BCA/WPA Rule 1.14: CONCESSION - Should it go one step further?

[Cuebacca]

All this talk about unsportsmanlike conduct recently, I thought I'd bring up an issue I'd thought about a few times.

Here's the rule:

1.14 CONCESSION

If a player concedes, he loses the match. That is, if a player attempts to unscrew his jointed playing cue stick while the opponent is at the table and during the opponent’s decisive game of a match, it will be considered a concession of the match. No warning from the referee is required in the case of a concession. (Refer to Rule 2.22)

I think this rule should be changed to include ANY cue, not just the playing cue. Under the current rule, one could unscrew their break cue at hill-hill when their opponent is at the table. If the shooter calls him on the concession, the person can just say, "It's not a concession. I'm just putting away my breaking cue as it will not be needed anymore in this match."

However, it is too late. The shooter has already been sharked. If you see someone unscrewing their cue, you don't pause to ask which cue it is before becoming distracted. In an ideal world, nothing will distract you, period, but this rule is obviously made for the real world. Should the rule be changed to include all cues?

Yes, it could still fall under unsportsmanlike conduct, but IMO, that's going to depend on the ref as to whether they deem it an honest mistake or whatever. Perhaps a warning, or perhaps a loss. IMO, when the shooter is at the table, any tip tapping, or other cue grooming by the opponent should result in at least a warning, and any cue unscrewing should be at least a loss of that game. If it is not an attempt at a shark move, then why not just wait until it's his/her turn?

This has never happened to me, and if it did, hopefully it wouldn't distract me enough to make a difference, but either way, I found it interesting enough to start this thread. LOL. Any thoughts?

 

[FLICKit]

First of all, before engaging in this:
What is the exact definition of "sharking"?
Seems that "sharking" has really become an over-reaching / growing definition, that has nearly reached the point where the opponent can barely do anything other than breathe. In some cases that's hardly enough, because even if the person makes a couple of balls in a row, the opponent may wind up in the line of sight of the shooter on some successive shot.
Don't take a sip of your beer / drink, re-adjust your stick, clean or maintain your stick in any way, move (stand up / sit), ... lest you get accused of sharking.

The general definition of "sharking" is so broad, that if a shooter misses most any shot (about 99%), they can automatically blame the opponent by accusing him of sharking. The term is so negative, that the expectation almost immediately becomes for the accused to have to go on the defensive, as opposed to any blame / judgement being whether the shooter who missed is engaging in bad sportsmanship or just a bad shooter.

The Merriam Webster definition is: to practice fraud or trickery.

This would imply an intentional act of fraud or trickery, which we all could agree upon would be a form of cheating. That would put some burden of proof on the shooter, to unequivocably prove intentionality.

 

[robertno1pool]

Concession

So if your tip falls off, there is no need to have a second shaft unless if its magentically attached or connected with duck tape?

If someone screws an extension into the butt end of a cue that makes it a super long length cue, they have to finish the match with that extension screwed in place?

If you have a combination break cue / jump cue, you can not unscrew it from the break position to the shorter jump cue position - cause this might imply your throwing the towel in??

 

[Cuebacca]

First of all, before engaging in this:
What is the exact definition of "sharking"?
Seems that "sharking" has really become an over-reaching / growing definition, that has nearly reached the point where the opponent can barely do anything other than breathe. In some cases that's hardly enough, because even if the person makes a couple of balls in a row, the opponent may wind up in the line of sight of the shooter on some successive shot.
Don't take a sip of your beer / drink, re-adjust your stick, clean or maintain your stick in any way, move (stand up / sit), ... lest you get accused of sharking.

The general definition of "sharking" is so broad, that if a shooter misses most any shot (about 99%), they can automatically blame the opponent by accusing him of sharking. The term is so negative, that the expectation almost immediately becomes for the accused to have to go on the defensive, as opposed to any blame / judgement being whether the shooter who missed is engaging in bad sportsmanship or just a bad shooter.

The Merriam Webster definition is: to practice fraud or trickery.

This would imply an intentional act of fraud or trickery, which we all could agree upon would be a form of cheating. That would put some burden of proof on the shooter, to unequivocably prove intentionality.

Very very true statements in your post. The Merriam Webster's definition that you posted doesn't seem to cover what we in the pool world generally categorize as "sharking". To me (and I could be guilty of using the term improperly), "to shark" means "to distract". Distracting someone can be intentional or by accident. Where is the line drawn? It's a gray area for sure. I think the main thing to keep in mind is, "can the actions of the alleged sharker be reasonably labeled as a distraction?"

