9ball rule question
- Thread starter EL'nino
- Start date
Bad hit.
The eight must be hit first. From a referee standpoint, if you can't tell because it was just too close then yes it's a good hit. If the shooter says I hit them at the same time he is saying he didn't hit the eight first. Bad hit. So don't say things like that. Just say I think i made a good hit. Hitting at the same time is certainly not hitting one ball first! Without slow mo camera work, how could any reasonable person say they were hit exactly with a split hit! On very close hits on our team we always ask for judgment from the other team. What could be more fair? Do the world a favor and don't shoot shots that are questionable. This will make America stronger.
The eight must be hit first. From a referee standpoint, if you can't tell because it was just too close then yes it's a good hit. If the shooter says I hit them at the same time he is saying he didn't hit the eight first. Bad hit. So don't say things like that. Just say I think i made a good hit. Hitting at the same time is certainly not hitting one ball first! Without slow mo camera work, how could any reasonable person say they were hit exactly with a split hit! On very close hits on our team we always ask for judgment from the other team. What could be more fair? Do the world a favor and don't shoot shots that are questionable. This will make America stronger.
It was a money game and we asked the house man to watch the hit and he said it was a "split hit" same time.... foul. I will never argue with someone who I ask to make a call but I won't ask him again. I thought it was common knowledge that a split goes to the shooter.
kybill9
Banned
Wrong, IMHO.
kybill9
Banned
Bad hit......
kybill9
Banned
Bad hit......
kybill9
Banned
Split hit is hitting the object ball first? Bad hit.
Interestingly.... I seem to remember in the WPA and BCA rules that simultaneous contact constitutes a good hit, but now I can't find it.
If I think there is a chance of a bad hit call on a shot, I'll shoot something else.
EDIT - I found it in a copy of the older set of rules - number 18 on this list:
http://www.centralohiobca.com/general%20rules.htm
If I think there is a chance of a bad hit call on a shot, I'll shoot something else.
EDIT - I found it in a copy of the older set of rules - number 18 on this list:
http://www.centralohiobca.com/general%20rules.htm
Last edited:
kybill9
Banned
Any of you that says a split hit is a good hit, find it in the rule book. The rule as far as I know is that you must hit the object ball FIRST. Not along with. Not the same time as. Not split hit. It it was a carom and you hit both balls at the same time, bad hit. 4 DD. IMHO. IMFO
I just did a google search for split hit rules. I found a bunch of places that all said it's a good hit, even in 9 ball, including the wpa and the upa site. I'm on my phone and can't post a link...
Glen, what houseman made that call? And I'm surprised your opponent even accepted the call. No way you should have let that go. They have the rule book behind the counter and you could have proven the hiusemans understanding of the rule was wrong.
Glen, what houseman made that call? And I'm surprised your opponent even accepted the call. No way you should have let that go. They have the rule book behind the counter and you could have proven the hiusemans understanding of the rule was wrong.
Kybill, you are correct on the literal object of the phrase "hitting the lowest ball first". That's why all the rule books have a section that explicitly addresses "simultaneous hits" and rules them legal.
For the World Standardized Rules, how the rules are applied is covered in the regulations. They are here: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations
The specific regulation about split hits is:
The specific regulation about split hits is:
26. Split Hits
If the cue ball strikes a legal object ball and a non-legal object ball at approximately the same instant, and it cannot be determined which ball was hit first, it will be assumed that the legal target was struck first.
Usually you can tell from the action of the balls which was struck first. Not all referees (or TDs) are skilled in such determinations. There are situations in which you really can't tell which was first, even with a high-speed camera.If the cue ball strikes a legal object ball and a non-legal object ball at approximately the same instant, and it cannot be determined which ball was hit first, it will be assumed that the legal target was struck first.
that is why the tie goes to the runner. if you "hit them at the same time" how could you not hit the object ball first if there is only one hit?
your ho is not fact.
Royal billiards on the Pa. Del. border. The worst part is it was a race to 5 & i was winning 4 to 0 & they were the last 2 balls to win the set and sure as shit I lost the set. If I ask someone to make a call I won't argue with them no matter what. That's the 1st time I ever shut my opponant out & still lost.
Official BCAPL response
Edit - Sorry Bob - I type to slow...
Done. BCAPL Rule 1.31, Simultaneous Hit:
A simultaneous hit with a legal and an illegal object ball is legal.
Under WSR, Regulation 26, Split Hits, applies:
"If the cue ball strikes a legal object ball and a non-legal object ball at approximately the same instnat, and it cannot be determined which ball was hit first, it will be assumed that the legal target was struck first".
The WSR ruling also covers the "can't tell" scenario of several previous posts. Although BCAPL rules do not currently or directly address "can't tell" scenarios in writing, rest assured that BCAPL referee training exhaustively emphasizes the principle, and that the next edition of the BCAPL book will address the issue in writing.
It is a well established principle in most all established reputable sports that, given a penalty/no penalty situation, a penalty is not applied without clear evidence, and that in offense/defense situations, the offense benefits from such a situation. There are exceptions to be sure, but the general principle is pervasive.
