another ruling question...
- Thread starter Rackemep
- Start date
No.........
No. Only if the Q ball or another ball fail to hit a rail after.
If you're playing by "bar" rules, anything can be a foul, depends on how ignorant and/or drunk your opponent is :grin:
I've had people insist that since I did not hit the ball I was trying to hit, even if I hit another one of my group, it's a foul.
In real pool rules, no foul.
In bar rules, if he didn't call that the cue ball would precisely hit the first solid at 30 degrees off the center of the northern hemisphere and carom off the bug that landed on the cloth; It would have been a foul.
And if the bug flew off and grazed the cue ball on it's own accord it would still be a foul if you didn't call it exactly that way... unless it was a bar fly. Then it would depend on if it were a male or a female bar fly. Female bar flies are always neutrally allowed on the table at anytime, where as a male bar fly is to be avoided always.
Bar Rules (and play)... all of the finesse of a bull in a china shop. Bang-Pop-Plop... and the cue ball just runs around the table like it's on a square roulette wheel. I guess it's too much to expect a bar banger to actually read the BCA bible of rules (or to even own a copy for reference).
It's kind of like playing 5 card draw poker... would you suddenly (in a money game)... first try to discard all 5 of your cards because that's how you play at home. Then you declare that you won the hand with a pair of 2's against 2 pair because in your mind deuces are wild... even though the official rules say otherwise and nothing was said upfront about wildcards. You'd get ejected from the table before the first hand was settled.
Bar rules usually reminds me of an Al Capone aphorism....
.."A kind word, and a .45, will get you more than a kind word."
We were at a BCA league last night and this situation came up...I argued no foul because the proper suit of ball was contacted ....they argued that on a jump shot if any other ball is disrupted except the ball you called then its a foul...it struck me as a weird ruling....I said to show it to me in a rule book and if the BCA ruling was a foul then I would drop it but until then I was going to hold firm that there was no foul committed ...they dropped it after that but I wanted to confirm that I was correct
I think this is where they got confused:
There's a rule that says if you jump over an illegal object ball,
and that ball moves, then it's always a foul. Doesn't matter if that ball moved
due to the cue ball, the stick, your sleeve, your hand, etc.
Any movement is a foul.
I think they made that rule because people will often skim the blocking ball
with their cue ball, and then try to say "no, it was actually my stick that moved it.
So it's not a foul." This leads to arguments because it happens so fast it's hard to say for sure.
So the rule was changed to basically say: "if it moves, it's a foul, period".
But again, this only applies to illegal object balls.
I think your opponents missed the word "illegal".
Here's a cut and paste from the BCAPL rulebook on their website:
There's a rule that says if you jump over an illegal object ball,
and that ball moves, then it's always a foul. Doesn't matter if that ball moved
due to the cue ball, the stick, your sleeve, your hand, etc.
Any movement is a foul.
I think they made that rule because people will often skim the blocking ball
with their cue ball, and then try to say "no, it was actually my stick that moved it.
So it's not a foul." This leads to arguments because it happens so fast it's hard to say for sure.
So the rule was changed to basically say: "if it moves, it's a foul, period".
But again, this only applies to illegal object balls.
I think your opponents missed the word "illegal".
Here's a cut and paste from the BCAPL rulebook on their website: