot, all other shots in a game must be made with the same cue and shaft (Regular Playing Cue), barring equipment malfunctions - in which event the replacement equipment must be used for the balance of the game. Players may change the cue they elect as their RPC only between games."

Of course, this wouldn't apply to divisions where jump cues are allowed, but it would certainly remove some confusion.
 
jimmyco

jimmyco

NRA4Life
Silver Member
UGC said:
... I'm getting 99% of the feedback to this question as a No-Go.
Click to expand...

First year in APA, but you're determined despite 99% disagreement.

First thread participation on AZB and you've been colored red.

Do they call you Maverick?
 
D

Dockter

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
jeremy8000 said:
Even in Vegas, the referees have inconsistency and are subject to not only poor interpretation of poorly worded rules, but occasional misunderstanding of clearly stated ones.

The rules could be simplified by changing the language used to read something more along the lines of "While a player may opt to use a different cue for the break shot, all other shots in a game must be made with the same cue and shaft (Regular Playing Cue), barring equipment malfunctions - in which event the replacement equipment must be used for the balance of the game. Players may change the cue they elect as their RPC only between games."

Of course, this wouldn't apply to divisions where jump cues are allowed, but it would certainly remove some confusion.
Click to expand...

In my case they ran it up the chain and went as far to scrape my tip (I'm assuming to make sure it wasn't phenolic) and deemed it legal. With all the time wasted on it I would have rather just kicked at it, but both captains wanted clarification.
 
jviss

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
jeremy8000 said:
The book isn't well written, but even so, I think the answer here is fully and adequately provided, as follows, unless you are willing to willfully attempt to circumvent the spirit of the rules just to try to gain an edge - and even then, any APA official with an understanding of the intent of the rules should see through and bar against that effort:



The key word here is "majority." I'm going to assume we can all agree that majority can be defined as being greater than 50%, limiting the number of Regular Shooting Cues (hereafter "RSC") for a player to a single cue to be represented by a player as the cue they choose to use for the majority of shots because any other cue is, by definition, limited to being one they would use for less than 50%, i.e. a minority, of shots.

Therefore, any cue that is not the one you are using for the majority of your shots does not meet the definition of RSC as that definition applies to you, and does not have the freedom of eligibility of use for jump or masse shots enjoyed by your actual RSC.

"Majority" makes it clear cut - someone can't sustain the argument that they would use two different cues, each for a majority of shots, in a game. One has to win out, and that one has to be the only one allowed for those restricted shots.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting.

First, I didn't see the text "[a]ny standard pool cue designed to shoot the majority of shots in a game of pool" in the rule book or the team manual. (In fact, there's nothing in the rule book about which cue may be used.) It is on the APA "Basic Pool Terminology" page. Further, I can't find it in the form you quote anywhere. What version of what book are you quoting?

Second, since the team manual states that "[y]ou may change cues and/or cue shafts during a game provided the cues and/or shafts you are switching to do not violate any rules of use, and you remain within the time guidelines" invalidates your interpretation that the use of term majority limits you to one cue. That would be in direct contradiction to the text I just quoted.

"If it's not in the rule book, it's not a rule" is not a bad place to start. Clearly, if this becomes an issue, the rules need improvement.
 
U

UGC

Registered
jimmyco said:
First year in APA, but you're determined despite 99% disagreement.

First thread participation on AZB and you've been colored red.

Do they call you Maverick?
Click to expand...

Don't stop reading there. Read the rest of my post and you'll understand WHY I'm asking the question.

I really don't understand why some post in this thread are trying to attack my character for asking a simple question about a rule in the rule book??
 
jeremy8000

jeremy8000

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
jviss said:
That's very interesting.

First, I didn't see the text "[a]ny standard pool cue designed to shoot the majority of shots in a game of pool" in the rule book or the team manual. (In fact, there's nothing in the rule book about which cue may be used.) It is on the APA "Basic Pool Terminology" page. Further, I can't find it in the form you quote anywhere. What version of what book are you quoting?

Second, since the team manual states that "[y]ou may change cues and/or cue shafts during a game provided the cues and/or shafts you are switching to do not violate any rules of use, and you remain within the time guidelines" invalidates your interpretation that the use of term majority limits you to one cue. That would be in direct contradiction to the text I just quoted.

