APA Rule - Break Foul

B

BarTableMan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Shooter performs a break and pockets 1 solid. Cue ball spins backwards and contacts the tip on the break cue before the shooter lifts the cue out of the way.

1) Ball-in-hand foul? (There are no ball-in-hand fouls after the break in APA currently.)
2) Re-break by same player.
3) Re-break by other player.
4) 'In the kitchen' foul? Other player shoots.
5) Other player shoots at stripes where it lays.
6) No foul. Breaker shoots solids.
 
I'm of the opinion that it would be called a foul, a re-rack, and the other player breaks. It's one of those scenarios that falls thru the cracks of the APA rules.
Hopefully APA Operator will see this and chime in.
 
justadub said:
I'm of the opinion that it would be called a foul, a re-rack, and the other player breaks. It's one of those scenarios that falls thru the cracks of the APA rules.
Hopefully APA Operator will see this and chime in.
Click to expand...
there are no rules in apa where the other player gets the break
unless you win theres no other way to get the break
 
BarTableMan said:
What should happen and what the rule is may be different. I'm in search of a rule.
Click to expand...
It's on page 46-47 of the current OTM. You have to kind of read more than the beginning to realize that a distinction is made there between a foul and a scratch in 8-Ball. Scratch is cue ball off the playing surface, and is the only kind of foul with the "in the kitchen" requirement. It's not just written wrong, because you notice that the 9-Ball section refers to a foul, not just a scratch. It's not a re-rack because a ball was made (and I'm presuming the first or second ball back was struck first). So, ball in hand anywhere is my call.
 
Texas Carom Club said:
there are no rules in apa where the other player gets the break
unless you win theres no other way to get the break
Click to expand...
There is a case. If the rack is struck but does not result in a legal break (first or second ball back in 8-Ball, 1-Ball in 9-Ball struck first, four object balls to a rail or one pocketed), the balls are re-racked. If the break also resulted in a scratch (but again, not other fouls), the break passes to the opponent.

Edit - There's also another case. If the winning player is physically unable to break for medical reasons and has prior permission from the League Operator, that person may pass the break to their opponent.
 
Last edited:
APA Operator said:
There is a case. If the rack is struck but does not result in a legal break (first or second ball back in 8-Ball, 1-Ball in 9-Ball struck first, four object balls to a rail or one pocketed), the balls are re-racked. If the break also resulted in a scratch (but again, not other fouls), the break passes to the opponent.
Click to expand...
thats how the bca rules go in our area, the opponent can choose to take or let the other break again

we could have been told wrong information but what we have been lead to beleive is the breaker gets as many tries as it takes to make a legal break
 
i hate league so much, last night i was reminded again

a guy who previously played as a 4 his team
refused to listen to the fact that he admitted it and they played him as a 3
on the basis they didnt know how to look up his name or he hadnt played for a few years
the skill level doesnt go down or reset

so next week that win will be 2 more points for my team
 
APA Operator said:
It's on page 46-47 of the current OTM. You have to kind of read more than the beginning to realize that a distinction is made there between a foul and a scratch in 8-Ball. Scratch is cue ball off the playing surface, and is the only kind of foul with the "in the kitchen" requirement. It's not just written wrong, because you notice that the 9-Ball section refers to a foul, not just a scratch. It's not a re-rack because a ball was made (and I'm presuming the first or second ball back was struck first). So, ball in hand anywhere is my call.
Click to expand...
And open table for incoming shooter??
 
APA Operator said:
It's on page 46-47 of the current OTM. You have to kind of read more than the beginning to realize that a distinction is made there between a foul and a scratch in 8-Ball. Scratch is cue ball off the playing surface, and is the only kind of foul with the "in the kitchen" requirement. It's not just written wrong, because you notice that the 9-Ball section refers to a foul, not just a scratch. It's not a re-rack because a ball was made (and I'm presuming the first or second ball back was struck first). So, ball in hand anywhere is my call.
Click to expand...
This is why I deferred to you ;)

My hang up was that the game doesn't actually start until there is a legal break, and because of the scratch, I was going with the thought that the game hadn't started yet.

I was wrong. I often am, I'm married :unsure:😁
 
justadub said:
My hang up was that the game doesn't actually start until there is a legal break, and because of the scratch, I was going with the thought that the game hadn't started yet.
Click to expand...
Let me give you a scenario where it would be morbidly irrational to give the break back to the breaker that hit the rack, did not send four balls to a rail, and scratched.

What if they were playing 9-ball (APA) and both players needed 1 point. Do you think it could possibly be fair/right to let a player re-break that just struck the rack and scratched???
 
Just more reasons to not jack with APA pool. I get playing by rules but this level of unmitigated nittiness is one of the reason i quit league pool yrs ago.
 
garczar said:
Just more reasons to not jack with APA pool. I get playing by rules but this level of unmitigated nittiness is one of the reason i quit league pool yrs ago.
Click to expand...
I don't think this level of "unmitigated nittiness" is dependent on whether it happens in a league, in a tournament, or in a match-up game. If the situation happens, you want to know how to handle it, that's all. Maybe what you're saying is you don't care if it is handled differently every time, as long as the two players are good with it. Many people can't work that way.
 
Maniac said:
Let me give you a scenario where it would be morbidly irrational to give the break back to the breaker that hit the rack, did not send four balls to a rail, and scratched.

What if they were playing 9-ball (APA) and both players needed 1 point. Do you think it could possibly be fair/right to let a player re-break that just struck the rack and scratched???
Click to expand...
I wasn't suggesting the breaker who fouled get to break again, I was thinking it would be re-rack and the other player breaks. Like what happens on a break that 4 balls don't rail and it's a scratch. Doesn't matter, since I was wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top