APA rule question

easy-e

easy-e

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you hate everything APA you might just want to move along...

I saw a situation get brought up recently and there wasn't a clear answer. Here's the scenario:

- Player 1 makes his key ball and scratches.
- Player 2 had a brain fart and thought his opponent made the 8 and scratched (resulting in loss of game)
- Player 2 grabbed his last two remaining solids off the table and got ready to rack
- All hell breaks loose

The question was "What happens now?" The overwhelming consensus by those answering was that it fell under the "accidentally moved balls" rule, so they would replace the solids where they were and player 2 would have BIH. Is that really an accident? How can this not be loss of game by player 2?
 
easy-e said:
If you hate everything APA you might just want to move along...

I saw a situation get brought up recently and there wasn't a clear answer. Here's the scenario:

- Player 1 makes his key ball and scratches.
- Player 2 had a brain fart and thought his opponent made the 8 and scratched (resulting in loss of game)
- Player 2 grabbed his last two remaining solids off the table and got ready to rack
- All hell breaks loose

The question was "What happens now?" The overwhelming consensus by those answering was that it fell under the "accidentally moved balls" rule, so they would replace the solids where they were and player 2 would have BIH. Is that really an accident? How can this not be loss of game by player 2?
Click to expand...
Dueling pistols at 10 paces. ;)
 
buckshotshoey said:
It would probably fall under the concession of game, since it wasn't accidental movement of balls.
Click to expand...
Do you happen to know where to find that rule? People seemed pretty sure that it wouldn't technically be a concession. I am not a rules expert for the APA. The common sense of it all just blows my mind...
 
Jimmorrison said:
If player 2 grabbed his last two remaining solids, what did he do with the eight ball?
Click to expand...
Started an empire with it.
Screenshot_20231121-103914.jpg
 
easy-e said:
If you hate everything APA you might just want to move along...

I saw a situation get brought up recently and there wasn't a clear answer. Here's the scenario:

- Player 1 makes his key ball and scratches.
- Player 2 had a brain fart and thought his opponent made the 8 and scratched (resulting in loss of game)
- Player 2 grabbed his last two remaining solids off the table and got ready to rack
- All hell breaks loose

The question was "What happens now?" The overwhelming consensus by those answering was that it fell under the "accidentally moved balls" rule, so they would replace the solids where they were and player 2 would have BIH. Is that really an accident? How can this not be loss of game by player 2?
Click to expand...

I would lean more toward the “common sense will prevail” and “spirit of the rules” clause in the opening of the rule book.

I agree I don’t think the “spirit of the rules” involve picking up object balls intentionally as if you’re trying to rack them.

Two possible options I think that would satisfy the intent of the rules.

1) Concession by player 2
2) Treat the intentional disruption of the balls as a foul by player 2 and return BIH to player 1.
 
In general rules do not cover this well. Between accidental actions and intentional actions there is the middle case of totally confused (brain fart) actions. The OP is an example of the third case.

Under WPA/WSR rules, intentionally moving balls (other than by a shot) is unsportsmanlike conduct. The penalty is up to the official. If I were the official, I'd award the game to Player 1 -- the one who scratched -- and comment to the ball mover that they need to stay more involved in the game and pay attention to what's going on. If it was a new player maybe I'd put the balls back with the same comments and give the incoming player ball in hand, but I would not let the fouler slide.
 
Last edited:
easy-e said:
If you hate everything APA you might just want to move along...

I saw a situation get brought up recently and there wasn't a clear answer. Here's the scenario:

- Player 1 makes his key ball and scratches.
- Player 2 had a brain fart and thought his opponent made the 8 and scratched (resulting in loss of game)
- Player 2 grabbed his last two remaining solids off the table and got ready to rack
- All hell breaks loose

The question was "What happens now?" The overwhelming consensus by those answering was that it fell under the "accidentally moved balls" rule, so they would replace the solids where they were and player 2 would have BIH. Is that really an accident? How can this not be loss of game by player 2?
Click to expand...
Inattentive participant. Station cellblock and forfeit.
 
easy-e said:
If you hate everything APA you might just want to move along...

I saw a situation get brought up recently and there wasn't a clear answer. Here's the scenario:

- Player 1 makes his key ball and scratches.
- Player 2 had a brain fart and thought his opponent made the 8 and scratched (resulting in loss of game)
- Player 2 grabbed his last two remaining solids off the table and got ready to rack
- All hell breaks loose

The question was "What happens now?" The overwhelming consensus by those answering was that it fell under the "accidentally moved balls" rule, so they would replace the solids where they were and player 2 would have BIH. Is that really an accident? How can this not be loss of game by player 2?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's really an accident. Shooting at the wrong category, for example, is also an accident of the same type (brain fart) though, and it's a foul. What's the difference? The difference between the two is that in the second case, the cue ball was involved. If you accidentally shoot the one into the two, the same principle applies. You made a mistake, performed some intentional action, but the cue ball wasn't involved (presumably), so reset the table and continue. The overwhelming consensus in this case is correct, with the minor exception that Player 1 replaces the balls that were accidentally moved by player 2 (with or without player 2's help, depending on how much he trusts him).

