10-ball rules: Miscue on the break, rack not touched?

7

7stud

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Situation: breaking player miscues, the cue ball rolls down to the end rail and back to the middle of the table without ever hitting the rack. According to the WPA rules:

6.3 LEGAL BREAK SHOT
The following rules apply to the break shot:
(a) the cue-ball begins in hand above the Head String; and
(b) if no object-ball is pocketed, at least four object-balls must be driven to one or
more rails, or the shot is a foul.
Click to expand...

So, it's a foul, but I can't find anything in the WPA rules that addresses what happens next. Can the incoming player use ball in hand to put the cue ball within three inches of the 1-ball at the head of the rack, graze the 1-ball, and stick the cue ball on the back of the rack?

I would really like to know where this situation is addressed in the WPA rules.
 
Last edited:
7stud said:
Situation: breaking player miscues, the cue ball rolls into the end rail and back to the middle of the table without ever hitting the rack. According to the WPA rules:



So, it's a foul, but I can't find anything in the WPA rules that addresses what happens next. Can the incoming player use ball in hand to put the cue ball within three inches of the 1-ball at the head of the rack, graze the 1-ball, and stick the cue ball on the back of the rack?

I would really like to know where in the WPA rules this situation is addressed.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course you can do this. It is the standard play in 9b and has been for decades.

It’s not addressed separately- it flows from the other rules. It is a foul (as you note). It is BIH. Any legal shot you shot next is legal (thin the 1b and hit a rail and you are good). Breaker is now on one foul - and has to avoid 3 fouling. Sometimes the only play for thr breaker is to take a deliberate foul by blasting open the rack and hoping for a better chance when you are on 2 fouls.
 
I should add that sometimes you see the non breaker just break a normal break shot. This is legal but technically the next shot after that is a normal shot (i.e., neither player could play a push shot) and if you the breaker fouls on his next inning he’d be on 2 fouls. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone do this, however - usually people just treat the second “break” as a normal break shot.
 
GideonF said:
I should add that sometimes you see the non breaker just break a normal break shot. This is legal but technically the next shot after that is a normal shot (i.e., neither player could play a push shot) and if you the breaker fouls on his next inning he’d be on 2 fouls. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone do this, however - usually people just treat the second “break” as a normal break shot.
Click to expand...

you can also break closer to the rack, and if there's a break box involved, outside the break box
 
Locally, we handle that by a re-rack (if the balls were disturbed) and the other player breaks. No foul. Just losing the break is the penalty. If it’s an alt break format, that means the same player breaks 3 times in a row.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Locally, we handle that by a re-rack (if the balls were disturbed) and the other player breaks. No foul. Just losing the break is the penalty. If it’s an alt break format, that means the same player breaks 3 times in a row.
Click to expand...

Is that just for 10b, or 9b too? Also, where is this - just curious as I’ve never seen this practice in tournament play.
 
GideonF said:
Is that just for 10b, or 9b too? Also, where is this - just curious as I’ve never seen this practice in tournament play.
Click to expand...
We do it for both. It might be a local rule, idk. I use it in my own tournaments as TD also.

Frankly, I think the 3 fouls off a full stack is stupid for the game.

I thought there were rules in the BCA book decades ago that were something to the effect of "the game doesn't start until the 1 is hit" to prevent the 3 fouls off of the stack.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Here it is. Albin vs Filler. ...
Click to expand...
There was another one where the breaker was not so well known. Maybe on the stream chat, someone said he was cheating with the initial miscue to get out of breaking -- strange comment. And then he lost.

iusedtoberich said:
... Frankly, I think the 3 fouls off a full stack is stupid for the game. ..
Click to expand...
I think the rule is a nice reminder to learn the rules, and it doesn't come up that often. It adds texture to the game.
 
Bob, do you know if it was always the rule (officially) that 3 fouls could be played off the stack. Wasn't there some provision in an edition of the rules about the game not starting until the CB crossed the headstrong, and/or the 1 was struck?
 
iusedtoberich said:
Bob, do you know if it was always the rule (officially) that 3 fouls could be played off the stack. Wasn't there some provision in an edition of the rules about the game not starting until the CB crossed the headstrong, and/or the 1 was struck?
Click to expand...

wasn't that rule for the safe breaks?
 
iusedtoberich said:
Bob, do you know if it was always the rule (officially) that 3 fouls could be played off the stack. Wasn't there some provision in an edition of the rules about the game not starting until the CB crossed the headstrong, and/or the 1 was struck?
Click to expand...
In 1992, there was a rebreak, but the rules were still spotting balls and the cue ball was in hand behind the line.

By 1997, the official rules were ball in hand anywhere for an illegal break with no rerack.

So.... The potential 3-foul from the break situation has been official for about 30 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top