Bob Jewett & the world rules updates...

[TATE]

>
The WPA rules say very specifically that it is a legal shot. It in not a double hit. Ron Shapard has pointed out how you can demonstrate this by using the eight ball as the cue ball and looking for chalk spots. A push shot, as defined in the WPA rules, is a very, very different kind of shot.

> Now, if that scenario constitutes a legal stroke, why wouldn't it be legal if the gap were 1 mm or 2mm?

Because by the rules the situation is different if the balls aren't touching. How close is "very close?" 2mm, 5mm, a couple of inches? Right now the rules say frozen or not frozen is the important distance.


When the cue ball is 1/4 inch from the object ball, it is possible to shoot straight at the object ball with a level stick and no english and hit the cue ball only once. (It will stop dead on contact.) Few players know the shot, though. So, the idea of "not otherwise possible" is too arguable to be useful.

Bob,

Well that sure makes sense. If they're frozen, the shot is allowed because it's "possible". If they're separated by a hair, the shots may be good or bad depending on the guess of a referee who is probably without formal training.

Why bother rewriting the rules? The current bad ones are just fine - we don't need any new bad ones.

Chris

 

[Bob Jewett]

... the shots may be good or bad depending on the guess of a referee who is probably without formal training. ...

That's a separate issue, partly. I've done what I could to train referees every year for the past five years or so at the BCA Nationals and to write about the issues in a couple of billiard mags and on-line. I think the answer is better training rather than making worse rules.

You seem to be proposing a rule like:

As long as the stroke is one continuous motion, the number of times the cue stick is permitted to hit the cue ball is not limited.​

Is that what you want? If not, how would you word the rule?

 

[TATE]

That's a separate issue, partly. I've done what I could to train referees every year for the past five years or so at the BCA Nationals and to write about the issues in a couple of billiard mags and on-line. I think the answer is better training rather than making worse rules.

You seem to be proposing a rule like:

As long as the stroke is one continuous motion, the number of times the cue stick is permitted to hit the cue ball is not limited.​

Is that what you want? If not, how would you word the rule?

I would prefer either one of these two:

"In the case where the cue ball and the object ball are touching or nearly touching (add within a maxiumum distance of 1/4", or whatever you think) , incidental multiple contact of the cue tip on the cue ball does not in and of itself constitute a foul."

or:


"In the case where the cue ball and the object ball are touching or nearly touching, no stroke is allowed where the direction of the cue tip would penetrate the space of the resting object ball if it were allowed to continue on it's forward stroking path".

I don't like the current discrepancy.

Personally, I think the unintentional double hit should be allowed. These shots require considerable skill and often in these situations this is the only shot available. The double hit can't be seen in most cases. It may or may not be heard, and the way it's judged is solely by the action of the cue ball. In the absence of slow motion photography, add in close rails, multiple object balls, etc., it becomes a guessing game.

So yes, my answer is the unintentional multiple hit should be allowed.

Chris

 

[mjantti]

To Bob Jewett, about straight pool rules

In WPA rules playing 14.1. continuos, also known as straight pool, there is a rule which is still unclear to me. It's 6.7.2 which is under rules of play and about the special occasion where object ball is less than a ball's width away from the cushion. The rule says (quoted below), that the player is permitted to only two consecutive legal safeties on this ball and if those two safeties are made, then the object ball is considered frozen and the frozen ball rule applies. My questions:

-Does it make a difference if the cueball also touches the cushion after contacting this "special" ball, do you fre yourself from this rule and you get another two safeties ?
-If you make two legal safeties on this ball (thus being declared frozen) and then on your third shot make a foul, do you get penalized only with a single point and then you're on a 1 foul and you can still hit the frozen ball once with only a single point penalty ?
-If you're on two fouls, and this rule above is applied and the ball is called Frozen Ball according to the rules, and then you proceed to make your third consecutive foul, the rule says the balls are reracked and the opponent has to break again. This seems to be contradicting the rule 6.12 about consecutive foul penalties in which a person playing against the 3-foul committed player has the option of choosing whether to accept the table as it is or having the balls reracked for the thrice-fouled player to start a new rack with a break shot. I think in both situations the oncoming player should have the option to choose between accepting the table or making the opponent to break at a full rack.

