Thanks, some good points you raise. I believe he was nervous more than anything and just had a brain fade. His opponent's balls were clustered on the rail and a runout would've been tricky for a strong player.
APA Rules Question
- Thread starter axejunkie
- Start date
Thanks, some good points you raise. I believe he was nervous more than anything and just had a brain fade. His opponent's balls were clustered on the rail and a runout would've been tricky for a strong player.
Bingo, then the captain says something and all of a sudden it's I didn't mean too...........
The sweeping of balls into the rack constitutes Unsportsmanlike conduct (minimum), so we have at least 2 fouls on the play.
In my heart* this would be a loss of game. (*) Rules be darned.
In my heart* this would be a loss of game. (*) Rules be darned.
Here's an interesting twist for the proponents of the "ball in hand foul" ruling.
From the APA rules:
EXCEPTION: If an accidentally moved ball comes in contact with the
cue ball, creating a foul, no object ball will be replaced.
So, if the balls are raked up into a group and the cue ball is among the pack, then it's ball in hand but the balls have to stay in the group without being replaced. If the cue ball is in the middle of the pack, then it will have to be extracted without touching another ball or, since the cue ball is "live at all times", it would then be another ball in hand foul.
From the APA rules:
EXCEPTION: If an accidentally moved ball comes in contact with the
cue ball, creating a foul, no object ball will be replaced.
So, if the balls are raked up into a group and the cue ball is among the pack, then it's ball in hand but the balls have to stay in the group without being replaced. If the cue ball is in the middle of the pack, then it will have to be extracted without touching another ball or, since the cue ball is "live at all times", it would then be another ball in hand foul.
This makes zero sense to me:
Player A pockets last remaining strip and scratches....
Player B has three solids on the table....
Player A, who just shot and knows he scratched on a ball that was not the 8, decides to rake the balls....
This is completely crazy and makes zero sense...
Player A has altzeimers (sp?) or is some major idiot not realizing he scratched on his own shot that was not the 8....and then rakes the balls anyway....
Now, if you mean Player B raked the balls because he wasn't paying attention, then he loses because he is the idiot....it's impossible to take a few balls and place them where they were....I might be understanding if it was just more than one ball, but realistically even if you put them back, B fouled, which would give A ball in hand on the 8
The key word in the rule is "accidentally", which is more than understandable.
The player in this situation intentionally raked the balls. Anytime a player intentionally moves object balls it is loss of game.
As many other have mentiones, the intentional raking would also fall under the unsportsmanlike category.
TheWhiteEwok
Registered
Here is where APA is interesting.
The exact national ruling would be the following:
Because the cue ball was NOT interfered with, i.e. it was already in the pocket - but the OTHER balls were moved, Player B is responsible for putting the balls back into the "correct" position and then is awarded a ball in hand.
There is NO loss of game from this "infraction".
It didn't make any sense to me either, but we've all had our moments of madness at times. I seem to recall scoring in the wrong basket in 6th grade basketball
Interesting, I can only say we need the Ed Hochuli of APA to step forth with a long-winded explanation. I'm just grateful it wasn't my team involved.
Noooo . . . please . . .
This is why I don't play APA . . . if he swept 'em on the table, then it should be vaya-con-dios. Game over Amigo. You can have people argue endlessly about where the balls WERE . . . etc. etc.
What I saw when I played APA was that they should adopt more CASH rules. If you were betting on that game, and the dickhead swept the table, the rule would GAME OVER - YOU LOSE COWBOY. Who's up next?
Sorry . . . not to rant, but APA rules are typically unclear or rife for the league operator to show off their "expertise". Ooooooops!
This is why I don't play APA . . . if he swept 'em on the table, then it should be vaya-con-dios. Game over Amigo. You can have people argue endlessly about where the balls WERE . . . etc. etc.
What I saw when I played APA was that they should adopt more CASH rules. If you were betting on that game, and the dickhead swept the table, the rule would GAME OVER - YOU LOSE COWBOY. Who's up next?
Sorry . . . not to rant, but APA rules are typically unclear or rife for the league operator to show off their "expertise". Ooooooops!
Attachments
If someone concedes a game it cannot be taken back. The placement of balls back to the original position was put in the rule book so there wouldn't be touch fouls. It was never meant to cover people raking the balls and then realizing they hadn't lost the game. That is a loss by unsportsman like conduct.
Here is another scenario I have seen come up. Both players are on the 8ball. Player 1 misses and leaves it in front of the pocket. Rather than having player B shoot he pushes it in with his stick. He concedes the game and it is a loss. He can't choose to play it out after this happens.
Here is another scenario I have seen come up. Both players are on the 8ball. Player 1 misses and leaves it in front of the pocket. Rather than having player B shoot he pushes it in with his stick. He concedes the game and it is a loss. He can't choose to play it out after this happens.
You have either missed or ignored my point. I was making no comment about whether it's a loss or a foul. The point I was making was in the second paragraph -- how the rules treat the situation if raking the balls into a pack is ruled a foul with the resulting "no balls would be replaced":
So, if the balls are raked up into a group and the cue ball is among the pack, then it's ball in hand but the balls have to stay in the group without being replaced. If the cue ball is in the middle of the pack, then it will have to be extracted without touching another ball or, since the cue ball is "live at all times", it would then be another ball in hand foul.
Our local APA league office has bylaws which clarifies this case....
"If a player grabs the rack before the 8 Ball or 9 Ball is made, that is a loss of that particular game. If the player not shooting starts taking balls out of the pocket before the 8 or 9 is made it is a loss of that particular game."
Brian
"If a player grabs the rack before the 8 Ball or 9 Ball is made, that is a loss of that particular game. If the player not shooting starts taking balls out of the pocket before the 8 or 9 is made it is a loss of that particular game."
Brian
Is it possible that player A was so disgusted with himself for missing, that he really was conceding the game, but his fellow teammates talked him out of it? So, he tried to act as though it was a mistake? I think its a concede and thus loss of game. Can you actually concede in APA?
I don't have them in front of me, but I don't believe APA rules have any mention of "conceding". In my opinion, raking the balls after a miss should always be considered a concession, even if it was a mistake. Kind of like saying "that's good", or unscrewing your cue. Even if you change your mind, maybe because there's something you didn't see before, the concession stands. I think the APA rules should be amended with what is or is not considered a concession of game (which should not necessarily be considered the same as unsportsmanlike conduct with a loss of game penalty).
-Andrew
Last edited:
Yes. You are allowed to concede a game in the APA. I think most people would consider this a concession of the game, regardless of whether it was an innocent mistake or not. Come playoffs time, though, rulebooks and loopholes tend to make more appearances.
I'm generally a fan of letting the play decide the outcome instead of the rules, but I'm always on the lookout for folks who try to manipulate the situation...
There's a player here in Chicago who makes it his business to know just about every letter of the APA rulebook, and he loves situations like this. I once watched him examine two balls that were frozen in such a way that he just barely couldn't make his ball. He pretended to shield the light over the balls and "accidentally" bumped them. He had his opponent put them back where his opponent thought they were, and like he was hoping, his opponent ended up setting up a dead carrom for him.
Which brings me to another point. If the decision is made to put the balls back, the non-offending player puts the balls back where they believe they were before the interference. Period. There is no discussion, and no arguing. In theory, the non-offending player can put the balls directly in front of the pockets, but at that point they risk an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty of their own.
I'm pretty sure he just had a brain fade. The look on his face was of confusion, not of frustration. It was the first game and he just overran position; he pocketed his ball in one corner and came off the short rail toward the opposite corner to get on the 8. He just misjudged the speed like we all do at some point.