14.1 ruling confusion

Jay, I'm sorry you are so upset. I didn't mean to cause you any pain.

I think it's a really good thing that players are involved in the rule-making process. After all, it is they who are doing the playing, right? In fact, after the first World 10-Ball event with the new rules, the WPA got some great player feedback and were able to make rule adjustments based on that feedback. It's all good.

You know I don't hate the spectators, Jay, and for you to accuse me of any sort of negativity towards them is way out of line. We have both been in the pool world for a very long time. I thought you knew me better than that and there is no need for those kinds of accusations.

I wish you a very happy new year with much prosperity and healthy blood pressure.

Thank you Fran and same to you. As far as I'm concerned, letting the players make the rules is like letting the inmates run the asylum. I've already seen what a mess the players can make of a good thing. What they have accomplished with the new Ten Ball rules is to make the game far more boring. You and I both know this is all about giving a greater advantage to the top players. Whatever chance a second echelon player had of pulling an upset is out the window now. These new rules will only further discourage them from competing in professional tournaments. And we need these lesser players to fill out the fields and increase the prize funds.

Yes Fran my blood pressure does begin to boil when I see a good game turned sour, when it doesn't have to be. Of course no one is asking me, since I'm still the new kid on the block. I've only worked 200+ major tournaments over the last thirty years! How do you like the new rule that if a player shoots and misses, leaving his opponent hooked, he can be made to shoot again? One more bad joke imo.

A little luck is actually good for the game! It adds another element to the potential outcome of a shot, and has made for some exciting situations over the years. I remember Efren kicking his way out of trouble more than a few times, and he never complained about an unlucky roll. I've seen the crowd on the edge of their seats when everything stood in the balance due to a weird roll of the balls. These are the things that have made pool exciting for so many years and now we want to outlaw them. A very bad move imo.

There is luck in every sport, be it tennis (net ball), golf (kick off a tree) and poker (a lucky card falls). It's not necessarily a bad thing. The fans love it when stuff like that happens. If we continue on this path, eventually the pool players will be playing to an empty arena. Who wants to watch an over officiated match, with rule violations coming up shot after shot?

I have made my feelings known to all parties in the pool world and so far the response has been lukewarm at best. This is really the only forum I have for my voice to be heard. We are going down the wrong road with all the new rules. That is my opinion! Matchroom events, the U.S. Open and Derby City remain among the best events in the pool world, with good old lucky 9-Ball! Does that tell you anything?

I began to lose faith in the BCA rules committee when they decided that you no longer win the game when the Eight Ball is made on the break. First of all this is a rare occurrence, which may happen once in a hundred breaks. So why take it out of the game? Not only is it one of the most important rules in Eight Ball, it was played that way EVERYWHERE forever! And Eight Ball is a game that has had many different sets of rules, depending on your locale. The one universal rule is now gone, thanks to a "rules committee." Enough said.
 
Last edited:
... So now you're telling us that the players made the new rules, not some "committee?" ...
The rules for 10 ball were not part of the work of the committee that met in 2006. They appeared later. I don't know their origin or editor.
 
This thread was started to ask about a particular rule situation in 14.1.

With post #37, Jay took it on a tangent (that's OK; tangents can be interesting) to again express his distaste for call-shot rotation games (10-ball in particular) rather than slop pool. This topic comes up time after time. Because of the title of this thread, I imagine some people who would otherwise chime in on this topic won't know it is being discussed again here.

For anyone interested in more on this topic than has been stated here, a thread back in September might be of interest: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=247138.
 
Way to go Jay!!! Who really wants to watch straight pool on TV. But I do believe it's a great game and I love it.
 
The rules for 10 ball were not part of the work of the committee that met in 2006. They appeared later. I don't know their origin or editor.

Correct. This all came about with the onset of the first World 10 Ball Championship. It is my understanding that all future rules adjustments for 10 Ball will be at the proper time when all rules come up for adjustments and rewriting.
 
I don't know why this even matters. If a tournament promoter wants to put up a tournament, he can state whatever rules he wants. Who cares what some rules committee / book says?

If I'm an event promoter and I want to put on a 10ball tournament and make the people shoot the 10ball one handed, that's up to me since I'm putting up the tournament and it's up to the players to decide if they wanna play or not.

I guess the only reason it would matter would be if an event is a WPA sanctioned event. In the grand scheme of things, that's a super small %.

I believe there's at least one regional tour that doesn't play "shot or safe" in 10 ball.
 
I don't know why this even matters. If a tournament promoter wants to put up a tournament, he can state whatever rules he wants. Who cares what some rules committee / book says?

If I'm an event promoter and I want to put on a 10ball tournament and make the people shoot the 10ball one handed, that's up to me since I'm putting up the tournament and it's up to the players to decide if they wanna play or not.

