Well I guess if I were 10 I would have an understanding of what the rule really is. Since asking the question I have gotten loss of game, BIH, no foul just put everything where you think it would have ended up. Which I understand we are amateurs but even amateurs need rules they can understand. I can almost guarantee if rolls were reversed and my wife sent they 8 ball flying around the table and hit it with her cue. The other team would have quickly came up with their own rule. Since it wasnt her and was their shooter, they had no idea. Which I am OK with. None of us knew the rule. We asked two other teams at the bar if they knew the rules. They suggested BIH so thats what we agreed on. Remember this was the 8 ball. Make it in the pocket you call and you win. Make it in the wrong pocket or scratch you lose. The 8 was not coming to rest when it was contacted. It was rolling around the table. If I am playing the 8 and the cue and 8 are close together. If there is a double hit on the cue ball. I believe that is a loss. Like scratching. Why would the 8 ball be treated and differently. Again thats my opinion. However this is not a league of opinions. Its a league of rules. I just want to know the rule so if it happens again whether to their player or ours. We know the rule. Right now I do not know the rule. Rules are tricky can be written so they are hard to understand. Is there a difference between accidentally disturbing the 8 ball when you no shooting it opposed to playing the 8.We had a player while using the bridge knock in the 8 while shooting another ball. Other team quickly grabbed all the balls and said loss of game. I said I think you just place the 8 ball back to where it was laying. Nope loss of game. Later found out I was right. However I was not certain of the rule and 1st week back playing APA in years I could not argue. Heck it was a league rep who made the wrong call.
APA 8 ball rules question
- Thread starter jburkm002
- Start date
It's really pretty simple, During a shot, if the 8 ball leaves the table (off the playing surface)
you either win or lose, depending on whether or not you're the shooter; if it doesn't leave the
playing surface the 8 ball stays where it is where it finishes and the game continues;
and if someone reaches out with their hand or cue and stops the ball from leaving the playing surface, then they lose
My man! What really baffles me is why the APA has not recognized how terrible their rule book is. I feel certain that you or I could make a far more concise and organized version. You have to *want* to get better
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
My man! What really baffles me is why the APA has not recognized how terrible their rule book is. I feel certain that you or I could make a far more concise and organized version. You have to *want* to get better
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
I think once or twice a year they get a whole room full of people that get together and
make it more concise. Personally I've never been involved, but I have offered
"If the 8 ball is interfered with when it is moving towards an unmarked pocket, it is a loss of game."
I find this interesting. It specifically says "moving towards an unmarked pocket". Out of curiosity what if the 8 ball is headed toward a marked pocket and it is interfered with? I would assume something else would apply since they specifically state an unmarked pocket in the rule??
"If the 8 ball is interfered with when it is moving towards an unmarked pocket, it is a loss of game."
I find this interesting. It specifically says "moving towards an unmarked pocket". Out of curiosity what if the 8 ball is headed toward a marked pocket and it is interfered with? I would assume something else would apply since they specifically state an unmarked pocket in the rule??
The book says something like "in order to avoid a loss of game...".
Moving toward the marked pocket would be winning the game. Accidentally knocking the
8 IN the marked pocket would be different. If I'm a situation and had to rule on
that, and only had the rule book to rely on I'd call it a win for the shooter, reading the rule
in black and white. This may be one of those situations that the rule writers never encountered
so it was never addressed. But of course, as soon as you say "don't worry about it, it cant ever happen"
it will happen and I'll have the dumb luck of being the referee when it does.
What's my call? - Call and win to the shooter for sinking the 8 in the correct pocket.
It's strange, but think about it for a minute. First, if you're the shooter and the ball is heading toward the marked pocket
how in the world would you disturb it's path? Lets' say you're shooting a bank and you have to hit it kind of hard, you shoot
and can tell right away that you're gonna miss, so in frustration you smack the butt of your cue on the hard ground surface.
This causes the tip to fly off, it lands on the table and the 8 rolls over it and redirects it's path to the marked pocket.
I suppose it could happen?
Last edited:
This is the challenge that the league has when trying to write the rulebook, accounting for every possibility that could "reasonably" be expected to happen. Every week something will come up that isn't spelled out specifically for that particular case.
BTW, it was great meeting you last month, wish we had more time to chat. I looked for you over the course of the week, but its a big room
and lots of people, and my timing was probably not good. Heck, Randy G was playing there, on a Masters Team with a friend of mine, and I somehow didn't get my timing right to chat him up, either. Next year! 
My man! What really baffles me is why the APA has not recognized how terrible their rule book is. I feel certain that you or I could make a far more concise and organized version. You have to *want* to get better
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
Have you taken a look at the 2018-2019 / 2019-2020 version? They did just that. It took them a year to do it. It's 24 pages shorter and by all accounts much more user friendly.
f. A game is forfeited if you alter the course of the
8-ball or the cue ball in a game losing situation.
This is really simple, if while shooting the 8 (game losing situation for your opponent) you alter the course of the 8 or cue ball is an automatic loss; weather you where going to the correct pocket or not is irrelevant, as well as if it would have just miss and cue ball about to stop in the middle of the table. It does not say, "in an attempt to prevent a loss...", or at least not anymore. You alter the cue or 8 ball in anyway in a game losing situation and you forfeit the match.
