The same opinion is formed either way. The rule is ridiculous and set up to cause problems. So fix the rule.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
scoring defensive shots in apa
- Thread starter lorider
- Start date
The same opinion is formed either way. The rule is ridiculous and set up to cause problems. So fix the rule.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
May I be so bold as to open yet another can-of-worms since we're discussing defensive shots in this thread???
I'm playing 8-ball. My opponent has one ball left and the 8-ball is hanging in the side pocket. I still have three balls on the table. It's his shot and he doesn't have a makeable shot on his last ball so he plays a safety that leaves the cue ball behind his only ball while my three balls are on the other end of the table. I have to kick at and hit one of my balls or this game will soon be over. I kick two rails and hit one of my balls. I had no "intention" of making a ball, I was just trying to not give him BIH.
Do you mark this as a defensive shot???
I do NOT when I am scorekeeping and I see a person shoot a kick shot like the one I just described. Sure there was no "intent" on making a ball but rest assured, this is as offensive as a shot can be whenever you're trying not to give up BIH in an obvious game-losing situation. I would not even think of taking an inning off of ones match (as it would do for all practical intents and purposes) for trying to save a chance at winning this game by not giving up a BIH.
I bet I'm in the minority here and a lot of you would mark this as a defensive shot.
This above described scenario falls into the "gray area" of the rules, imo.
Maniac
I'm playing 8-ball. My opponent has one ball left and the 8-ball is hanging in the side pocket. I still have three balls on the table. It's his shot and he doesn't have a makeable shot on his last ball so he plays a safety that leaves the cue ball behind his only ball while my three balls are on the other end of the table. I have to kick at and hit one of my balls or this game will soon be over. I kick two rails and hit one of my balls. I had no "intention" of making a ball, I was just trying to not give him BIH.
Do you mark this as a defensive shot???
I do NOT when I am scorekeeping and I see a person shoot a kick shot like the one I just described. Sure there was no "intent" on making a ball but rest assured, this is as offensive as a shot can be whenever you're trying not to give up BIH in an obvious game-losing situation. I would not even think of taking an inning off of ones match (as it would do for all practical intents and purposes) for trying to save a chance at winning this game by not giving up a BIH.
I bet I'm in the minority here and a lot of you would mark this as a defensive shot.
This above described scenario falls into the "gray area" of the rules, imo.
Maniac
Creedo, under your scenario it is an obvious safe because your intention is to play safe. If you get unlucky enough to make a ball then that is just a bad roll. The scenario where sharkster and I are talking is playing an offensive shot with intent on making a ball first. Some of the earlier posters said if you pass up a hanger for a lower percentage shot when the hanger obviously doesn't give you position or a breakout on your problem ball, and the lower percentage would hook your opponent if you miss, they would mark that as a defense. The APA rule specifies intent, not outcome of the shot. Marking a safe simply because you disagree with the shot selection is not in the spirit of the game or the rule.
As for the other scenario of just kicking to make contact. I don't necessarily agree with the ruling but I've had several discussions with APA officials in Vegas over the exact subject and I understand their reasoning. If you are not trying to pocket a ball then you are playing defense. The scenario I dislike about this situation is when a well played safe leaves an opponent so hooked that there is no makeable ball, they are marked with a safe as well because they cannot reasonably pocket a ball.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk
As for the other scenario of just kicking to make contact. I don't necessarily agree with the ruling but I've had several discussions with APA officials in Vegas over the exact subject and I understand their reasoning. If you are not trying to pocket a ball then you are playing defense. The scenario I dislike about this situation is when a well played safe leaves an opponent so hooked that there is no makeable ball, they are marked with a safe as well because they cannot reasonably pocket a ball.
Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk
I do not mark that shot as defensive.
Next time I play in the APA I'm gonna wear a hockey helmet and put on a bib to catch my drool between shots. Then I will nevere be marked for a defensive shot because to everybody else I wouldn't have the brain power to play defense. I will call it safety alla retard. Nobody will ever know especially with my kool aid stained lips 
Last edited:
The way I explain this to our players who don't always agree with other wordings is... To quote you... You were trying to not give up ball in hand by contacting one of your balls... Therefore you were defending against ball in hand... Correct? Would that not make the shot a defensive shot? Just food for thought Sir.
Well "better" is a subjective term so... there are, if you think there are.
Better as in call your ball and pocket!!! 9ball sure its a crap shoot but 8 ball??? Sheez!
I guess it's all how each individual scorekeeper sees it. If you kick at the ball HARD enough, I suppose one could argue that the shooter was trying to have the kicked-ball find a pocket through luck. If it was kicked so softly that there was no possible way the hit ball could have moved far enough to find a pocket, then I suppose that should be marked as a defensive shot.
