APA scenario

[KMRUNOUT]

The problem is, it's not a team-match. This is an individual match where no coaching is permitted whatsoever. This makes for a far more complex ruling, something the APA has done little to address.

The problem is, although the s/l 3 should have lost the game the moment she scratched on the 8, the s/l 2 was not allowed to receive ANY information about the game from a spectator. Taken to another level, what if the s/l 2 has a friend instructing her on the rules that favor her yet fails to instruct her opponent about the rules? Obviously, the s/l 2 is receiving help. As well, these matches this s/l 2 plays in the regionals count toward her rating. She's an s/l 2 because she's not a good pool player but it may also be because she has no knowledge of the rules too.

The bottom line is, the game is inherently tainted. In APA singles, you're expected to be the referee for many of your matches and because of this responsibility, it's important to know the rules. Hell, I'm a shitty dart thrower but if I'm gonna go play in a dart tournament, you better believe I'm gonna read that rulebook beforehand.

A spectator is allowed to say "nice game", "good shot", etc. "Nice win" would also be acceptable. Or "You won!". The reason why this is very clear and there is no gray area is this: Telling her she won the match for *this* reason does not influence the match in any way. It is not coaching at all. There is not instruction, and no clarification of rules she doesn't know. The game was OVER. There was no longer any match in progress. Any idea to the contrary is simply and completely wrong.

Can't believe there is any resistance on this...weird to me.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I'm under the assumption she didn't realize she won and I'm telling you, it's against the rules for anyone to tell her.
.

Please post a link or quote of the rule this violated. Instead, how about taking a look at the first rule in the APA rulebook: (from the forward in the team manual.)

"Relax, enjoy yourself and play within the Spirit of the Rules as well
as the written rule. It is impossible to cover every situation 100%
with rules. Common sense must prevail. Teams that try to gain
advantage by creating their own interpretations are subject to
sportsmanship violations. Win at the table and not from the chair is a
generality that promotes harmony, camaraderie and good times.
That’s what this League is all about."

Quite obvious how this one should go.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

The problem is, there has to be an acknowledgement that the game is actually over. That didn't happen. Once an outside party gets involved, another rule is broken. I'm not saying it's right. I'm simply stating the logic behind such a ruling. It would be wise if the APA really came-up with a rulebook that was better worded and more encompassing. I know they feel obligated to keep it simple for the sake of beginners but it's clear there many holes that need to be addressed.

Wanna see a good one? Go to Fouls 10.a. Love the wording there.

I definitely agree with you that the APA is in need of significant revision to their rulebook. It is not very good. It is poorly written, and is not nearly encompassing enough.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

That's great except that it's not how the APA works and was a terrible, completely incorrect ruling.

What makes you think this isn't how the APA works? Sorry, I've played quite a bit in Las Vegas and Regional competitions and this is ALWAYS how it works. It doesn't affect me because players at my level know what happens when you scratch on the 8 but I can see this happening with the 2s and 3s.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

To the OP: please update on this!! I assume you would contact APA corporate, assuming your league operator didn't already fix this. This should be a pretty easy one to overturn, since both parties agree on the actual events of the match.

KMRUNOUT

 

[rookiepsu]

What makes you think this isn't how the APA works? Sorry, I've played quite a bit in Las Vegas and Regional competitions and this is ALWAYS how it works. It doesn't affect me because players at my level know what happens when you scratch on the 8 but I can see this happening with the 2s and 3s.

Because I also play APA and I know the rules of both APA and pool in general? Or do you mean other than that?

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Please post a link or quote of the rule this violated. Instead, how about taking a look at the first rule in the APA rulebook: (from the forward in the team manual.)

"Relax, enjoy yourself and play within the Spirit of the Rules as well
as the written rule. It is impossible to cover every situation 100%
with rules. Common sense must prevail. Teams that try to gain
advantage by creating their own interpretations are subject to
sportsmanship violations. Win at the table and not from the chair is a
generality that promotes harmony, camaraderie and good times.
That’s what this League is all about."

Quite obvious how this one should go.

KMRUNOUT

http://www.poolplayers.com/nsc/rules/

Coaching
Coaching is not permitted. Violations could result in a foul being called for illegal aid. Do not confer with anyone other than your opponent, referee or the Tournament Director; it could be misunderstood as coaching.

Look, not saying this was the correct ruling. I'm simply showing the logic used to make this ruling. Any form of coaching is taken seriously at these levels and this was clearly a coached situation. If they didn't mark the game as over on the scoresheet, they're not allowed to talk to her.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Because I also play APA and I know the rules of both APA and pool in general? Or do you mean other than that?

Have you played in the singles competitions at all? The Regionals? Las Vegas? What documentation are you referring to when you say I'm wrong?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

http://www.poolplayers.com/nsc/rules/




Look, not saying this was the correct ruling. I'm simply showing the logic used to make this ruling. Any form of coaching is taken seriously at these levels and this was clearly a coached situation. If they didn't mark the game as over on the scoresheet, they're not allowed to talk to her.

Ok Jude, fair enough. Except that in the OP's post, the logic given was that because the other player began shooting and had pocketed a ball, it was essentially too late to take credit for the 8 ball scratch. The coaching issue was not part of the logic at all that the OP presented. I'm sure the ref on site was confused by the rule that says if a player starts shooting the wrong set of balls in 8 ball, the opponent doesn't have to stop him until they feel like it (of course bad sportsmanship), but that if the opponent runs all the way through the wrong set and pockets the 8 ball, the win stands and its too late to call the foul.

Also, the NSC rules *may* not be the same rules for the regional level of competition. I think it is, but not 100% certain. It definitely should be.

In any case, it appears the whole coaching issue is a red herring to this argument.

KMRUNOUT

 

[rookiepsu]

Have you played in the singles competitions at all? The Regionals? Las Vegas? What documentation are you referring to when you say I'm wrong?

Yes, I have, but I don't need documentation, I just need a brain. Aside from having a brain, though, I can refer to the APA handbook and/or just about any other rulebook for pool and/or 8b league play.


You really want to be right, and I admire that. Unfortunately, though, you're not correct. And I think you know you're not correct, but you don't want to go back on your original incorrect statement so now you're trying to be right in being wrong, but you can't have it both ways. You're wrong. The LO was wrong. It's okay. The girl just needs to submit an appeal, nationals will overturn it and award her the trip and life will go on. It's okay to be wrong sometimes. It happens. No one will remember next week anyway, so relax.

 

[fastone371]

A spectator is allowed to say "nice game", "good shot", etc. "Nice win" would also be acceptable. Or "You won!". The reason why this is very clear and there is no gray area is this: Telling her she won the match for *this* reason does not influence the match in any way. It is not coaching at all. There is not instruction, and no clarification of rules she doesn't know. The game was OVER. There was no longer any match in progress. Any idea to the contrary is simply and completely wrong.

Can't believe there is any resistance on this...weird to me.

KMRUNOUT

I am with you on this one, I also can not see how anyone could see it any other way. Did the SL3 know she lost when she scratched? If so that's pretty crappy sportsmanship. I have and will continue to call fouls on myself even if the guy Im playing did not see it, its the right thing to do and besides, who wants to win by cheating or pulling a fast one on your opponent?

 

[Celophanewrap]

http://www.poolplayers.com/nsc/rules/




Look, not saying this was the correct ruling. I'm simply showing the logic used to make this ruling. Any form of coaching is taken seriously at these levels and this was clearly a coached situation. If they didn't mark the game as over on the scoresheet, they're not allowed to talk to her.

I can certainly see the logic (or lack of) for making this decision. I believe the rule book even allows for one shooting the wrong suite of balls and you don't have to say anything until you want to. The person can start to shoot the wrong suite of balls, run down to the 8, get straight in from 6 inches away and then I can stop them and say, "you've been shooting my balls" then take BIH and shoot the 8. In the scenario given, the rules state that scratching (fouling) on the 8 ball is a loss of game. Regardless of what may have happened afterwords the game ended when the scratch occured

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I definitely agree with you that the APA is in need of significant revision to their rulebook. It is not very good. It is poorly written, and is not nearly encompassing enough.

KMRUNOUT

There was a heated argument during a playoff match in our area. A player was trying to place BIH at the lip of the pocket. The cueball fell-in and they ruled it a foul. Afterward, the referee asked me what I thought. She said the rulebook states any time the cue ball goes in a pocket, lands on the floor or falls off the table, it's a foul. I responded, "So, if I have BIH and I drop the cueball on the floor, it's a foul?" She immediately realized how that one sentence defining basic fouls was totally wrong. I explained the cueball needs to be "in play" in order for a foul to occur. So long as the shooter doesn't disturb any other ball on the table, they're allowed total freedom when placing BIH. When they strike that cue ball, that's when fouls can occur again.

What annoys me about the APA is that their rulebook is a total bastardization of proper pool. I'm not fond of this ruling but then again, I'm also not fond of this scenario. I think players should know the rules and I don't think it's absurd to be penalized for not knowing them. On the other hand, I also think the APA rulebook needs a total overhaul because clearly even players who have played 10 or more matches don't get it.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Yes, I have, but I don't need documentation, I just need a brain. Aside from having a brain, though, I can refer to the APA handbook and/or just about any other rulebook for pool and/or 8b league play.


You really want to be right, and I admire that. Unfortunately, though, you're not correct. And I think you know you're not correct, but you don't want to go back on your original incorrect statement so now you're trying to be right in being wrong, but you can't have it both ways. You're wrong. The LO was wrong. It's okay. The girl just needs to submit an appeal, nationals will overturn it and award her the trip and life will go on. It's okay to be wrong sometimes. It happens. No one will remember next week anyway, so relax.

I'm not backpedaling on anything. I've held my ground on everything I've stated. Good luck with your brain.

 

[rookiepsu]

I'm not backpedaling on anything. I've held my ground on everything I've stated. Good luck with your brain.

Go you.:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[WoodyMPW]

The O/P clearly says the scratch was with cue ball going in pocket. Game over, Coaching, cheering, anything doesn't matter.

But, seems more likely the shooter on the 8 missed the 8 entirely and cue stayed on table. The games still live.

 

[APA Operator]

Look, I'm not an APA referee, owner or anything. I have ZERO interest in the outcome of the OP's question nor do I really care. I'm simply telling you how the APA works.

No, you're telling everyone how you THINK the APA works. If that was my regional, I would have awarded the game to the player who didn't scratch on the 8 (assuming the issue was as simple as the OP makes it sound). If I am able to determine that the player who scratched knew at the time that it was loss of game and tried to get away with it, I would have some words for her, too. Either there was more to it or the tournament director botched the call (IMO).

Now, for the record, the OP didn't say she was "practicing". I'm under the assumption she didn't realize she won and I'm telling you, it's against the rules for anyone to tell her.

No, it isn't. It's against the rules for her to receive coaching. Explaining a rule to a player is not considered coaching. In a nutshell, coaching is giving a player advice on strategy or technique. Everything else is ok.

Regarding coaching, it's impossible for a player to control what is said by spectators, many of whom they may not even know. Usually, if a spectator attempts to coach the most you can do is warn the spectator not to do it again or have them removed from the arena. Occasionally you might be able to do more. For example, if a player is on the 8, has marked the side pocket and is about to shoot when someone yells out "shoot it in the corner", then the player moves the marker and shoots the 8 in the corner, you can assess whatever the penalty is for illegal aid. I'd probably replay the game in this case. If, however, in the same situation the spectator instead yells "stay down", and the shooter stays down and pockets the 8 in the side, I would declare the shot good and deal with the spectator.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

No, you're telling everyone how you THINK the APA works. If that was my regional, I would have awarded the game to the player who didn't scratch on the 8 (assuming the issue was as simple as the OP makes it sound). If I am able to determine that the player who scratched knew at the time that it was loss of game and tried to get away with it, I would have some words for her, too. Either there was more to it or the tournament director botched the call (IMO).




No, it isn't. It's against the rules for her to receive coaching. Explaining a rule to a player is not considered coaching. In a nutshell, coaching is giving a player advice on strategy or technique. Everything else is ok.

Regarding coaching, it's impossible for a player to control what is said by spectators, many of whom they may not even know. Usually, if a spectator attempts to coach the most you can do is warn the spectator not to do it again or have them removed from the arena. Occasionally you might be able to do more. For example, if a player is on the 8, has marked the side pocket and is about to shoot when someone yells out "shoot it in the corner", then the player moves the marker and shoots the 8 in the corner, you can assess whatever the penalty is for illegal aid. I'd probably replay the game in this case. If, however, in the same situation the spectator instead yells "stay down", and the shooter stays down and pockets the 8 in the side, I would declare the shot good and deal with the spectator.

Well, I'll be happy to play in your division when I leave NYC. That's not how it happens at the Regionals I've been to. Like you said, if it were "your regional".

Regarding "explaining a rule", I don't think you're right there. If neither player is requesting a rule clarification, how can you say it's not coaching?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

There was a heated argument during a playoff match in our area. A player was trying to place BIH at the lip of the pocket. The cueball fell-in and they ruled it a foul. Afterward, the referee asked me what I thought. She said the rulebook states any time the cue ball goes in a pocket, lands on the floor or falls off the table, it's a foul. I responded, "So, if I have BIH and I drop the cueball on the floor, it's a foul?" She immediately realized how that one sentence defining basic fouls was totally wrong. I explained the cueball needs to be "in play" in order for a foul to occur. So long as the shooter doesn't disturb any other ball on the table, they're allowed total freedom when placing BIH. When they strike that cue ball, that's when fouls can occur again.

What annoys me about the APA is that their rulebook is a total bastardization of proper pool. I'm not fond of this ruling but then again, I'm also not fond of this scenario. I think players should know the rules and I don't think it's absurd to be penalized for not knowing them. On the other hand, I also think the APA rulebook needs a total overhaul because clearly even players who have played 10 or more matches don't get it.

Jude,

Get this: the one and only bad experience I had calling corporate (numerous other calls have been *extremely* pleasant...Nicole Dunn, Jodie Cavanaugh, Becky I think Collier? They have all been fantastic and very helpful!):

I was asking about the magic rack. I don't want to go into that topic, but the thing this particular person said to me was this "you keep asking 'what if's'...I'm not going to play the what if game. The rules are not there for all these random 'what ifs'"

I almost burst out laughing. To any rational person, the specific purpose of the rulebook is to address "what ifs". That is the whole point of the rules. The more what ifs your rulebook covers, the better and more comprehensive the rulebook is.

Personally, I would LOVE to help them revise that book. I have a pretty good command of the English language, and a good mind for legalistic arguments. I sincerely hope they care about this. I *think* they do...but maybe just don't know how to go about improving in this area.

KMRUNOUT

 

[APA Operator]

Well, I'll be happy to play in your division when I leave NYC. That's not how it happens at the Regionals I've been to. Like you said, if it were "your regional".

Regarding "explaining a rule", I don't think you're right there. If neither player is requesting a rule clarification, how can you say it's not coaching?

The same way I can say that reminding a player to mark the pocket for the 8-Ball is not coaching. The player didn't request to be informed of the rule that they must mark the pocket, but it's not coaching to remind them of that rule, right?

Informing a player that they're about to shoot the wrong ball in 9-Ball, or the wrong category of balls in 8-Ball are other instances of providing a player with information not considered coaching. Probably the nearest example specifically mentioned in the book is the one that says "telling a player a foul has occurred". If you can tell them a foul occurred, certainly you should be able to tell them a foul for which the penalty is loss of game occurred.