APA rules question

Bob Jewett said:
No. The 45-degree thing is totally bogus. There is no double hit if the cue ball is frozen to the object ball.

Please get a copy of the rules and read them. Also, please read the other thread on "Push Shot Fouls."

The APA rules are on-line at http://www.poolplayers.com/8-9-ball-Rules.pdf but be warned that they are not particularly complete or well written. (Not that the current BCA/WPA rules are much clearer, but they are more complete.)

From what I've heard, the theory is basically that with a frozen ball, it would be impossible to make contact without making a double hit. Of course this would be looking at the shot microscopicly broken down into millimeter segments or even smaller. Thus APA, BCA, and WPA and other rule sets have made exclusions to the double hit foul in this situation.
 
FLICKit said:
From what I've heard, the theory is basically that with a frozen ball, it would be impossible to make contact without making a double hit. Of course this would be looking at the shot microscopicly broken down into millimeter segments or even smaller. Thus APA, BCA, and WPA and other rule sets have made exclusions to the double hit foul in this situation.
The shot was pretty clearly not a double hit as shown on the Jacksonville Project tapes. Nor is it expected to be by theory (physics). The tip gradually compresses as it runs into the first ball and reaches maximum compression and then uncompresses as the first ball comes out of the tip. There is no second hit. There is no way for the tip to back off and then catch up again. The cue ball does not bounce off the object ball.

There is no double hit on a frozen ball, unless you really, really work at it.
 
Flickit,
About the moving of the ball (not cue ball) I had remembered reading yesterday that the opponent had to place the ball back in position if it occurred during a shot. Before the shot, it says replace the ball but doesn't appear to specify who should replace it. I was inferring from the previous sentence that the opponent should replace it. This is what I would do naturally during play. If I moved a ball prior to shooting, I would defer to my opponent as to the correct placement of the ball.
 
bsmutz said:
Flickit,
About the moving of the ball (not cue ball) I had remembered reading yesterday that the opponent had to place the ball back in position if it occurred during a shot. Before the shot, it says replace the ball but doesn't appear to specify who should replace it. I was inferring from the previous sentence that the opponent should replace it. This is what I would do naturally during play. If I moved a ball prior to shooting, I would defer to my opponent as to the correct placement of the ball.

Sure... I understand what you're talking about and that is the general consensus of its application. The rule does not state who, probably because there may be situation where the opponent does not have the best understanding of where the balls were originally. For example, if the balls are moved while the player is returning back to his/her chair and thus their back is towards the table. Or a captain or scorekeeper has a better viewpoint. Could be that the shooter's body position is between the opponent and the table. A cheater could also try to take advantage of this situation. Obviously there are many more situations where the opponent may not be the best person to replace it.

Common coutesy should be applied. Ultimately the best resolution is to restore the balls to the original position as best as possible and then proceed playing the game to its natural conclusion.
 
bsmutz said:
Poolfool, I was down on the shot and the space behind me was clear...
If this were the case than you could have argued unsportsmanlike conduct. Your team captain could have stated the case and one of two things should have happened... A: no points awarded to either team and all the balls are re-racked (which I personally don't like) or B: All balls are returned to their original position with you still at the table. I know someone here will argue that it's a foul; but with it being an opposing teams player I would argue unsportsmanlike till the end. He may have known the situation and have done it intentionally or he may have been totally oblivious to the fact that you were taking a shot in which case he's a moron. Either way, what's to stop him or anyone else for that matter to "accidently" bumping another player during a match?
 
Back
Top