Okay, now here's yet another can-of-worms: You throw a SL1 up in your first 9-ball match of the night. The other team throws up a SL8 (this actually happened to me a couple of years ago). Now, we ALL know that they threw the SL8 up so he could "run up" his innings and still win (they probably wanted him to get back down to a SL7). So he procedes to miss quite a few shots that any SL8 should be able to make on a regular basis. Of course, I mark defense for these shots. Problem is, he misses some shots that are certainly makeable, but not what I'd call "easy" shots. My question now is: Where do you draw the line at what shots he could or could not make? It is all subjective to an OPINION by each individual scorekeeper at this point. After all, don't we ourselves miss makeable shots at times, even "easy" shots every once in a while? What if you mark a miss as defense for a shot that he really intended to make? Flawed scorekeeping (although not intentional).
Like trying to determine intent on a kick shot, this above scenario also puts the scorekeeper in a position of having to decide what the intentions were in another person's mind. This could be two different opinions between the two scorekeepers and thus is a flawed system.
But.....I do understand this: What else are you gonna do???
Maniac (likes this discussion))
as already posted in this thread - apa defines it as "intent to make a ball".
just because you think another ball is an easier or better shot does not make it a defensive shot.
the issue is "intent" is subjective. i look at sandbagging like hustling... i'm a pretty good judge of ability and think i'm pretty good at seeing the difference. league play should be easier since you should typically play with the same group of teams... you should know their ability over time and tell when they are "missing" "easy" shots to sandbag...
just because you think another ball is an easier or better shot does not make it a defensive shot.
the issue is "intent" is subjective. i look at sandbagging like hustling... i'm a pretty good judge of ability and think i'm pretty good at seeing the difference. league play should be easier since you should typically play with the same group of teams... you should know their ability over time and tell when they are "missing" "easy" shots to sandbag...
Last edited:
That's the heart of the problem there and the reason we can have a long thread full of debate. Intent is only knowable by the person shooting. The scorer cannot know intent, he can only take a guess.
What's worse, "intent" is something that can be lied about.
"you passed up that hanger to kick at that ball on the rail. Was that a safe?"
[dishonest player realizes that every marked safe hurts his handicap]
"no, I was kicking and hoping it might go cross-side."
You mention "spirit of the game" or "spirit of the rule"... those concepts are important to me too. To me, the "spirit of the shot" is that he's playing defense and knowingly passing up his turn. It's got nothing to do with shot selection or make percentage, because I just don't buy that he's doing a kick-bank 2-way shot. I can't call that a "shot" with a straight face, even if it technically might find a hole.
And because rules are based on intent, I have to guess. My best guess is that the player had no sincere intent to pocket a ball.
What you said before is if you pass on the hanger for a low percent shot you mark that as D. Just because a ball finds a hole like you mentioned above doesn't mean the player intended to make it. Those are two different things.
I think we are splitting hairs a little. First off if you mark a D and the other team doesn't the score sheets do not need to match at the end of the night. So it doesn't really matter. What matters is that we understand what intent is so we have some sort of consistency. You are talking about ignoring how APA designed the system because intent is subjective. Deep down you know if that player was trying to make the 1% shot over the hanger but you choose to mark it as D so they don't get moved down. That is handicap manipulation and is a big problem.
i have not checked in since yesterday morning and i must say WOW ! i am impressed.
i am impressed that this thread has reached 6 pages and for the most part you guys have kept this thread civil. maybe there is hope for you guys afterall :smile:
i have read most of the replies and the general consensus seems to rely on what is the intent of the shooter.
i agree with that consensus and that is what i was trying to convey in my op. unless i know the true intent i always give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter.
what gets me is the failure to mark obvious safties. my teamates think i am a pain in the ass because i get on them when they are not paying attention and fail to mark safties.
in my op i stated i di not think the kick cross side was a safty. i thought it was a smart pattern play attempting to get rid of a trouble ball. the other captain thought it was a defensive shot based solely on the fact that the shooter passed up an easily makeable regardless if the shooter did not have a shot at his last ball.what got me is if the kick was made it was offense, since it failed it was defense. you cant have it both ways.
i would like to touch on a comment another poster made. ... the scoresheets dont have to match. yea you are right. but in our area we get bonus points added to our score for having accurate scoresheets. those extra points could be the difference between being eligible for the playoffs or sitting at home that weekend.
if the scoresheets dont match one of them is wrong. i dont know our lo's policy but i have heard he has called both captains and try to verify which is accurate. the wrong one dont get the extra point. if neither can be verified neither gets the extra point. the points bonus info is included in our local stats. i can see who got one each week and who did not. the one time we did not get the point i had a conversation with the team about it. they pay a little more attention now.:wink:
i am impressed that this thread has reached 6 pages and for the most part you guys have kept this thread civil. maybe there is hope for you guys afterall :smile:
i have read most of the replies and the general consensus seems to rely on what is the intent of the shooter.
i agree with that consensus and that is what i was trying to convey in my op. unless i know the true intent i always give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter.
what gets me is the failure to mark obvious safties. my teamates think i am a pain in the ass because i get on them when they are not paying attention and fail to mark safties.
in my op i stated i di not think the kick cross side was a safty. i thought it was a smart pattern play attempting to get rid of a trouble ball. the other captain thought it was a defensive shot based solely on the fact that the shooter passed up an easily makeable regardless if the shooter did not have a shot at his last ball.what got me is if the kick was made it was offense, since it failed it was defense. you cant have it both ways.