The answer to that can totally depend on the venue as well. League night at a crowded bar may have a completely different standard of what would be considered sharking compared to a dead quiet tournament room. I should have mentioned that in the initial post.

If this thread goes towards the direction of "what is considered sharking, or distracting, or poor behavior, etc.", that's OK, and I'll still enjoy the thead. What I was mainly wondering about though, is the concession rule, specifically.

If someone unscrews their playing cue while their opponent is at the table and on the hill, and they never heard of the concession rule, they will still lose the game under the concession rule. The reason is because it automatically plants the idea in the shooter's head that their opponent is sending the message that the match is over. That same message is sent no matter if it's the playing cue or the break cue, IMO.

 

[SharpPT]

So if your tip falls off, there is no need to have a second shaft unless if its magentically attached or connected with duck tape?

If someone screws an extension into the butt end of a cue that makes it a super long length cue, they have to finish the match with that extension screwed in place?

If you have a combination break cue / jump cue, you can not unscrew it from the break position to the shorter jump cue position - cause this might imply your throwing the towel in??

In all of these cases, and any other possible example...remember there is no rule whatsoever that prohibits the unscrewing of your cue as long as you do it WHEN IT IS YOUR TURN AT THE TABLE!!! If you use this rule....there will never be an arguement.

 

[Cuebacca]

So if your tip falls off, there is no need to have a second shaft unless if its magentically attached or connected with duck tape?

If someone screws an extension into the butt end of a cue that makes it a super long length cue, they have to finish the match with that extension screwed in place?

If you have a combination break cue / jump cue, you can not unscrew it from the break position to the shorter jump cue position - cause this might imply your throwing the towel in??

LOL. Any of these things are fine, but they need to be done when it is your turn turn, not when your opponent is at the table. While it may vary from venue to venue, in general I think the respectful thing to do is to sit quietly and sit still while your opponent is at the table.

Regarding the hypothetical magnetically jointed cue (LOL), even if you had a playing cue like this, I believe you'd still get nailed on the concession rule if you took apart your cue on your opponent's case game when he's at the table. That's not the letter of the law, but it is the spirit.

 

[GADawg]

I think you are correct. I believe you should not be allowed to take apart any cue when your opponent is at the table and on the hill. I also think this should be extended to other actions. Anything that implies that you think the match is over, should be a concession. For instance, putting on your coat, putting a house cue back in the rack if you are playing with one, starting to pack up your chalk, towel other accessories,etc.

In the exceedingly rare situation that you need to change your shaft in this situation you can wait until it is your turn to shoot because you know if you uncrew your shaft, you lose.

As to the question about the jump/break cue, have you ever seen anyone unscrew a J/B cue to the jump configuration before thay had jump shot to shoot? I never have seen it and I use a J/B cue and have never done it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I think this rule should be changed to include ANY cue, not just the playing cue. Under the current rule, one could unscrew their break cue at hill-hill when their opponent is at the table. ...

In retrospect, it may have been a mistake to include specific wording about the cue stick for what constitutes a concession. It was originally included because a common shark is to unscrew in the final rack. It was not intended to exclude all other forms of sharking from punishment. Further, it should not be included under concession but rather under some examples of unsportsmanlike conduct. The problem with putting it in USLC is that deciding the penalty requires a referee to be present, usually. It is better if the foul is called by someone other than the shooter.

In any case, intentional distraction is always USLC.

 

[Cuebacca]

I just thought I'd address a few of the specific things you brought up and put out my opinions, not that I'm wrong or right, or even that we disagree, but just FWIW.

First of all, before engaging in this:
What is the exact definition of "sharking"?
Seems that "sharking" has really become an over-reaching / growing definition, that has nearly reached the point where the opponent can barely do anything other than breathe.

If my opponent is down on a shot on the other end of the table, shooting towards me that is exactly what I will do; sit quietly, and still, and do nothing other than breathe for the 20 seconds it takes then to take their shot. If they are at the same end of the table as me, shooting away from me where they can't see me at all, obviously I can be much more at ease. (EDIT: For example, using two fingers to make bunny ears over their head. (j/k))

In some cases that's hardly enough, because even if the person makes a couple of balls in a row, the opponent may wind up in the line of sight of the shooter on some successive shot.

I once was in someone's line of sight for a shot in the first round of a tournament. Before they got down on their shot, I got up and changed seats so that I wouldn't be in their line of sight. My intention was to be courteous but I obviously did the wrong thing. He then said angrily and sarcastically, "have you found the right seat yet?" For a moment I was annoyed and thought I can't "win" here, but I then realized that the right thing to do when you're sitting in the shooters line of sight is to remain in the same seat, but sit quietly still and just wait for them to complete their shot.