Justaneng said:
I would lean more toward the “common sense will prevail” and “spirit of the rules” clause in the opening of the rule book.

I agree I don’t think the “spirit of the rules” involve picking up object balls intentionally as if you’re trying to rack them.

Two possible options I think that would satisfy the intent of the rules.

1) Concession by player 2
2) Treat the intentional disruption of the balls as a foul by player 2 and return BIH to player 1.
Click to expand...
Since the Official Team Manual doesn't even acknowledge concessions, (1) can't apply, and fouls are specifically listed in the OTM so (2) doesn't apply. The ACT of moving the balls is treated the same in all cases and the INTENT part is left for a decision of the sportsmanship aspect, and the pertinent question is this. Did player 2 INTEND to gain some advantage by moving his balls? Note that IF there is an official present and IF that official can make a determination of intent immediately, then an immediate sportsmanship penalty (such as loss of game or BIH to player 1) can be imposed. Otherwise, strict application of the rules says reset the table with BIH for player 2. If you must address the sportsmanship part later because there's no one present with authority to impose sportsmanship penalties, a determination of loss of game or match can still be imposed at a later time.
 
APA Operator said:
Yes, it's really an accident. Shooting at the wrong category, for example, is also an accident of the same type (brain fart) though, and it's a foul. What's the difference? The difference between the two is that in the second case, the cue ball was involved. If you accidentally shoot the one into the two, the same principle applies. You made a mistake, performed some intentional action, but the cue ball wasn't involved (presumably), so reset the table and continue. The overwhelming consensus in this case is correct, with the minor exception that Player 1 replaces the balls that were accidentally moved by player 2 (with or without player 2's help, depending on how much he trusts him).


Since the Official Team Manual doesn't even acknowledge concessions, (1) can't apply, and fouls are specifically listed in the OTM so (2) doesn't apply. The ACT of moving the balls is treated the same in all cases and the INTENT part is left for a decision of the sportsmanship aspect, and the pertinent question is this. Did player 2 INTEND to gain some advantage by moving his balls? Note that IF there is an official present and IF that official can make a determination of intent immediately, then an immediate sportsmanship penalty (such as loss of game or BIH to player 1) can be imposed. Otherwise, strict application of the rules says reset the table with BIH for player 2. If you must address the sportsmanship part later because there's no one present with authority to impose sportsmanship penalties, a determination of loss of game or match can still be imposed at a later time.
Click to expand...

The issue is how can you reset the table with any reasonable accuracy unless someone took a picture of it? The fact that a re-play of the rack or an attempted reset of the balls could result in the other player being in a worse position than they were originally would pretty much mean it's a loss of game. Although APA does go against logic in their rules at times. If the action was accidental or deliberate is not really an issue here, the player needs to pay attention to the game in front of them. Every bad play at the table can be an accident using APA logic, I missed my kick by accident since I was trying to hit it, I missed the shot by accident since I was trying to make it. Yes it was a mistake. But it was not an "accident".

Using grown up rules, it's a loss of game (go up to the table, grab the balls and start racking before the game is over). But APA logic often treats the players like children that are not responsible for their actions, so would be interesting to see how the APA officials would treat this.
 
APA Operator said:
Yes, it's really an accident. Shooting at the wrong category, for example, is also an accident of the same type (brain fart) though, and it's a foul. What's the difference? The difference between the two is that in the second case, the cue ball was involved. If you accidentally shoot the one into the two, the same principle applies. You made a mistake, performed some intentional action, but the cue ball wasn't involved (presumably), so reset the table and continue. The overwhelming consensus in this case is correct, with the minor exception that Player 1 replaces the balls that were accidentally moved by player 2 (with or without player 2's help, depending on how much he trusts him).
Click to expand...
What if all the balls were raked. How far will they go to "replace" the balls?
 
easy-e said:
What if all the balls were raked. How far will they go to "replace" the balls?
Click to expand...
Your OP said "his last two remaining solids" so this one was likely easy to restore. If the person responsible for restoring the table (player 1 in this case) cannot reasonably restore it with some confidence, then a re-rack is next with player 2 breaking. Again, it comes down to what player 1 can do. In a normal situation, where everyone is honest and trying to do things as fairly as possible, there is usually agreement by both teams that a re-rack is necessary. Some here, and it's pretty clear who they are, will say "well if player 2 has a good chance to run out then player 1 should claim to not be able to restore the game", but that's encouraging someone to act dishonestly. That's as bad as being dishonest themselves.
 
APA Operator said:
Your OP said "his last two remaining solids" so this one was likely easy to restore. If the person responsible for restoring the table (player 1 in this case) cannot reasonably restore it with some confidence, then a re-rack is next with player 2 breaking. Again, it comes down to what player 1 can do. In a normal situation, where everyone is honest and trying to do things as fairly as possible, there is usually agreement by both teams that a re-rack is necessary. Some here, and it's pretty clear who they are, will say "well if player 2 has a good chance to run out then player 1 should claim to not be able to restore the game", but that's encouraging someone to act dishonestly. That's as bad as being dishonest themselves.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer, I assumed you'd know the rules. I disagree with this one completely, but the rules is the rules...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top