8-ball or the cue ball in a game losing situation.
This is really simple, if while shooting the 8 (game losing situation for your opponent) you alter the course of the 8 or cue ball is an automatic loss; weather you where going to the correct pocket or not is irrelevant, as well as if it would have just miss and cue ball about to stop in the middle of the table. It does not say, "in an attempt to prevent a loss...", or at least not anymore. You alter the cue or 8 ball in anyway in a game losing situation and you forfeit the match.
Last edited:
From the APA Website:
Attachments
"If the 8 ball is interfered with when it is moving towards an unmarked pocket, it is a loss of game."
I find this interesting. It specifically says "moving towards an unmarked pocket". Out of curiosity what if the 8 ball is headed toward a marked pocket and it is interfered with? I would assume something else would apply since they specifically state an unmarked pocket in the rule??
Well if you're the shooter, and the 8 is moving towards a marked pocket, then presumably if it went into that pocket you would win. If you prevent it from going in, you are preventing yourself from winning. So I'd think the standard rule would apply for disturbing a ball in motion, and the "game losing situation" would not apply.
KMRUNOUT
Have you taken a look at the 2018-2019 / 2019-2020 version? They did just that. It took them a year to do it. It's 24 pages shorter and by all accounts much more user friendly.
I haven't read the whole thing, however Up until this revision, I've seen the previous rulebooks and the revisions, and did not notice any theme of intelligent writing. They leave many things ambiguous, and simply do not write well. They do not seem to have any system in place for collecting the "what if's" that come up in league play. They really should have a live addendum online with new rulings and situations explained, and then incorporate them into the new book. Also, a major mistake they made in the new rulebook is assigning new numbers and letters to designate the various rules and rule sections.
I'll take a look at the new rulebook some more, but thus far they have established a pattern of poor writing and organization, and in some cases flat out incorrect information. (For example under soft breaking, they advocate breaking as hard as you can with control. That is simply stupid advice, and a poor break strategy in a huge variety of situations. There are some people who can't break harder than 10mph for health or coordination issues. That is a VERY soft break. If they can do it, I should also be allowed to do it if I think it offers me any advantage to winning the game. Just one of many examples...)
In any case, I hope they brought in a COMPLETELY new team of people to write the new book, and I hope its great.
KMRUNOUT
I think you miss the point of the rule. Breaking soft is a way of running up innings and managing your skill level. Until and unless there's a way to record that and factor the result (the rest of the game, not just that break shot) into a skill level calculation, it will be against the rules and a sportsmanship issue to intentionally try not to spread the balls. I understand the strategy - unfortunately, doing it to win and doing it to sandbag are virtually indistinguishable.
Just trying to clarify. There are reasons for pretty much all of the ambiguous language, and for not making public the "what if" list. I'm not going to have a long drawn out debate about any of it here, because I'm pretty sure it will just result in more insults. I'll just say there's more to what's there than poor writing and stupidity.
I did not miss the point of the rule, nor did I offer any objection to the rule. Personally I've never considered the idea of running up innings to sandbag by way of a soft break. I would think that a clustered rack would result in a large number of defensive shots, which would run the innings back down. Regardless, there may be many people who feel their defensive and moving game is better than their run out game, or their opponents moving game. As such it would be a good strategy perhaps to offer fewer wide open tables to their opponent. I could see that a more clustered break may take more time, which may make things difficult in a team match. To be clear, I never objected to the "no soft breaking" rule. So what you have said so far has nothing to do with what I originally said. My objection was to the phrase "break as hard as you can with control". This is simply bad advice. The sentence is unnecessary to communicate the idea of "no soft breaking". Do you actually think any good players are breaking 9 ball on a bar box "as hard as they can with control"? That is simply a terrible breaking strategy. The statement does not differentiate between what game you are playing, table size and conditions, and a host of other variables, all of which are important factors to anyone that wants to break well. As such, that particular sentence is a bad one to include. It is misinforming a large number of pool players. Not a good idea.
If you think I objected to the soft break rule, you have misunderstood my initial post. Just because there are reasons for things does not make the reasons good, logical ones. I think in a rulebook, ambiguity by definition is a failure to make a better rulebook. The whole point of the rulebook is to address as many situations that may come up as concisely and clearly as possible, removing as much ambiguity as possible. For sure there are sections that are written adequately. However there are also poorly written sections, and also considerations that are totally omitted. That is simply the difference between a good product and a not so good product. However, statements like "you should break as hard as you can with control" are specifically false misinformation. Anyway you slice it, that is simply stupid to include. Regardless of the motivations that went into the rulebook, the finished product needs to stand on its own. For the past 20 years, the rulebook has not done that well. Perhaps the new revision is radically better. I can't comment on that at this time. Any APA rules that exist but are not available to the public is a bad idea. These are my observations. If you read some sort of insult into that, I can't help you there, except to inform you that you are mistaken. I'd like to see the rulebook improve. Hearing about why it's great as is does not take any step in that direction.