Not so much. See: http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVB-63.htm part 6 at 3:40.
If you think Mr Jewett tried this "trillions of times", or even more than a couple of dozen, you're nuts. I don't care if it was a lucky ocurrence. IMHO, Mr. Jewett would agree that while it is certainly not a common occurrence, it happens more often than most people would assume.
:smile:
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
* 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.
* 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.
* 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 unless specifically stated.
* 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.
Edit - Sorry Bob - I type to slow...
Done. BCAPL Rule 1.31, Simultaneous Hit:
A simultaneous hit with a legal and an illegal object ball is legal.
Under WSR, Regulation 26, Split Hits, applies:
"If the cue ball strikes a legal object ball and a non-legal object ball at approximately the same instnat, and it cannot be determined which ball was hit first, it will be assumed that the legal target was struck first".
The WSR ruling also covers the "can't tell" scenario of several previous posts. Although BCAPL rules do not currently or directly address "can't tell" scenarios in writing, rest assured that BCAPL referee training exhaustively emphasizes the principle, and that the next edition of the BCAPL book will address the issue in writing.
It is a well established principle in most all established reputable sports that, given a penalty/no penalty situation, a penalty is not applied without clear evidence, and that in offense/defense situations, the offense benefits from such a situation. There are exceptions to be sure, but the general principle is pervasive.
DoubleD said:
Not so much. See: http://billiards.colostate.edu/normal_videos/new/NVB-63.htm part 6 at 3:40.
If you think Mr Jewett tried this "trillions of times", or even more than a couple of dozen, you're nuts. I don't care if it was a lucky ocurrence. IMHO, Mr. Jewett would agree that while it is certainly not a common occurrence, it happens more often than most people would assume.
:smile:
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
* 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.
* 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.
* 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 unless specifically stated.
* 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.
Really, if you read the rule itself (without going to the regulations) then by your own line of reasoning it's a good hit according to the rules (WSR from the WPA rules):
Note that the rule doesn't state you must hit the object ball first. What it says is you can't contact any other ball first. So as you say, if "not along with" or "not the same time as" or "not split hit" means the object ball wasn't hit first then those phrases also mean no other ball was hit first - which is what the way the rule reads.
Last edited:
It took fewer than a dozen tries as I recall.
Another time I was helping with referee training at a BCA tournament (back when the BCA had leagues) in Las Vegas. As part of the demo/quiz, I shot in the following position using draw, asking the trainees to call good/bad, figuring the cue ball would fly off to the left or right making the call obvious. The cue ball drew straight back.
![CropperCapture[24].png](https://forums.azbilliards.com/data/attachments/147/147123-f779e356cbcc4ba77b119a80358bfc45.jpg?hash=93njVsvMS6 "CropperCapture[24].png")
If someone wants to bet on 20 tries, don't bet.
Last edited:
Okie response.
Clarification from the great state of Oklahoma! What's up Buddy? Kris here. I think you answered everyones issues. But, however, I cannot get past this thing of not hitting the lowest ball first. A condition of the game. I understand the I can't tell and who knows which one really did get hit first scenario from a referees standpoint. I think the rule should be a I couldn't make a judgment because I just couldn't tell sort of thing. Saying that a split hit is good makes no sense. Lowest ball must be hit FIRST, not with or at the same time. First. With all due respect to you and all the other great referees who do this thankless job, I think this split hit rule is just an easy way to settle disputes quickly. A sort of no call thing. Just take out the wording (split hit) and I'm just fine. OMG I'm having one of my rare epethamies. Too close to call, just flip a coin. Sounds more fair than ruling for the shooter every time you just can't tell. Seriously though, language in these technical matters is huge. Split hit is like a little bit pregnant! Or like that pharmacist who killed the armed robber too much. He's in prison for killing that guy too much!?
Clarification from the great state of Oklahoma! What's up Buddy? Kris here. I think you answered everyones issues. But, however, I cannot get past this thing of not hitting the lowest ball first. A condition of the game. I understand the I can't tell and who knows which one really did get hit first scenario from a referees standpoint. I think the rule should be a I couldn't make a judgment because I just couldn't tell sort of thing. Saying that a split hit is good makes no sense. Lowest ball must be hit FIRST, not with or at the same time. First. With all due respect to you and all the other great referees who do this thankless job, I think this split hit rule is just an easy way to settle disputes quickly. A sort of no call thing. Just take out the wording (split hit) and I'm just fine. OMG I'm having one of my rare epethamies. Too close to call, just flip a coin. Sounds more fair than ruling for the shooter every time you just can't tell. Seriously though, language in these technical matters is huge. Split hit is like a little bit pregnant! Or like that pharmacist who killed the armed robber too much. He's in prison for killing that guy too much!?
The problem with this is that it is NOT the rule that the lowest numbered ball must be hit first. Read the WPA rule I quoted in post #18. I agree with your reasoning that "at the same time" is not the same thing as first. But the rule reads that it is a foul to contact any other object ball first. So according to the rule - and your reasoning - a split hit qualifies as good.
And why flip a coin over this aspect of the rules when it is common in all nature of matters to give the benefit of doubt to the shooter?