i would like to touch on a comment another poster made. ... the scoresheets dont have to match. yea you are right. but in our area we get bonus points added to our score for having accurate scoresheets. those extra points could be the difference between being eligible for the playoffs or sitting at home that weekend.
if the scoresheets dont match one of them is wrong. i dont know our lo's policy but i have heard he has called both captains and try to verify which is accurate. the wrong one dont get the extra point. if neither can be verified neither gets the extra point. the points bonus info is included in our local stats. i can see who got one each week and who did not. the one time we did not get the point i had a conversation with the team about it. they pay a little more attention now.:wink:
Marking Defensive Shots
Agreed 100%. It's not up to you to decide what the other captain/scorekeeper thinks is a defensive shot. We played a match in Las Vegas this past summer and every time we missed a shot the other score keeper marked a defense. In the end of an APA match the only thing that has to be in agreement is who won and lost. Innings may not match up, safeties likely won't match at times even the final score of an individual match doesn't match, all you can really do is keep track of your own sheet. But passing on an easy shot is NOT necessarily a defensive shot so long as the intent was to make a ball. It's that word - "Intent", and no one really knows what that was except the shooter. I stopped calling out my safeties years ago when the other teams score keeper had a ridiculous amount of safeties marked for me, now if I'm asked I simply say, "If you think it was a safety just mark it down" and I don't worry about it. In the end only the shooter really knows the truth and it's up to the score keeper to read their mind.
Agreed 100%. It's not up to you to decide what the other captain/scorekeeper thinks is a defensive shot. We played a match in Las Vegas this past summer and every time we missed a shot the other score keeper marked a defense. In the end of an APA match the only thing that has to be in agreement is who won and lost. Innings may not match up, safeties likely won't match at times even the final score of an individual match doesn't match, all you can really do is keep track of your own sheet. But passing on an easy shot is NOT necessarily a defensive shot so long as the intent was to make a ball. It's that word - "Intent", and no one really knows what that was except the shooter. I stopped calling out my safeties years ago when the other teams score keeper had a ridiculous amount of safeties marked for me, now if I'm asked I simply say, "If you think it was a safety just mark it down" and I don't worry about it. In the end only the shooter really knows the truth and it's up to the score keeper to read their mind.
Last edited:
I actually call safety on myself so my teamates know my intention and not call timeout. Its a good way to communicate without having to burn the timeout.
Funny thing about the APA, the book is written as though everyone will follow the rules and the spirit of the game and play by those rules. I don't know about you guys, but every area has it's bad element and that bad element, at times, has a whole different set of rules. Just try not to worry about the other guy and take care of yourself and your own team, the rest will just cause you some serious 'ajada'
And you'd both be wrong...
APA used to call them Defensive (aka "non performance") shots.
When snookered, your act of kicking at your ball (without intent to pocket) to make legal contact and prevent BIH for your opponent is a DEFENSIVE shot. As a subsequent poster acknowledged, you are DEFENDING against giving up BIH.
The real tough part about "intent" is that APA rule allow slop in 8-ball. A player can slam away trying to make legal contact a prevent BIH, but still get lucky and slop in a ball. Was that his goal or unintended side effect of being a banger? The latter gets marked defense.
IMO, the only time it's hard to gauge intent is when a well-skilled player misses a straight in gimme. Was the miss a fluke? Nerves? Bad chalk? Not enough 'Kentucky Windage"?
Creedo, you are overlooking the part in your example that you *don't* want the ball to go in! You are not shooting the shot for the reason that the ball might go in...you are shooting the shot hoping to avoid that possibility. Clearly a safe--no grey area, no room for discussion.
KMRUNOUT
This is completely false. The rule is *not* subjective. The enforcement of the rule is subjective only in so much as you can't know the person's intent for certain. They can of course declare their intent. However, the knowability of something does not make it subjective. The rule is defined very clearly. The shooters intentions are what they are, and that is a fact. Hence this type of rule based on intent is 100% objective. The shooter can lie, and the scorekeeper can lie. None of these situations makes it subjective.
Your subjective opinion is wrong. It is wrong because you are ignoring the rules. You have decided that you prefer your own rules instead. If you mark a safe in that situation, you are cheating. Nothing subjective about that.
KMRUNOUT
Of course you do. You just got through saying you had no intention of making a ball. That is the definition of a defensive shot in the APA.
Well then you have made a decision here to cheat based on your own feelings about things. You have ignored the rules because you think your way of looking at things is better. You say that is "as offensive as a shot can be." That isn't true either. You could kick at the balls with enough speed that they could reach a pocket. You could line up to kick one of the balls in and hit it hard enough to get there. THAT would be more offensive, and would *not* be marked as a defensive shot.
I HOPE you are in the minority. Your opinion about the "gray area" is simply wrong. Sorry about that. The rule is pretty straightforward. There is no grey area in this case. Yo clearly describe a situation that conforms to the letter of the rule in the APA. Your misperception of the presence of "grey area" is nothing more than your own disagreement with the rule as it stands.
KMRUNOUT