Call shot rules - What's an "obvious" shot?

[wutang]

Money ball should be called at ALL times whether its obvious or not or whether its written or not.

Show respect to your fellow man!

Wutang

 

[BRussell]

I've thought about this before and here is a possible solution. It's not perfect but it eliminates most of the problem.

For call shot, you need a ball and pocket. If there is no explicit call, the ball and pocket are set by the situation as follows. The default ball is the first ball struck by the cue ball. The default pocket is the pocket closest to the line the object ball is driven along after being hit by the cue ball.

That's it. I suppose you could add special cases for if the cue ball nicks an obstructing ball before contacting the true object ball and what to do on miscues and such. Personally, I think that if the referee is satisfied in whatever manner that the player made the intended shot, the shot should stand.

Makes sense to me. The only problem I see is that, if you hit a shot poorly and it goes in the wrong pocket - say, in the side rather than down the rail into the corner - it would count because that was the line the ball was on. That wouldn't happen with good players, but it happens with weaker players from time to time.

How do you feel about the situation you described earlier, where you miss a ball but it goes in the called pocket after a bank? That seems like it should be a miss, and it's only counted on a technicality. Maybe it's worth the occasional fluke for not needing to call the details of a shot, but to me it seems like it shouldn't count, if there would be a way to incorporate it into the rules.

 

[Solomon]

I play a lot of 8 ball and I always call the 8, even if it is hanging in the corner by a thread. I don't count slop during the game but I don't call the other balls if they are obvious by the OP's definition, but I'll call the 8 no matter what. I don't see why anyone wouldn't call the money ball in 10 ball if they are playing call shots.

 

[spartan]

For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.[/I].[/INDENT]
These are better rules than what were used in the Pacquiao tournament, but there are still issues with the way it is stated here. What exactly is an "obvious" shot? Nowhere in the rules is it precisely defined. Why can't one argue that a bank shot is obvious? Or that Shane's shot on the 10 in his forfeit to Alcano is not obvious?

So even using WPA rules as they are written, I can still envision instances where the ambiguity of the term "obvious" could be the cause of similar controversies as to what we've seen in the Pacquiao tournament. To solve this, the rules simply have to provide an absolutely clear and completely unambiguous definition of what an "obvious" shot is. This is what I propose...

A shot is "obvious" if it meets ALL of the following criteria:

1) The first thing the cue ball contacts (after being struck by the cue) is the pocketed ball.
2) The pocketed ball doesn't contact another object ball.
3) The pocketed ball doesn't contact a rail other than the two adjacent rails of the pocket in which it is pocketed.​

If any of the three criteria are not met on a particular shot, then the shot is NOT an "obvious" shot, and therefore should be called.

So given the addition of the above criteria to the rules, there can be no question as to whether a shot should have been called or not. Both Shane's and Biado's shot would be obvious. Any combination, carom, or kick shot would NOT be obvious. A shot grazing another OB when going to a pocket would NOT be obvious. If there is any chance the shot could fail one or more of the above criteria, it is your responsibility to call the shot.

No ambiguity whatsoever. I say we add the above criteria to the rules and eliminate the second paragraph of 9.5.

Good point. Like in any set of rules or regulations it is common that certain terms are not defined. In case of call shot games, "obvious" shot is one of them
I would add that obvious shots should not be shots where OB can go into more than 1 pocket excluding reverse cuts. In case of Shane while it is 99% guaranteed that shot is to corner pocket there is sliver of possibility that shot is to centre pocket . As long as there is sliver of possibility , shot should be called
Whereas in case of Biado, you can say with 100% certainty that shot is to centre pocket as it can go into no other pocket . Some say look at way he is shooting which is bit ambiguous. The player could have Alzheimer's or fidgety disease so his pre-shot could be different from others. IMHO, the ref need only know where the shot is to and he looks at end result and whether OB goes into called pocket - he should not have to be Sherlock Holmes trying to deduce where shot is to

 

[Bob Jewett]

Money ball should be called at ALL times whether its obvious or not or whether its written or not. Show respect to your fellow man!
...

You've got to be kidding. Nice joke!

 

[Bob Jewett]

.. . I don't see why anyone wouldn't call the money ball in 10 ball if they are playing call shots.

Because the money ball is sitting right in front of the hole and there is no other possible pocket and because every shot was obvious during the game no other ball was ever called. Oh, and they trust their opponent and referee.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... In case of Shane while it is 99% guaranteed that shot is to corner pocket there is sliver of possibility that shot is to centre pocket . As long as there is sliver of possibility , shot should be called
...

So you want to apply that to every shot at 10 ball? That would cause far more problems than it would fix.

 

[spartan]

So you want to apply that to every shot at 10 ball? That would cause far more problems than it would fix.

No. Only where there are more than 1 pocket that OB can go to excluding reverse cut
In case of Shane, shot could be to 3 pockets - top left corner , left centre pocket and reverse cut to top right corner. We can rule out reverse cuts as I see most pros never like reverse cuts do that leaves 2 possible pockets and has to be called. Biado and Efren last 10 need not be called as only 1 pocket to go to. Pulpul gifted shot of respotted 10 must be called cos it could be shot to top right corner or bank to opposite corner

 

[Solomon]

Because the money ball is sitting right in front of the hole and there is no other possible pocket and because every shot was obvious during the game no other ball was ever called. Oh, and they trust their opponent and referee.

I'm comparing your example to my experience of playing 8 ball and I always call the 8 ball (money ball). Even when all other shots are technically call pocket, I don't call every obvious shot but I call the 8 ball regardless. As I said in my earlier post... The 8 ball could be hanging in the pocket by a thread and I'd still call it.

 

[jsp]

No. Only where there are more than 1 pocket that OB can go to excluding reverse cut
In case of Shane, shot could be to 3 pockets - top left corner , left centre pocket and reverse cut to top right corner. We can rule out reverse cuts as I see most pros never like reverse cuts do that leaves 2 possible pockets and has to be called. Biado and Efren last 10 need not be called as only 1 pocket to go to. Pulpul gifted shot of respotted 10 must be called cos it could be shot to top right corner or bank to opposite corner

Excluding "reverse cuts" adds another layer of ambiguity, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid.

What is a reverse cut? How do you define it? Do we need to get out a tape measure or protractor to determine what shot is considered a reverse cut or not?

 

[jsp]

I've thought about this before and here is a possible solution. It's not perfect but it eliminates most of the problem.

For call shot, you need a ball and pocket. If there is no explicit call, the ball and pocket are set by the situation as follows. The default ball is the first ball struck by the cue ball. The default pocket is the pocket closest to the line the object ball is driven along after being hit by the cue ball.

I can foresee many issues with bank shots, especially ones into the side pockets. What you proposed still holds a substantial amount of ambiguity, considering we would have to determine what pocket is "closest to the line the object ball is driven along after being hit by the cue ball".

Personally, I think that if the referee is satisfied in whatever manner that the player made the intended shot, the shot should stand.

And what if there is no referee? The case of no referee is precisely why we need completely unambiguous rules.

I still don't understand what you have against my proposed rule modifications (actually, it's more a rule addition/clarification than it is a modification/change). Is the fluked-in shot that you described earlier really the best reason the rules shouldn't be written as I proposed? If so, then you have to ask yourself what is the true spirit behind call shot rules in the first place? The simple answer is to NOT reward unintended shots.

 

[jsp]

just want to add...

Yes. The shot Bob described is a legal shot, and all of us would recognize it as such.

And for that particular shot, it's a shot that is fluked in. The current rules award that particular lucky scenario. My proposed rules do not (only if the shot isn't called).

Nobody (almost nobody) wants to play our game worrying about every kiss and tick.

I think you may have misunderstood what I proposed. I'm not saying we have to call every "kiss and tick" or how many rails, etc. To call a shot, you still only have to call the ball and the pocket. That is wrong.

Going back to Bob's 8-signma example, if that shot was called (meaning only the ball and pocket were designated), then the fluked in shot would be a legal shot. It only becomes an 'illegal' shot if the shot wasn't called, because the shot would not longer be considered "obvious" based on the criteria.

 

[JC]

Over at the MP cup I believe the Filipinos understand exactly what is being said in this thread and were trying in good conscience to eliminate "definitions" of what an obvious shot is and thus eliminate controversy. They failed, in large part because once you build something completely idiot proof, they just come out with an improved version of idiot. Call the 10 ball, how damned hard is that to understand? Or maybe homey just don't play that..........

JC

 

[PaulieB]

Well, OK, but suppose.... The player lines up a standard side-of-the-rack 14.1 break shot. Everybody on Earth knows what he is going to play especially since he is on a run of 525. He smashes it at Hohmann speed and the object ball misses full on the end rail, goes four cushions, kisses off a ball a diamond out from the intended pocket and then falls in the intended pocket. No shot was ever called. Everybody on Earth knows that he made the obvious shot but not as intended.

What happens under your rules?

The rules suggested mention in rule three that the pocketed ball doesn't contact any rails other than the 2 adjacent to the obvious pocket. Going 4 rails negates that rule.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I'm not sure how I can make things more clear.

A shot that is not obvious has to be called. Nothing has changed here.

But what is an obvious shot? Presently, there is nothing in the rules that define what an obvious shot is. I'm defining it by the below criteria...

The following determines whether a shot is obvious...

1) The first thing the cue ball contacts (after being struck by the cue) is the pocketed ball.
2) The pocketed ball doesn't contact another object ball.
3) The pocketed ball doesn't contact a rail other than the two adjacent rails of the pocket in which it is pocketed.

If the shot doesn't meet all of the above criteria, then it is not an obvious shot.

Give me any shot you can think of and there will be no doubt was to whether the shot should be considered obvious or not. That's the entire point of adding the criteria.

See attached image.

The obvious shot is to play the 1 ball off the 5 ball.

But wait, under your stupid rules it wouldn't be obvious because the first object ball (1) hit another object ball (5) before going into the pocket.

So even though the most logical choice was made, it wouldn't count under your stupid rules, unless the player called the 1 off the 5. Which is unnecessary considering, that again, it's the most logical AND obvious choice.

 

[miscrewed89]

Well, I was enjoying it. This is just getting ridiculous now. Remind me not to.play with any of you who think Pulpal did the right thing...

 

[Lonestar_jim]

This thread looks like a carryover from the Pac-man travesty thread.

Title should be: NITS revolutionize call shot pool.

 

[jsp]

See attached image.

The obvious shot is to play the 1 ball off the 5 ball.

But wait, under your stupid rules it wouldn't be obvious because the first object ball (1) hit another object ball (5) before going into the pocket.

So even though the most logical choice was made, it wouldn't count under your stupid rules, unless the player called the 1 off the 5. Which is unnecessary considering, that again, it's the most logical AND obvious choice.

Call the 1 ball because there's a chance it'll nick the 5. If the 5 weren't there, then there obviously would be no issue so no call is necessary. But it is there, so call the 1. Is this really so complicated, or so out of your way to say "1 ball in the corner pocket"?

Can I also not put a diagram of how "obvious" a angle-on, cross-side bank would be, with the OB close to the rail? Do you also think that it's "stupid" to call the shot on such an "obvious" bank?

 

[PaulieB]

See attached image.

The obvious shot is to play the 1 ball off the 5 ball.

But wait, under your stupid rules it wouldn't be obvious because the first object ball (1) hit another object ball (5) before going into the pocket.

So even though the most logical choice was made, it wouldn't count under your stupid rules, unless the player called the 1 off the 5. Which is unnecessary considering, that again, it's the most logical AND obvious choice.

His point is that if the 5 wasn't there you wouldn't need to call the 1. Because the 5 is there, you need to call the 1 into that pocket because it could POSSIBLY carom off the 5. You do not need to call if it will carom off the 5, you just need to call the 1 in that pocket because there is a chance that you may go off of the 5, thus violating rule 2 of his proposed "obvious shot" rules. Once the 1 is called in that pocket, if it goes in off the 5 or not it doesn't matter. You have called the pocket it went in, you hit the called object ball first, and it didn't go off other rails besides the one adjacent to the called pocket. The intended rules aren't really stupid, you just didn't understand them.

 

[jsp]

See attached image.

The obvious shot is to play the 1 ball off the 5 ball.

But wait, under your stupid rules it wouldn't be obvious because the first object ball (1) hit another object ball (5) before going into the pocket.

So even though the most logical choice was made, it wouldn't count under your stupid rules, unless the player called the 1 off the 5. Which is unnecessary considering, that again, it's the most logical AND obvious choice.

Also, why don't you incrementally move the 5 closer and closer to the pocket. At exactly what point should the 5 be located where the shot on the 1 is no longer obvious? That's precisely where the rule additions help.