Don't take a sip of your beer / drink, re-adjust your stick, clean or maintain your stick in any way, move (stand up / sit), ... lest you get accused of sharking.

The general definition of "sharking" is so broad, that if a shooter misses most any shot (about 99%), they can automatically blame the opponent by accusing him of sharking. The term is so negative, that the expectation almost immediately becomes for the accused to have to go on the defensive, as opposed to any blame / judgement being whether the shooter who missed is engaging in bad sportsmanship or just a bad shooter.

Now this is a great point you're touching on here. If a shooter is to make a complaint to his opponent about sharking, he should do it before taking the shot, IMO, and being polite about it would be nice too. Why wait until you miss the shot and then throw a hissy fit?

I agree with you; that's not cool. If I miss a shot and if I feel that it's because my opponent did something that distracted me, I will look at it as my fault for not taking the appropriate steps to remedy the situation before letting it blow my shot.

Not only does that prevent an innocent person from unjustly getting attacked, but I think helps keep my own mental game together well.

 

[Cuebacca]

In retrospect, it may have been a mistake to include specific wording about the cue stick for what constitutes a concession. It was originally included because a common shark is to unscrew in the final rack. It was not intended to exclude all other forms of sharking from punishment. Further, it should not be included under concession but rather under some examples of unsportsmanlike conduct. The problem with putting it in USLC is that deciding the penalty requires a referee to be present, usually. It is better if the foul is called by someone other than the shooter.

In any case, intentional distraction is always USLC.

Thanks for your reply, Bob. Could you clarify the following sentence please:

Further, it should not be included under concession but rather under some examples of unsportsmanlike conduct.

Do you mean that it should not be a concession to unscrew your break cue, or that it should not be a concession to unscrew ANY cue, unless it is done as an intentional distraction?

 

[FLICKit]

Yeah, much of what you said I agree with as well.

Sometimes it's a bit odd all the maneuvers you have to go through, simply to prevent the so-called sharking. If have to do too much, sometimes you wind up sharking yourself, by all the effort you do to not shark your opponent. Many times it is just better to be there and be as natural as possible. Although it is kind of funny when being natural is an effort.

Ultimately, I try to do what it takes to make myself unsharkable as well. If I have to get up and re-focus, and start the process over then I usually will. Kind of funny when you watch an obvious sharker go through his machinations, and you just get up re-adjust and start all over, rendering his childish actions useless. If it persists, and it is having an effect on you, then you have to be able to let them know. And I agree, it's much better to do it before you shoot, than to complain afterwards.

People have to be more responsible to manage it pro-actively, than re-actively.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Do you mean that it should not be a concession to unscrew your break cue, or that it should not be a concession to unscrew ANY cue, unless it is done as an intentional distraction?

I mean that in the best of all possible worlds, the referee will decide whether intentional distraction has occurred and make the appropriate call and enforce the appropriate penalty. Unfortunately, most matches are played without the advantage of having a referee at the table.

Examples: the non-shooter is directly behind the player who is on the final ball and he very quietly and with no chance for the opponent to see him puts his lucky hand cloth back into his equipment bag. Or, with the opponent facing him on game ball, he flamboyantly wipes his hands with the cloth. Or, as de Oro used to do, but it is usually forbidden by the venue now, strikes a big kitchen match to light his cigar just as the opponent takes his final backstroke on the money ball. Or, he shouts over to his wife, "Honey, how much does second pay?"

I think it is a mistake to get bogged down trying to list all possible ways to shark your opponent. It's also a big mistake for a player to try to find each of those in the actions of his opponent.

The original version of rules that specified unscrewing as a concession were the PBA (men's pro tour) rules of 1988. Here is the wording then:

Concession

If a player concedes, he loses the game. The unscrewing of a jointed cue stick, except to replace a shaft, is considered to be a concession. No warning from the referee is required in the case of a concession.​

 

[Cuebacca]

I think you are correct. I believe you should not be allowed to take apart any cue when your opponent is at the table and on the hill. I also think this should be extended to other actions. Anything that implies that you think the match is over, should be a concession. For instance, putting on your coat, putting a house cue back in the rack if you are playing with one, starting to pack up your chalk, towel other accessories,etc.

I completely agree. I would like to play devil's advocate, but I cannot really come up with a good argument against it. The only thing I can think of is that someone who didn't know this rule might make the mistake of, for example, putting on their sweatshirt because they were cold. However, even if they honestly weren't trying to distract, they are still sending a message that they think the game is over.