Quote from rule 6.7.2 about this Frozen Ball rule special occasion:
(IMHO, this is not clearly written.)
When an object ball is not frozen to a cushion, but is within a ball's width of a cushion (referee to determine by measurement if necessary), a player is permitted only two consecutive legal safeties on that ball using only the near rail. If such safety play is employed, that object ball is then considered frozen to the rail on the player's next inning. The General Rules of Pocket Billiards "Frozen Balls" requirements apply if the player chooses to make the first cue ball contact with that object ball on the third shot. (Note: If a player has committed a foul on the shot immediately before or the shot immediately after playing this ball, then he must immediately meet the requirements of the "Frozen Ball" rule when playing this object ball. Also, if he has committed two consecutive fouls, he must immediately meet the requirements of the Frozen Ball rule when playing this object ball. If such player fails to meet the requirements of the Frozen Ball rule, he is considered to have committed a third successive foul and the appropriate point penalty is assessed as well as one point for each of the previous fouls. All 15 balls are then reracked and the player committing the infraction is required to break, as at the beginning of the game.)

Quote from rule 6.12 about consecutive fouls:
If he fails to meet the requirements of successfully pocketing a called ball or completing a legal safety on the third consecutive turn at the table, penalization is one point and an additional penalty of 15 points is assessed (a total of 18 points for three consecutive fouls equals -18 points). The commission of a third successive foul automatically clears the offender's record of fouls. The incoming player then has choice of (1) accepting the table in position, or (2) having all 15 balls reracked and requiring the offending player to shoot under the requirements of the opening break.

 

[Fred Agnir]

Personally, I think the unintentional double hit should be allowed. These shots require considerable skill and often in these situations this is the only shot available. The double hit can't be seen in most cases. It may or may not be heard, and the way it's judged is solely by the action of the cue ball. In the absence of slow motion photography, add in close rails, multiple object balls, etc., it becomes a guessing game.

So yes, my answer is the unintentional multiple hit should be allowed.

Chris

Me too. If accidental miscues can't be called fouls, then unintentional double-hits should be either. To take it further, same stroke double-hits, intentional or otherwise, IMNSHO, should be allowed. If someone can actually control the doulbe-hit, more power to him/her.

Fred <~~~ double-hit to your heart's content

 

[Bob Jewett]

...

> -Does it make a difference if the cueball also touches the cushion after contacting
> this "special" ball, do you fre yourself from this rule and you get another two safeties ?

The intent is that if any other ball touches a cushion, the special counting for the close ball is ended. The present wording is not clear.

> -If you make two legal safeties on this ball (thus being declared frozen) and then on
> your third shot make a foul, do you get penalized only with a single point and then
> you're on a 1 foul and you can still hit the frozen ball once with only a single point penalty ?

Yes.

> -If you're on two fouls, and this rule above is applied and the ball is called Frozen
> Ball according to the rules, and then you proceed to make your third consecutive foul,
> the rule says the balls are reracked and the opponent has to break again.

How you commit a third foul is not a factor in the penalty, whether it be by the frozen ball or by a pocket scratch or by touching an object ball by accident, or by....

I think the rule for three fouls should always be that the fouler must break a new rack. When 14.1 was the championship game, there was never a choice so far as I know. The choice crept in at about the time that the penalty was changed to 20% (not 15 points) of the length of the game (and was subsequently changed back). I think that fiddling was a mistake.

 

[Bob Jewett]

.... If someone can actually control the doulbe-hit, more power to him/her.

I think it is much easier to control a double hit than to get a good hit on a close ball.

 

[TATE]

I think it is much easier to control a double hit than to get a good hit on a close ball.

Yes, of course. Veryfying it isn't and that's what we're discussing. Most matches are not played with the benefit of trained refereees, or any referee at all. If would be nice if the rules took this into account. Are the rules just for tournaments?

Chris

 

[TATE]

Bob,

Here was a situation that was tough. I was in an action match with a good player - a fair guy and I like to think of myself as the same - a very close match. We rarely ask to have hits watched, but we will if necessary. He missed and rolled up like the position below. It's hard to show this on the WEI but it's very subtle. The cue ball was about 1/16th inch from the eight and maybe an inch from the rail. I looked at the shot and realized that a soft thin hit safe was possible, but the 8 could also be thin cut into the corner. The danger was the cueball could rebound off the cushion and back into the tip. I figured since I was shooting away from the 8, I could use an upward blow and avoid the double kiss off the rail. I angled the tip high and the butt low, and thinned the eight into the corner the blow upward to move the shaft out of the way ASAP so the cueball wouldn't hit the shaft. I hit it as well as possible, the 8 went into the corner, and it seemed like a perfect hit to me. My opponent said "well, do you think that could have been a double hit?". I said no, I didn't think so because the cueball movement was exactly like it should have been. He said, well it sounded funny. I hadn't noticed and he dropped it. I went home and set the shot up, and found that I could hit it legal, and I could also hit it illegal with identical cueball results.

The only way I could tell it was an illegal hit was the feel - the hit felt like a thud instead of a tap - the thud being a double kiss off the tip. Because the cueball movement was exactly the same, I figured that the tip was getting out of the way after the cueball hit the rail the 2nd time.

