BCA ruling or perhaps just common sense?

[tatcat2000]

*** SIGH ***

Please pay attention, people.

Why would you think you could control the Billiard Congress of America?

I did not say I wanted to control the BCA, Jay. I simply have requested that they remove obsolete material from their website.

They have nothing to do with the BCAPL.

Thank you for that confirmation. That would be the essence of the statement that has been in the sixth bullet of my signature for three years now.

They are hardly obsolete except maybe to the BCAPL.

OK now - pay close attention. I never said current WSR are obsolete. The rule set that I am talking about having removed from the BCA server is the pre-January 1, 2008 version of WSR, which is O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E, and is where the OLD Rule 4.12 lives. You can’t even get to it from the BCA web site. Unfortunately, some other websites still have the link to the obsolete information listed, and apparently there are many people who have it in their favorites or cached in some other manner. And the BCA still, three years later, has not removed the O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E information that the link refers to from their server, so people with the obsolete links keep accessing obsolete information.

Jay (and everyone else who keeps quoting “4.12”) – please try a little experiment. Go to your (Jay’s) website: http://www.cuesport-lessons.com/. Now go to the “Links” page. Now click on the ACS link. Now click on the “World Standardized Rules” link on the ACS home page. Now find me Rule 4.12 – Safety Play. Oh – wait a minute – YOU CAN’T. You also can’t find it on the WPA web site, or any other web site that links to the current WSR. Because it doesn’t exist anymore!

WSR 8-Ball Rule 4.12, Safety Play, exists only in history. It has not been in effect since December 31, 2007. The current WSR Rule 4, if you hadn’t noticed, is for 14.1 Continuous, and Rule 4.12 specifically is the stalemate rule for 14.1. The current WSR information for safety play in 8-Ball is in Rules 3.6 and 8.17. Rule 8.17, the current WSR definition of "Safety Shot", in particular makes no reference to communications issues.

Here is the link for the current World Standardized rules directly from the WPA:

http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_summary

and for the same rule set from the BCA website:

http://home.bca-pool.com/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=54

Those are just a couple of links for the CURRENT WPA WSR. If you are ever looking for WSR info and you find a reference to a Rule 4.12 concerning safety play, then you are in the WRONG rule set, one which has been D-E-A-D for more than three years now, and is O-B-S-O-L-E-T-E.


By the way, Jay, the old Rule 2.20, if that’s what you are talking about when you refer to double hits, been also been obsolete since December 31, 2007. I completely agree with you that we can all consider ourselves fortunate for that monstrosity being banished to Never-Never Land. The current WSR rule for double hits is Rule 6.7.

On a side note, it is pointless to ask me as a BCAPL referee to do something about a rule. See the infromation in my signature for the reasons why. If you want input on BCAPL rules, again please see the information in my signature. If you want input on WSR, email the WPA, or maybe Mr. Jewett.

*****

Poolfool1957 - (a very good year, by the way) - Your OP refers to "BCA" play. Do you mean BCAPL sanctioned play, or is it ACS or independent play under World Standardized Rules (WSR - what many people call "BCA" rules.)

The reason I ask is that I promised in an earlier post that I would give a more detailed analysis of the OP's situation. I can have that up sometime tomorrow, but it would be a strictly BCAPL based response. I have already given a basic BCAPL based response, and if it the OP situation was not BCAPL play, I don't want to spend the several hours composing an extremely long post right now (unless someone else expresses a burning interest.) However, if it was BCAPL play, I'll bite the bullet and have it up tomorrow.

Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee
BCAPL Director of Referee Training
Technical Editor, BCAPL Rule Book
bcapl_referee@cox.net

Find the Official Rules of the BCA Pool League here:

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/Default.aspx

* The contents of this post refer to BCA Pool League (BCAPL) Rules only. The BCAPL National Office has authorized me to act in an official capacity regarding questions about BCAPL Rules matters in public forums.
* Neither I nor any BCAPL referee make any policy decisions regarding BCAPL Rules. Any and all decisions, interpretations, or Applied Rulings are made by the BCAPL National Office and are solely their responsibility. BCAPL referees are enforcers of rules, not legislators. BCAPL Rules 9.5.3 and 9.5.4 and the BCAPL Rules "Statement of Principles" apply.
* No reference to, inference concerning, or comment on any other set of rules (WPA, APA, VNEA, TAP, or any other set of rules, public or private) is intended or should be derived from this post unless specifically stated.
* For General Rules, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, and 14.1 Continuous: there is no such thing as "BCA Rules" other than in the sense that the Billiard Congress of America (BCA) publishes various rules, including the World Pool-Billiard Association's "World Standardized Rules" for those games. The BCA has no rules committee. The BCA does not edit, nor is responsible for the content of, the World Standardized Rules. The Official Rules of the BCAPL is a separate and independent set of rules and, to avoid confusion, should not be referred to as "BCA Rules".
* Since 2004, there is no such thing as a "BCA Referee". The BCA no longer has any program to train, certify or sanction billiards referees or officials. The BCAPL maintains what we consider to be the most structured, complete and intensive referee training program available.
* The BCAPL has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA. The letters "BCA" in BCAPL do not stand for "Billiard Congress of America, nor for anything at all.
* The BCAPL has not addressed every imaginable rules issue, nor will it ever likely be able to, as evidenced by the seemingly endless situations that people dream up or that (more frequently) actually happen. If I do not have the answer to a question I will tell you so, then I will get a ruling from the BCAPL National Office and get back to you as soon as I can. If deemed necessary, the BCAPL will then add the ruling to the "Applied Rulings" section of The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League.
* All BCAPL members are, as always, encouraged to e-mail Bill Stock at the BCAPL National Office, bill@playcsi.com, with any comments, concerns or suggestions about the BCAPL rules.