I guess the only reason it would matter would be if an event is a WPA sanctioned event. In the grand scheme of things, that's a super small %.

I believe there's at least one regional tour that doesn't play "shot or safe" in 10 ball.

You're right, but it covers a broader spectrum. Events that are qualifiers for WPA sanctioned events are supposed to be played with World Standardized Rules. Some variations are allowed and acceptable, but those would be minor and have to be approved ahead of time.

That includes events where players would earn qualifying points towards an invitation to a World Championship, such as BCA points events.
 
Unless the promoter of a tournament is willing to write the entire rule book for his event, train all the officials and make sure the players have read it before the event starts, then the rules do matter. So what if a promoter wants to require the 10 Ball be shot one handed, whatr is being used for the rest of the rules?

BTW, the world standardized rules do not allow the incoming player to give it back on a miss UNLESS a ball goes down. This 2 way shot is still alive in 10 Ball under WPA rules. Events were the incoming player has the option is an example of one of those promoter added rules.

----------

Back to straight pool. I still would like to know if the wording of the rule regarding bad play from behind the head string seems to suggest that rail after contact is suspended. Or is it only meant to say that these are additional requirements on top of the standard foul rules.
 
Last edited:
... Back to straight pool. I still would like to know if the wording of the rule regarding bad play from behind the head string seems to suggest that rail after contact is suspended. Or is it only meant to say that these are additional requirements on top of the standard foul rules.
Certainly the intent was to add a restriction, not remove them. The only rule that is suspended for ball in hand behind the line is that you may touch the cue ball until you shoot it.
 
... Back to straight pool. I still would like to know if the wording of the rule regarding bad play from behind the head string seems to suggest that rail after contact is suspended. Or is it only meant to say that these are additional requirements on top of the standard foul rules.

I think it's just a clarification statement. Suppose you have BIH behind the head string and take a slow-rolled normal shot at an OB down table, and the OB stops short of the pocket and the CB didn't hit a rail. I'm sure you would never claim "no foul" based on the rule you quoted.
 
I think it's just a clarification statement. Suppose you have BIH behind the head string and take a slow-rolled normal shot at an OB down table, and the OB stops short of the pocket and the CB didn't hit a rail. I'm sure you would never claim "no foul" based on the rule you quoted.

Thank you. I would think so too, but just curious, do you see my point? The rule is there dealing specifically with bad play from behind the head string and then goes into detail to address what is a foul. It just made me wonder if this could be interpreted as superseding the standard rail after contact rule.

I notice that in the BCAPL rule book they didn't include this extra language so it is obvious in that case that the standard rail after contact rule applies.

But yes, I've never encountered a situation where that wasn't considered a foul either. Appreciate your response.
 
Thank you. I would think so too, but just curious, do you see my point? The rule is there dealing specifically with bad play from behind the head string and then goes into detail to address what is a foul. It just made me wonder if this could be interpreted as superseding the standard rail after contact rule.

I notice that in the BCAPL rule book they didn't include this extra language so it is obvious in that case that the standard rail after contact rule applies.

But yes, I've never encountered a situation where that wasn't considered a foul either. Appreciate your response.

Sorry to be so long finding this - I've been buried in car repairs and haven't even been on in the last week or so.

Dogs - You have a good observation, but I agree that the language does not clearly supersede the rail contact requirement - it just adds to it for a specific situation...BUT...

It still gets more bizarre than you think. Take a REAL good look at WSR 6.11 and try to figure out what it would be, and I will post later tomorrow night with the answer.

The clue: in October of 2006 I sent a diagram of a shot, which was presented by a North American representative to the conference Bob referred to earlier, along with an extensive grammatical and syntactic analysis of the draft WSR with suggestions for corrections/improvements (which was almost totally ignored, based on both first hand account and by looking at the final product). Anyway, the diagram dealt specifically with a situation and a shot that was legal under the draft rules. Nothing changed as a result, and the shot is now legal under WSR 6.11. It is a shot that was never, to my knowledge, legal under any rule set, WSR or otherwise, that I know of prior to the WSR 2008 re-write, and is still illegal under BCAPL rules.

Happy sleuthing...

Buddy
 
Last edited:
and the answer is - (check this out 14.1 fans...)

Okay - last night I gave a little tease. Don't know if anyone cared or tried to figure it out, but here's the answer, at any rate.

When looking at this, please forget that the strategy leading up to the situation might not be realistic. Strategy/skill is not the point here - the rules are (and stranger things have certainly happened anyway...)

14.1 game. Player A has tried to pocket the 14th ball (2-ball) in lower corner, but it rattled out and ended up as shown. CB did find a pocket however, so ball in hand to Player B. The 12-ball is above the head string (in the kitchen).