So now we have two players wondering if the shot were really legal. We will never know.

Chris

 

[mjantti]

Thanks Bob !

Thanks Bob for your reply. The wording in current rules is not clear, but now I'm more confident that I understand them correctly !

Are you working on these WPA rules, Bob ? I think these unclear rule parts mentioned in my earlier post should be clarified...

 

[Bob Jewett]

Yes, of course. Veryfying it isn't and that's what we're discussing. Most matches are not played with the benefit of trained refereees, or any referee at all. If would be nice if the rules took this into account. Are the rules just for tournaments?

I have been specifically asked by the WPA to remove section 1.16 which covers playing without a referee. I think that is appropriate for the official rules. The rules will assume a referee is present.

It is unfortunate that most players are so ignorant of the rules that they would make really lousy referees. It is unfortunate that even major tournaments cannot arrange to have a qualified referee at each table.

 

[sjm]

I have been specifically asked by the WPA to remove section 1.16 which covers playing without a referee. I think that is appropriate for the official rules. The rules will assume a referee is present.

I think this is appropriate, too. It seems to further the goal of standardization of the rules.

 

[dmgwalsh]

safes to the same rail

In WPA rules playing 14.1. continuos, also known as straight pool, there is a rule which is still unclear to me. It's 6.7.2 which is under rules of play and about the special occasion where object ball is less than a ball's width away from the cushion. The rule says (quoted below), that the player is permitted to only two consecutive legal safeties on this ball and if those two safeties are made, then the object ball is considered frozen and the frozen ball rule applies. My questions:

-Does it make a difference if the cueball also touches the cushion after contacting this "special" ball, do you fre yourself from this rule and you get another two safeties ?
-If you make two legal safeties on this ball (thus being declared frozen) and then on your third shot make a foul, do you get penalized only with a single point and then you're on a 1 foul and you can still hit the frozen ball once with only a single point penalty ?
-If you're on two fouls, and this rule above is applied and the ball is called Frozen Ball according to the rules, and then you proceed to make your third consecutive foul, the rule says the balls are reracked and the opponent has to break again. This seems to be contradicting the rule 6.12 about consecutive foul penalties in which a person playing against the 3-foul committed player has the option of choosing whether to accept the table as it is or having the balls reracked for the thrice-fouled player to start a new rack with a break shot. I think in both situations the oncoming player should have the option to choose between accepting the table or making the opponent to break at a full rack.

Quote from rule 6.7.2 about this Frozen Ball rule special occasion:
(IMHO, this is not clearly written.)
When an object ball is not frozen to a cushion, but is within a ball's width of a cushion (referee to determine by measurement if necessary), a player is permitted only two consecutive legal safeties on that ball using only the near rail. If such safety play is employed, that object ball is then considered frozen to the rail on the player's next inning. The General Rules of Pocket Billiards "Frozen Balls" requirements apply if the player chooses to make the first cue ball contact with that object ball on the third shot. (Note: If a player has committed a foul on the shot immediately before or the shot immediately after playing this ball, then he must immediately meet the requirements of the "Frozen Ball" rule when playing this object ball. Also, if he has committed two consecutive fouls, he must immediately meet the requirements of the Frozen Ball rule when playing this object ball. If such player fails to meet the requirements of the Frozen Ball rule, he is considered to have committed a third successive foul and the appropriate point penalty is assessed as well as one point for each of the previous fouls. All 15 balls are then reracked and the player committing the infraction is required to break, as at the beginning of the game.)

Quote from rule 6.12 about consecutive fouls:
If he fails to meet the requirements of successfully pocketing a called ball or completing a legal safety on the third consecutive turn at the table, penalization is one point and an additional penalty of 15 points is assessed (a total of 18 points for three consecutive fouls equals -18 points). The commission of a third successive foul automatically clears the offender's record of fouls. The incoming player then has choice of (1) accepting the table in position, or (2) having all 15 balls reracked and requiring the offending player to shoot under the requirements of the opening break.

Has this rule been done away with???

DW

 

[Vahmurka]

Has this rule been done away with???

I would like to join Dennis with this question though I suppose since there is nothing written on the matter in new World rules, we shouldn't bother any longer. Mr Jewett, is that true?

 

[Bob Jewett]

I would like to join Dennis with this question though I suppose since there is nothing written on the matter in new World rules, we shouldn't bother any longer. Mr Jewett, is that true?

If you're talking about the "only a few safeties on a ball pretty close to the rail" rule, then yes, it has gone away entirely. It was replaced by a stalemate rule at 14.1, which is new.

It is possible to have a similar situation on the last ball at eight ball or nine ball, but usually this will resolve itself by the object ball freezing to the cushion. The difference is that those games have ball-in-hand for any foul.