It may sting to have to learn the lesson this way, but it might just be considered part of the learning process to the game. I'd be surprised if it happened to the same person twice. LOL.

 

[Cuebacca]

I mean that in the best of all possible worlds, the referee will decide whether intentional distraction has occurred and make the appropriate call and enforce the appropriate penalty. Unfortunately, most matches are played without the advantage of having a referee at the table.

Examples: the non-shooter is directly behind the player who is on the final ball and he very quietly and with no chance for the opponent to see him puts his lucky hand cloth back into his equipment bag. Or, with the opponent facing him on game ball, he flamboyantly wipes his hands with the cloth. Or, as de Oro used to do, but it is usually forbidden by the venue now, strikes a big kitchen match to light his cigar just as the opponent takes his final backstroke on the money ball. Or, he shouts over to his wife, "Honey, how much does second pay?"

I think it is a mistake to get bogged down trying to list all possible ways to shark your opponent. It's also a big mistake for a player to try to find each of those in the actions of his opponent.

The original version of rules that specified unscrewing as a concession were the PBA (men's pro tour) rules of 1988. Here is the wording then:

Concession

If a player concedes, he loses the game. The unscrewing of a jointed cue stick, except to replace a shaft, is considered to be a concession. No warning from the referee is required in the case of a concession.​

I enjoyed those examples. LOL.

I agree, you don't want to start looking for ways that your opponent might be trying to shark you. Better to pay attention to your task at hand, which is playing pool. Hopefully, if your opponent does something little that could have been distracting, you won't even notice.

 

[Maniac]

IMO, when the shooter is at the table, any tip tapping, or other cue grooming by the opponent should result in at least a warning. If it is not an attempt at a shark move, then why not just wait until it's his/her turn?
Any thoughts?

This is the only statement that I don't completely agree with, at least when a 30-second clock is being utilized. It wouldn't be fair to the incoming shooter to have to use a valuable extension just to do a little tip work. But, it must be a very courteous attempt at the tip work while in the chair, without any overly sudden movements and with all due respect to the opponent.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that the concession rule about the breaking-down of the cue should include ALL cues.

Maniac

 

[poolpro]

Another thing that I used to encounter fairly often, but I have not seen in the rulebooks is when a player is shooting a money ball, the non shooter grabs the rack to get a headstart on the next game. We used to consider that a forfeit as well. Our rule used to be if you grabbed the rack and brought it up to break the height of the rails, it is a forfeit. For some reason, I used to encounter this a lot more frequently in the past than I do now, just curious if anyone else has had the same issues.

I do love when people try to shark me in very obvious ways, and then pretend to not be aware of what they are doing. For instance, when someone grabs the rack and holds it right over the shot in an attempt to say " this shot is so easy, just get it over with". I stand right up, and say " what are you waiting for, rack em!". Then they say " well, you haven;t won, yet" I'll just be like " well, I thought you were giving it to me, either rack the balls, or sit down!". Then I will regroup and take as much time as I need ( maybe take a bathroom break, get a drink,read a book, etc before coming back to sink that ball). I then inform them that the next time they feel the overwelming need to grab the rack, they will be forced to use it at that very moment to rack the next game. I let them know that if they are "just trying to speed things up" that I can save them even more time by not forcing them to wait for me to pocket the game ball. Usually it will end the b.s. at least for that day.

 

[Cuebacca]

This is the only statement that I don't completely agree with, at least when a 30-second clock is being utilized. It wouldn't be fair to the incoming shooter to have to use a valuable extension just to do a little tip work. But, it must be a very courteous attempt at the tip work while in the chair, without any overly sudden movements and with all due respect to the opponent.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that the concession rule about the breaking-down of the cue should include ALL cues.

Maniac

Very good point. I hadn't thought of that, and have never played under a shot clock before. The good thing about that is, whenever a shot clock is in effect, a ref would also be at the table, I assume. So the ref would be there to notice if any tip work was done in a distracting manner.

 

[Drew]

As to the question about the jump/break cue, have you ever seen anyone unscrew a J/B cue to the jump configuration before thay had jump shot to shoot? I never have seen it and I use a J/B cue and have never done it.

Yeah I usually shoot my jump and then unscrew the j/b.

 

[GADawg]

You misunderstand my comment or you have gotten me with your humor.I can see where my choice of sentence structure could lead to a misunderstanding.

After you break with your jump/break cue, do you immediately break it down to the jump configuration just in case a jump situation might come up or do you wait for the situation and then break down the cue for the jump shot.