CueTable Help



Ready for this? Player B, with ball in hand in the kitchen, legally plays this shot:

CueTable Help



The shot meets all the requirements of WSR 1.5 (Cue Ball in Hand), and 4.9 (14.1 Standard Fouls), and does NOT violate WSR 6.10 (Bad Cue Ball Placement), nor 6.11 (Bad Play from Behind the Head String. In accordance with 6.11, the cue ball has crossed the head string before contacting the 12-ball, which is in the kitchen.

Prior to 1/1/2008, this shot would have been illegal under WSR. The old WSR Rule 3.10 (Cue Ball in Hand Behind the Head String), carried the familiar requirement that, with BIH in the kitchen:

“He may not shoot at any ball, the base of which is above the head string, unless he first shoots the cue ball below the head string and then by hitting a rail causes the ball to come back above the head string and hit the object ball.” [emphasis added]

The requirement to hit a rail is what most all players were (and likely still are) familiar with, and I would bet dollars to donuts that a (unscientific) survey of players would probably reveal widespread unfamiliarity with the new provision.

After reading the draft of the new WSR, the exact shot above was diagrammed and presented to the October 2006 WSR conference. The conference opted to leave the shot as legal.

The BCAPL, however, chose to keep the requirement to contact a cushion below the head string before contacting a ball in the kitchen before any other ball. The shot is still illegal in BCAPL play.

:)

Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee
BCAPL Director of Referee Training
Technical Editor, BCAPL Rule Book
bcapl_referee@cox.net

Find the Official Rules of the BCA Pool League here:

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/Default.aspx

* Unless specifically stated, the contents of this post refer to BCA Pool League (BCAPL) Rules only. The BCAPL National Office has authorized me to act in an official capacity regarding questions about BCAPL Rules matters in public forums.
* Unless specifically stated, no reference to, inference concerning, or comment on any other set of rules (WPA, APA, VNEA, TAP, or any other set of rules, public or private) is intended or should be derived from this post.
* Neither I, nor any BCAPL referee, make any policy decisions regarding BCAPL Rules. Any and all decisions, interpretations, or Applied Rulings are made by the BCAPL National Office and are solely their responsibility. BCAPL referees are enforcers of rules, not legislators. BCAPL Rules 9.5.3 and 9.5.4 and the BCAPL Rules "Statement of Principles" apply.
* For General Rules, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, and 14.1 Continuous: there is no such thing as "BCA Rules" other than in the sense that the Billiard Congress of America (BCA) publishes various rules, including the World Pool-Billiard Association's "World Standardized Rules" for those games. The BCA has no rules committee. The BCA does not edit, nor is responsible for the content of, the World Standardized Rules. The Official Rules of the BCAPL is a separate and independent set of rules and, to avoid confusion, should not be referred to as "BCA Rules".
* Since 2004, there is no such thing as a "BCA Referee". The BCA no longer has any program to train, certify or sanction billiards referees or officials. The BCAPL maintains what we consider to be the most structured, complete and intensive referee training program available.
* The BCAPL has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA. The letters "BCA" in BCAPL do not stand for "Billiard Congress of America, nor for anything at all.
* The BCAPL has not addressed every imaginable rules issue, nor will it ever likely be able to, as evidenced by the seemingly endless situations that people dream up or that (more frequently) actually happen. If I do not have the answer to a question I will tell you so, then I will get a ruling from the BCAPL National Office and get back to you as soon as I can. If deemed necessary, the BCAPL will then add the ruling to the "Applied Rulings" section of The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League.
* All BCAPL members are, as always, encouraged to e-mail Bill Stock at the BCAPL National Office, bill@playcsi.com, with any comments, concerns or suggestions about the BCAPL rules.
 
Last edited:
... I would bet dollars to donuts that a (unscientific) survey of players would probably reveal widespread unfamiliarity with the new provision. ...

That sounds like a good bet to me. Maybe the WSR conference didn't want to prevent Mike Massey from shooting a full masse shot going across the head string and then back to pocket a ball.:)

Assuming you are correct that the shot you diagrammed is legal under current WPA rules, I would think it could lead to some debate as to whether the CB actually fully left the kitchen (old lingo) before striking the OB that is straddling the head string. I guess just the base of the CB would have to cross the line, right, not all of the CB?
 
Last edited:
Buddy, very interesting, but let me ask you about another situation when there was the requirement in the World rules to hit a rail before playing a ball in the kitchen. I'm assuming the pre-2008 rule is more a less a quote.

The situation is this: You have 3 balls left on the table with BIH in the kitchen. One ball is in the kitchen hanging in the corner pocket. The other two are frozen to each other say near center table, in such a way that there is no real pocket available for either ball. It sounds like it would still be illegal to call the hanger by playing a shot into the two frozen balls with draw unless you happened to hit a rail on the way to the hanger.

Would this have been legal or not the way the World Rule used to be worded when it included the rail requirement?

I notice it is not a problem under BCAPL rules since the rule states it is illegal only if the "first" ball contacted is behind the head string without a rail.
 
Last edited:
...
The BCAPL, however, chose to keep the requirement to contact a cushion below the head string before contacting a ball in the kitchen before any other ball. The shot is still illegal in BCAPL play. ..
So, under BCAPL rules, if a ball is hanging in a head pocket, it is illegal to play a masse shot in which the cue ball goes out of the kitchen, curves around the foot spot and then comes back up the table and pockets the ball in the head pocket without contacting a cushion. I think either shot will be very rare and this is a very minor point that is not worth worrying about -- reasonable arguments can be made on either side. The committee was aware of the shot you diagrammed above at the time of the discussions in Gary. The rule is a little simpler if no cushion outside the kitchen is required.
 
I'm assuming the pre-2008 rule is more a less a quote.

More than less. It was, verbatim, the fourth sentence of the old WSR 3.10.

The situation is this: You have 3 balls left on the table with BIH in the kitchen. One ball is in the kitchen hanging in the corner pocket. The other two are frozen to each other say near center table, in such a way that there is no real pocket available for either ball. It sounds like it would still be illegal to call the hanger by playing a shot into the two frozen balls with draw unless you happened to hit a rail on the way to the hanger.

Would this have been legal or not the way the World Rule used to be worded when it included the rail requirement?

I notice it is not a problem under BCAPL rules since the rule states it is illegal only if the "first" ball contacted is behind the head string without a rail.

Legal under the traditional application of the old 3.10. I probably should have just quoted the entire rule, but I was afraid readers might get a headache. :rolleyes: anyway here is the third sentence from the old rule:

"The shooter may shoot at any object ball as long as the base of the object ball is below the head string"

That sentence, as with the current BCAPL rule you referred to, frees up the carom/draw you referred to, providing, of course, that the first ball contacted is a legal OB.

Unfortunately, in the old 3.10 the term "...shoot at..." was unacceptably vague, allowing for the (somewhat ridiculous) argument the the player is "shooting at" the ball in the kitchen, and therefore still can't use the carom/draw.

Your observation concerning the wording in the BCAPL rule is correct. BCAPL 1.36 leaves no doubt or vagueness.

So, under BCAPL rules, if a ball is hanging in a head pocket, it is illegal to play a masse shot in which the cue ball goes out of the kitchen, curves around the foot spot and then comes back up the table and pockets the ball in the head pocket without contacting a cushion.

Correct. Just as it was under pre-2008 WSR per the old 3.10. (More specifically, contacting a cushion at a point below the head string.)

...reasonable arguments can be made on either side. The committee was aware of the shot you diagrammed above at the time of the discussions in Gary. The rule is a little simpler if no cushion outside the kitchen is required.

Agreed that arguments can be made on either side. Personally, I have no dog in the fight and I'm not concerned, offended, or really care less about the change from pre-2008 under WSR. Sorry if my earlier post was construed as dismay with the change - I brought up the whole subject just to point out that a change had been made that probably very few players know about. And my input to the conference was only to make sure that the change was intentional and that something hadn't been missed in the writing if no change was intended.

I did however, find it both a little odd and disappointing that the WPA (apparently) did not bother to publish, in conjunction with the new rule set, any kind of notification or list of changes from the previous rules.

Buddy
 
Last edited:
... I did however, find it both a little odd and disappointing that the WPA (apparently) did not bother to publish, in conjunction with the new rule set, any kind of notification or list of changes from the previous rules.

Buddy
Yes, that would have been helpful. There was no official list of changes. I did comment at the time in a couple of places on the major changes.
 
To all players of 14.1 and those interested in 14.1 rules.

If the WPA and/or the BCAPL offered any kind of 14.1 WORLD Championships or even qualifiers for a Straight Pool Championship, I could see a that the rules might need to be 'tweeked'.

At this time, only, Dragon Promotions and Charlie Williams and his sponsors support any type of Professional 14.1 tournament.

When did the BCA last have a 14.1 championship? 1990?
Has the WPA ever had one?

14.1 rules are moot for the professionals. Great rules for the local leagues and 14.1 regular players.

IMO this is all too much to do about not much at all.

Oh, BTW, is it still unsportsmanlike conduct (15 point penalty) for placing your hand in a pocket to catch a ball?
 
... Oh, BTW, is it still unsportsmanlike conduct (15 point penalty) for placing your hand in a pocket to catch a ball?

Yes, technically it is unsportsmanlike conduct. But the penalty is not a flat 15 points, it's whatever the referee decides -- ranging anywhere from a simple warning to ejection from the event and forfeiture of any prizes.

In practice, particularly in non-refereed "friendly" or league matches, it probably would be unusual for anyone to actually call this foul.
 
Back
Top