KMRUNOUT
So the sentence below is not an objection to the rule?
"That is a VERY soft break. If they can do it, I should also be allowed to do it if I think it offers me any advantage to winning the game."
It's not game advice, it's a rule to combat sandbagging. Clusters make the average shot tougher, so even if you're not playing defense your probability of getting out is lower. For you and all the other honest players, that is a strategy for winning. For the dishonest ones, it is a strategy for keeping your skill level down. Those two strategies are indistinguishable on paper. It is unfortunate that there are game rules in place to combat skill level cheaters, and those rules have a negative impact on the honest players, but it is what it is. What it is NOT, however, is illogical or stupid.
You have your opinions about the OTM and rules, and I have mine. I am unable to get my point across to you. I'll stop trying.
No it is not. It is an objection to the inconsistent application and enforcement of the rule. The point is that saying "soft" is not very descriptive. Some players may be able to only break 10 mph. That is as hard as they can. Yet they are not penalized for "soft breaking". Whatever speed your opponent breaks, you should also be allowed to break at that speed.
You're having trouble because you keep conflating multiple ideas and failing to recognize the distinctions I am making. As such, we are not even having the same conversation. Let me try to clear this up for you. There are really 3 topics that have emerged in this conversation. 1) Is the rulebook well written and/or intelligently designed? 2) Is the soft break rule a good one? 3) Is "break as hard as you can with control" good advice? You keep on taking my comments about #3 and believing I am making them about 1 and 2. SO let me summarize:
--Up until the most recent version, the rulebook has not been very well written or organized. Many important considerations were left out completely. Many sections were not worded thoroughly enough. Many distinctions (like the one you keep failing to make with me) were simply not delineated. It was not a very good rulebook.
--The rule for no soft breaking is fine philosophically, however it requires better formulation. You can't just say "no soft breaking". What is soft? How many mph? You cannot impose a rule for one player and not another player. That is at best illogical, at worst unethical. Getting 4 balls to a rail is the current standard. What is wrong with that?
--The advice to "break as hard as you can with control" is bad advice. It is simply wrong. I believe that it is *stupid* advice. Including stupid advice in your rulebook is stupid. Possibly illogical, definitely unethical.
Now APA Operator, if you could restrict our conversation to the 3 dashed points above, and here is the really important part, *indicate which of those points you are addressing*, the conversation will move along in a far more productive and reasonable way. If you keep taking my comments about point 3, and attempting to build an argument about point 2, you will continue to have problems getting your point across. I think it is great information and a worthwhile topic, so I am hoping you will make the effort to get a little more precise with your statements and make sure you are addressing the things I'm actually saying.
Best wishes,
KMRUNOUT
Ah, I see where you're coming from. The rule actually says "Breaking safe or soft is not allowed." My guess is that nearly 100% of pool players know exactly what that means, without fleshing out the full technical and legal definition of the word "soft".
Not a very good rulebook for whom? I know lots of people who think it is and always has been just fine. Over the years the grammar has been cleaned up and many clarifications have been added, but I have never had a problem understanding or explaining any of the rules. It's not supposed to be an all-inclusive rule set that covers every possible scenario. If that's what it was, nobody would want to use it. It's supposed to be a readable, digestible rule set that people can interpret with common sense and apply reasonably to the situation at hand. That gets us in trouble sometimes, because people think we're ruling differently in identical situations, when the fact of the matter is that the situations are different. Language that allows us to do that, which some may call "vague", I call "powerful".
I think we're never going to agree on this point. I believe you absolutely CAN just say "no soft breaking". Are you really saying I'm not soft breaking if I get exactly four balls to a rail break after break after break? Of course I am. Defining that word in this context would be next to impossible and in direct conflict with the intent of the rule.
But maybe there's a compromise here. What if the term "soft break" as it commonly relates to a game of pool could be defined in a way that is understandable but not precisely measurable?
I don't know why you keep referring to it as advice. It's not advice. It's the answer to the douchebags (that's not directed at you, I'm referring to real douchebags) who want to know exactly what "soft" means, so he/she can barely comply.
That said, I've always had an issue with this sentence too. I don't think it's stupid, or that including it is somehow illogical or unethical. But that's probably because I know the history behind it. It's the "shut up and stop soft breaking" sentence. There are MANY effective break shots that don't require one to strike the cue ball as hard as they can, and which would not be considered soft breaks. But here's the cool thing - pretty much everyone knows this already. Nobody has ever complained to me about a player breaking soft because he/she wasn't breaking as hard as they could. I'm ok with the sentence (it gives me some ammunition against the douchebags), and I'd be ok if it wasn't there.
If I may ask APA Operator. What's the rule on my original rule question? While shooting the 8 ball you accidentally hit it with your tip while it's still in motion. Not necessarily going into another pocket. Some say it stays where it comes to rest. What if after making contact with the tip it falls into the wrong pocket or goes into the pocket it was called. Shouldn't it be treated the same as if it were the cue ball. Anyways heard several different rulings on this and still dont know the rule. Thanks
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk