Bob Jewett & the world rules updates...

8

8ballbanger

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I understand that Bob Jewett is in the process of reviewing the world rules, so I thought we could start a thread to bring some points of ambiguity to his attention. I am sure he has a fair list already, but you never know what might have been overlooked. I hope this is not too late to be looked at.


I'll kick things off with a couple of problems with the writing of 8ball rule 4.2. which is defined here:

4.2 CALL SHOT
In Call Shot, obvious balls and pockets do not have to be indicated. It is the opponent's right to ask which ball and pocket if he is unsure of the shot. Bank shots and combination shots are not considered obvious, and care should be taken in calling both the object ball and the intended pocket. When calling the shot, it is never necessary to indicate details such as the number of cushions, banks, kisses, caroms, etc. Any balls pocketed on a
foul remain pocketed, regardless of whether they belong to the shooter or the opponent. The opening break is not a "called shot." Any player performing a break shot in 8-Ball may continue to shoot so long as any object ball is legally pocketed on the break.
Click to expand...

First problem, "Bank shots and combination shots are not considered obvious, and care should be taken in calling both the object ball and the intended pocket". Why is it only bank shots and combinations that are not considered obvious? Are caroms considered obvious (maybe tiny kisses are but long ones aren't)? kicks? masse's? jumps? I wouldn't have thought so. I think the answer to this one is to define what IS considered an obvious shot rather try to list every case that isn't obvious. Something like "a straightforward shot that cuts the object ball directly into the most accessible pocket". My wording sucks, but thats where Bob comes in.

Second problem with 4.2 is I think it contradicts itself in certain conditions. Hypothetically speaking, I have an "obvious shot" into a pocket, straight and no more than 1 foot total distance no other balls around it, so by the rules I don't need to call it because it's obvious. Lets say I shoot and miss the pot big time, launching the object ball round the table 2 times and luckily it ends up landing right into the pocket I was originally going for. Does the pot count? By convention yes, however the rule stipulates that bank shots are not obvious and must be called, so according to the rules it looks like it wasn't obvious and therefore couldn't have been implicitally called, hence the contradiction. Maybe rectified with some sort of "pre-shot intention" and "post shot result" clauses, or make it so fluke rebounds don't count.

Anyone else have some problems with the rules?
 
Around my local area...

"call pocket" means you only say which ball will go into which pocket.

"call shot" means you need to say not only which pocket, but include caroms, kisses, rails, etc. as the ball makes its way to the pocket(bar pool rules).

So I guess we have "call pocket", "call shot" which is the same as call pocket, and "bar call shot" which is different. Perhaps it would be good to clairify these terms to avoid confusion in the future?

(Also there seems to be no clear definition of what exactly "bar call shot" means....)
 
If you have the power please for the love of god get rid of the gimmick stick (jump cue) from the game. Jumps should be played with the shooters normal cue or not at all. Players should be allowed to use a break stick for the break, and then the cue they shoot with is what they shoot with from then on in each game.
 
8ballbanger said:
I understand that Bob Jewett is in the process of reviewing the world rules, so I thought we could start a thread to bring some points of ambiguity to his attention. I am sure he has a fair list already, but you never know what might have been overlooked. I hope this is not too late to be looked at.


I'll kick things off with a couple of problems with the writing of 8ball rule 4.2. which is defined here:



First problem, "Bank shots and combination shots are not considered obvious, and care should be taken in calling both the object ball and the intended pocket". Why is it only bank shots and combinations that are not considered obvious? Are caroms considered obvious (maybe tiny kisses are but long ones aren't)? kicks? masse's? jumps? I wouldn't have thought so. I think the answer to this one is to define what IS considered an obvious shot rather try to list every case that isn't obvious. Something like "a straightforward shot that cuts the object ball directly into the most accessible pocket". My wording sucks, but thats where Bob comes in.

Second problem with 4.2 is I think it contradicts itself in certain conditions. Hypothetically speaking, I have an "obvious shot" into a pocket, straight and no more than 1 foot total distance no other balls around it, so by the rules I don't need to call it because it's obvious. Lets say I shoot and miss the pot big time, launching the object ball round the table 2 times and luckily it ends up landing right into the pocket I was originally going for. Does the pot count? By convention yes, however the rule stipulates that bank shots are not obvious and must be called, so according to the rules it looks like it wasn't obvious and therefore couldn't have been implicitally called, hence the contradiction. Maybe rectified with some sort of "pre-shot intention" and "post shot result" clauses, or make it so fluke rebounds don't count.

Anyone else have some problems with the rules?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the rule, which obviously is why it needs to be reworded. The thing that's not obvious in a bank or combination is the ball and pocket. You never have to call the bank or combination. You only need to call the ball and pocket. So, if you're banking or shooting a combo, or a carom for that matter, the onus is on the shooter to call the ball and pocket.

If you're shooting an obvious straight in shot, you don't need to call it. If it so happens that you miscue the universe or simply undercut it, and the ball goes forty five rails and goes into the obvious pocket, then it's still good. IMO, there's no contradiction. Your opponent doesn't have to like it, though.


Fred
 
Well there we have it! The last poster used a good phrase to describe what is required in "Call Shot"....

"Call the ball and pocket"

So instead of using "Call Shot" or "Call Pocket", how about
using "Call the ball and pocket"?
 
8ballbanger said:
... I think the answer to this one is to define what IS considered an obvious shot rather try to list every case that isn't obvious. Something like "a straightforward shot that cuts the object ball directly into the most accessible pocket". My wording sucks, but thats where Bob comes in.

Second problem with 4.2 is I think it contradicts itself in certain conditions. ...
Click to expand...
In the past, I've proposed something like the first ball struck and the pocket towards which it is obviously driven. Usually there is no problem with the last part as there is often only one pocket that the ball can be driven towards without a bank, but if a ball is on the foot spot and the cue ball is on the center of the foot rail, there are four possible pockets that don't require a bank shot.

Another tricky situation is when you might strike a neighboring ball first, such as when you have spotted three balls on the foot spot and you play the last one straight into a foot pocket. It's easy to hit the middle object ball and still make the end ball., but the shot is still obvious.

I think the wording for this rule will not be easy.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think the wording for this rule will not be easy.
Click to expand...

Bob,

Why not just remove the "obvious".

All shots MUST be called. The ball to be made and which pocket.

If the rules have to be spelled out to cover the differences between 'obvious and non-obvious' why not just remove the problem.

I found out that it really helped my ability and confidence when I play 14.1 to call every shot, not just the non-obvious.
 
Tom In Cincy said:
Bob,

Why not just remove the "obvious". ...
Click to expand...
Two reasons. No one playing under WPA rules currently calls all shots. This has never, ever been done in 14.1 so far as I know.

Secondly, if it were a rule, you would have lots of conversations like "He called the eleven and shot the fifteen!" "But I meant the 15 -- it was the only ball on that end of the table." "But he said 11!"

The rules are not supposed to grossly interfere with play.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Secondly, if it were a rule, you would have lots of conversations like "He called the eleven and shot the fifteen!" "But I meant the 15 -- it was the only ball on that end of the table." "But he said 11!"

The rules are not supposed to grossly interfere with play.
Click to expand...

That sounds more like the players grossly interfering with play. Call every shot and call it correctly or it's a foul. I can't exactly grab the cue ball after a miscue and shoot again claiming "I didn't mean to miscue", why should I get to continue after calling the wrong ball?

I think Tom in Cincy hit on the, ummmm, obvious solution. :)
 
Bob Jewett said:
Two reasons. No one playing under WPA rules currently calls all shots. This has never, ever been done in 14.1 so far as I know. ...
Click to expand...
This seems not to be true. I'm not sure how it was actually implemented, but here is the rule for FIFTEEN-BALL CONTINUOUS POCKET BILLIARDS from 1914:

3 Before making a stroke the player must distinctly call the number of the ball he intends to pocket, and unless he does so the ball pocketed does not count for him and must be placed on the spot; or, if that be occupied, as near on a line below it as possible. The player loses his hand, but does not forfeit any points, and the next player plays. Should he call more than one ball, he must pocket all the balls he calls, otherwise none of them can be counted for him. A player is not required to pay a penalty for failure to move or hit a called ball provided he hits any other ball or balls on the table.
​
It seems that the player was not required to call the pocket.
 
Bob,

I hope you address the issue of push foul and double hit, in the case of where the cueball is close to or frozen to the object ball and you wish to shoot in the object ball's direction.

Now, there are too many rules and interpretations. Maybe in the case of where the cueball is very close to or frozen to the object ball, a push hit or double hit should be " legal as long as the stroke is continuous through the cueball and the cue tip penetrates the original space of the object ball" - something along those lines. True double hits are difficult to call.

Chris
 
TATE said:
... Maybe in the case of where the cueball is very close to or frozen to the object ball, a push hit or double hit should be " legal as long as the stroke is continuous through the cueball and the cue tip penetrates the original space of the object ball" - something along those lines. True double hits are difficult to call....
Click to expand...
Usually there is little question of whether a double hit occurred. You just have to judge by the action of the cue ball. Many people do not know how to judge the hit, however.

There are some problems with the suggestion of one continuous stroke permitted. Suppose you are playing one pocket and you're hoplessly trapped against the wrong side of the nearly-full rack -- almost frozen. Should it be OK to shot straight at the rack at break-shot speed in hopes that something will go into your pocket?

Similarly, suppose that at 14.1 the 15th object ball is just over the line, and you leave the cue ball in the rack. Should you be able to put the cue ball down a mm from the object ball for a dead shot and then lean into the shot with all your might to take the cue ball into the rack at 100MPH?

In the case of the cue ball being frozen to the object ball in the current rules, there is almost never a problem with determining a good hit. Very few players know how to play a push shot.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Very few players know how to play a push shot.
Click to expand...

For example, I and a lot of players are confused over the issue of what exactly is a legal shot.

With a cueball frozen to the object ball, shooting in the direction of the object ball with a level cue (where the cueball follows the object ball with a push or double hit), is it a legal stroke? There is a lot of debate over this. Some people say it's legal and some people say it's a push foul.

I personally feel this should be a legal stroke as long as the cue tip follows through in one continuous motion. I believe this shot requires skill, because the player usually has to throw the object ball to aim it and simultaneously control the direction of the cue ball which is moving at the same speed as the object ball.

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

That's why I believe that push fouls and double hits should be legal when the cue ball and object ball are very close and a legal hit with a level cue in the direction of the object ball is not otherwise possible.

Chris
 
> With a cueball frozen to the object ball, shooting in the direction of the object ball with a
> level cue (where the cueball follows the object ball with a push or double hit), is it a
> legal stroke? There is a lot of debate over this. Some people say it's legal and some
> people say it's a push foul.

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.

> That's why I believe that push fouls and double hits should be legal when the cue ball
> and object ball are very close and a legal hit with a level cue in the direction of the object
> ball is not otherwise possible.

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, an area of the rules that I feel causes some problems is the matter of accidentally moving balls when not playing all-ball fouls. For example, I know it's a foul is you move the ball that you are jumping over or masseing around. I know it's a foul if the ball moved affects the outcome of the shot, but I'm not quite sure what that means. Also, it seems most consider it a foul if you accedentally move an object ball a substantial distance.

Still, I have to admit, the matter of when accidentally moving object balls consitutes a foul when not playing all-ball fouls is, for me, a gray area in the rules.
 
Bob Jewett said:
> With a cueball frozen to the object ball, shooting in the direction of the object ball with a
> level cue (where the cueball follows the object ball with a push or double hit), is it a
> legal stroke? There is a lot of debate over this. Some people say it's legal and some
> people say it's a push foul.

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
Click to expand...

Bob,
Many people will say if the two balls are touching, that you must masse or shoot at a 45 degree angle to the line the two balls form. Would it be possible for the rules to not only say what is legal or illegal, but also to dispell myths such as this.
Tracy
 
RSB-Refugee said:
Bob,
Many people will say if the two balls are touching, that you must masse or shoot at a 45 degree angle to the line the two balls form. Would it be possible for the rules to not only say what is legal or illegal, but also to dispell myths such as this.
Tracy
Click to expand...
The 45-degree angle changes almost nothing in the hit, so rules that specify such an angle are fundamentally broken. Below is what the rule currently says, in part, although its context is somewhat confusing.
If the cue ball is touching the required object ball prior to the shot, the player may shoot toward it, providing that any normal stroke is employed.​
Nowhere in the WPA rules has there ever been any mention of this 45-degree idea.

Maybe pool eventually needs to adopt the snooker rule that requires you to shoot away from a frozen object ball and gives you credit for having hit it if that would be useful. I'm not going to propose such a rule, though, since it would change some games in major ways.
 
sjm said:
Bob, an area of the rules that I feel causes some problems is the matter of accidentally moving balls when not playing all-ball fouls. ...
Click to expand...
The official rules will assume a referee. I propose the following rule for when a referee is not present, but I thhnk it will not be part of the official rules:
Official matches will have a referee. If an informal match has no referee, the non-shooting player will assume all the duties of the referee.​
If you can't trust your opponent to call fouls, find a different opponent or get someone to watch the game.

But in general, I think it reflects very badly on the game that even major tournaments can't arrange to have referees.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Below is what the rule currently says, in part, although its context is somewhat confusing.
If the cue ball is touching the required object ball prior to the shot, the player may shoot toward it, providing that any normal stroke is employed.​
Nowhere in the WPA rules has there ever been any mention of this 45-degree idea.
Click to expand...
Bob,
Sorry if I was not clear enough in my earlier post. I did not say 45 degrees makes a difference, nor did I say it was in the rules. There are many people who are confused about it though. What I was wondering is, can the rules be written, to educate those who are confused on points like this, especially on rules where erroneous interpretations are known to exist.
How would this read,
"The cue ball shall not be in contact with the cue tip and an object ball simultaneously, except in the case of, the cue ball being frozen to the object ball prior to the shot as long as a normal stroke is employed."

Tracy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top