 

[Wags]

tatcat2000

Thanks for clearing that up. I truly thought you were calling the WSR obsolete. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Your explanation makes more sense to me.

I have always kind of wondered why Mr. Griffin has hung on to the initials, BCA. That has always created confusion.

Doesn't it get tiring explaning it over and over with the disclaimer on everything the BCAPL puts out?

Oh well, point taken.

Thanks

 

[tatcat2000]

An apology

I have apologized privately to Wags for my tone, and would like to do so to everyone else. While the content of my post was accurate, the scolding tone was not called for. Sorry...just stressed and tired...not an excuse.

Buddy

 

[chefjeff]

Thanks for clearing that up. I truly thought you were calling the WSR obsolete. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Your explanation makes more sense to me.

I have always kind of wondered why Mr. Griffin has hung on to the initials, BCA. That has always created confusion.

Doesn't it get tiring explaning it over and over with the disclaimer on everything the BCAPL puts out?

Oh well, point taken.

Thanks

I'm still confused as to what's what and who's who.

Is there a thread somewhere that explains it so the average Joe can understand the distinction?

Jeff Livingston

 

[MikeM]

The problem is, the shooter never intended to shoot a safety. Because it's a non obvious shot:
a) the shooter should have indicated a pocket
b) the opponent should have asked which pocket

Since neither player did this, all that can be done is consider this a missed shot and end the turn.

I understand where you are coming from, but there was no safety intended. While it's the shooters responsibility to indicate what pocket he was shooting at, the opponent has a reciprical responsibility to be clear on what the shooter is shooting.

Not true. You could also consider that he made his intended ball in the intended pocket and he continues his turn. This happens all the time.

I agree that each player made a mistake here, but the intent is clear to everyone. He made the ball in the intended pocket and then decided to try and mis-apply a rule to his advantage. Any attempt to justify player A's actions is just enabling poor sportsmanship.

I think the LO ultimately made a pretty good decision, but I would be happier if he had punished the offender in some way. I also run a league and had I been present Player A would have continued his turn or forfeited. Had I not been there and had to render judgment after the fact, Player A would be marking his pocket on EVERY shot in his next match...and maybe have to wear a scarlet A on his shirt too. (and it wouldn't stand for adultery either)

 

[Maniac]

I'm still confused as to what's what and who's who.

Is there a thread somewhere that explains it so the average Joe can understand the distinction?

Jeff Livingston

Nah, it'll stay screwed-up, disorganized, and confusing just like most things in the pool world .

Maniac

 

[Wags]

Confused?

I will try to post a separate thread with a timeline and history in the next few days. It is confusing.

 

[poolfool1957]

Thanks to all who pitched in with thoughts, interpretations and advice!
We had discussions with both team captians who both felt that they could have handled things differently and things may not have gotten so far out of hand. We have been assurred that this type of situation will not happen again.
Player A had caused no previous issues or problems in our league and this fact had to be taken into consideration. He has not had any issues since so we had to look at this as a "one time" incident on his part. You could say the "he knows we know and we know he knows"

What came out of this situation was a note on page one of our weekly standings about unsportsmanlike conduct and that it will not be tolerated in the future. There were plenty of players talking about it afterwards so I do think the message was received loud and clear.

There are those who felt that we should have suspended or even banned this player from our league. We could have probably done so but if you look at all of the discussion on this thread it should be obvious that the definition of the violation was, and is a bit difficult to state without a fair amount of disagreement amongst the masses.

The other thing about imposing a harsh punishment in this case is that we are a small town traveling league that is trying to keep the teams that we have and hopefully expand next year. Where we live word spreads pretty fast if the looks like it is run by a few hard asses. This may not seem like a factor to those who play in metro area leagues because there are more players out there. I would not allow this to be THE reason to go easy on someone who does something in violation of the spirit of the game but, unless we have a clear, black and white (in the vast majorities eyes) violation it would have been a long and nasty rest of the season.

We are as prone to making an occasional bad call as the next person(s) but in this situation I feel that taking it all in and knowing that both captians and players A and B shook hands, the entire league was warned of unsportsmanlike conduct and we are still a functioning league, we took the right actions for our particular league.

I know not all will agree but that is ok. I knew before I started this thread that some would feel/interpret one way and some would feel/interpret another and some...hey...at least they had an opinion!