"If it's not in the rule book, it's not a rule" is not a bad place to start. Clearly, if this becomes an issue, the rules need improvement.
Click to expand...

The Rules Booklet is abbreviated - the Team Manual is more comprehensive. Interesting to note an opening comment in the Rule Book, though:

GENERAL DESCRIPTION
It is impossible to cover every situation with rules. Common
sense must prevail. Play within the Spirit of the Rules, as
well as the written rule. Teams that try to gain an advantage
by creating their own interpretation of rules are subject to
sportsmanship violations. Win at the table and not from the chair.
Click to expand...
Italics added to emphasize a point to ponder with regards to this thread (yes, I am aware of the irony of my mentioning it and then providing my interpretation...).

As to the location of the quote I provided, it's on page 83 of the current Team Manual, below.

b98WYdN.png


This does contrast with the 'may change cues bit', so there would be an impasse - except that the phrase providing for switching cues declares that that privilege is invalidated if it violates any rules of use. I would argue that, since there is no exception made under the glossary defining what is a Regular Shooting Cue, it supersedes. Basically one rule says 'this ('A') is what it is' and the other says 'this ('B') is what it is unless the rulebook provides otherwise' - that latter exclusion allows for the Glossary definition to be the controlling rule.

Horribly sloppy writing - it seems pretty clear that not everyone involved in producing the rules were intellectually (nor literally) on the same page.

Yes, the rules need improvement
 
S

surffisher2a

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
UGC said:
Don't stop reading there. Read the rest of my post and you'll understand WHY I'm asking the question.

I really don't understand why some post in this thread are trying to attack my character for asking a simple question about a rule in the rule book??
Click to expand...

They way you are phrasing your question and the way you challenging anyone who disagrees with your opinion make it seem like you came here on a "I am right" mission looking for people you can point at to validate your opinion. Some people are not buying the altruistic virtue of you just wanting information.

In other words sounds like you got in an argument at league with someone and you hoped coming here would give you ammunition to win that argument. You stated you already contacted the APA for a ruling, you didn't need to come here and try for a support group.

Don't read that the wrong way, I am not saying that is a fact, what I am saying is that is the impression that you are giving off, esp as a new poster.
 
jeremy8000

jeremy8000

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
We can sit here all day and conjecture, and can all believe we are right, or the other is wrong, or something in between, but there's one point that makes the logical resolution crystal clear.

XpcoD7u.png


We're all trying to interpret the rules in a way that makes sense to us, but in the end it is the APA entity charge with the rules that govern the match that count. In HLT and national events, that's the national organization, or the referee/rep making the call.

In local league play, LO's are empowered to craft by-laws that are in force for their jurisdiction in some matters, and equipment is likely among them - go to your league operator for their ruling.

I'm curious as to what APA national will say, but will point out that you can have that from them in email, letter, etc., but when you go to a national tournament and the official at the moment interprets it differently, the written comment won't count for squat.
 
U

UGC

Registered
surffisher2a said:
They way you are phrasing your question and the way you challenging anyone who disagrees with your opinion make it seem like you came here on a "I am right" mission looking for people you can point at to validate your opinion. Some people are not buying the altruistic virtue of you just wanting information.

In other words sounds like you got in an argument at league with someone and you hoped coming here would give you ammunition to win that argument. You stated you already contacted the APA for a ruling, you didn't need to come here and try for a support group.

Don't read that the wrong way, I am not saying that is a fact, what I am saying is that is the impression that you are giving off, esp as a new poster.
Click to expand...

Understood. But no, this never came up in league play. It's never been an issue. The reason I am asking the question the way I am is because I get an answer of "You can't do that", but with no proof under the guide lines of the rules in the rule book.(It's only their opinion) So I am asking for the person who gives the answer to show me a supporting rule that validates it. That's all.

And for the main reason to keep the competition fair on both sides. If my opponent changes cues for a jump shot, I need to know the rules so I can show them they can/can't do that.

And if you CAN do it, and I change cues, I would like to show my opponent the rules to prevent an argument during league play.

Every team has a rule book with them during the match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top