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

[jsp]

From the WPA Rules for 10-ball...

9.5 Call Shots & Pocketing Balls
Whenever the shooter is attempting to pocket a ball (except the break) he is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant.

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..​

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.

EDIT: Due to the cases where the OB is close to or touching the rail, criterion #1 should probably be changed as follows...

1) The first thing the cue ball contacts is the pocketed ball or the rail adjacent to the pocket in which the ball is pocketed.​

 

[itsfroze]

=============

 

[BRussell]

I like what you've written.

The only time I recall this happening to me was when a ball was blocking about half the corner pocket, and my opponent (in 8-ball) tickied the ball past the blocker and into the pocket. OK, it's a typical shot, but the combination was just as typical in that situation, if not more. He didn't call it, I asked him if that's what he meant to do, and he said yes, so I let it go.

If he had hit the combination, I think there's a better argument that he would have to call it because it was non-obvious. The way he made it though, it wasn't a combination, so according to the WPA rules you quoted, you could argue he didn't have to call it. Your addition makes that situation more clear.

 

[jsp]

Having thought about it some more, an instance where there could still be controversy/confusion are shots where the OB is frozen on the rail, or very close to touching the rail. If the CB contacts the rail first (which is almost always the case when pocketing a ball frozen to the rail), then technically the shot wouldn't be obvious based on the proposed criteria.

Therefore, the most practical solution is simply to call all shots where there is a chance the CB touches the rail before the OB. In other words, call all shots where the OB touches the rail or is very close to it.

 

[DaveK]

....

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.

Eeek. I see this as a regression towards "bar rules". Last night in league there were two shots that based on your proposal could have been classified as "not called" and therefore not a legal pot ala "bar rules". In one the ball doubled up in the corner, flew over to the other long rail and bounced back into what we all considered the obvious corner. The other was a poor shot by myself, obviously going for the corner but pushed the ball a bit wide but caromed off a ball by the corner. I say that obvious pocket flukes are obvious. No way any reasonable player would have thought to call either of the shots I described. No way a reasonable and experienced player hasn't experienced these shots, they happen.

Just my thoughts.

Dave

 

[jsp]

If you point to the corner you're shooting it in, that's the most obvious shot. :thumbup:

If you're calling the shot, then there's absolutely no point in determining if it's obvious or not.

 

[bdorman]

I believe the rule in the MP Tournament was that a player must always call shot on the 10-ball, obvious or not. Kind of like how APA makes you "mark" the 8-ball pocket in blood; simply saying 8-ball, corner pocket isn't good enough.

Both are silly rules IMHO.

 

[jsp]

Eeek. I see this as a regression towards "bar rules". Last night in league there were two shots that based on your proposal could have been classified as "not called" and therefore not a legal pot ala "bar rules". In one the ball doubled up in the corner, flew over to the other long rail and bounced back into what we all considered the obvious corner. The other was a poor shot by myself, obviously going for the corner but pushed the ball a bit wide but caromed off a ball by the corner. I say that obvious pocket flukes are obvious. No way any reasonable player would have thought to call either of the shots I described. No way a reasonable and experienced player hasn't experienced these shots, they happen.

Just my thoughts.

Dave

I'm not sure if I understand you. The criteria I proposed is whether a shot is "obvious". Not whether a shot "is called" or not.

 

[itsfroze]

=============

 

[BRussell]

I'm not sure if I understand you. The criteria I proposed is whether a shot is "obvious". Not whether a shot "is called" or not.

But if all non-obvious shots have to be called, aren't they the same categories?

 

[Bob Jewett]

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?

 

[jsp]

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. 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?

Then the shot simply wasn't "obvious" according to the criteria. I don't see any issue here.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Then the shot simply wasn't "obvious" according to the criteria. I don't see any issue here.

So would it be counted as a point?

 

[jsp]

But if all non-obvious shots have to be called, aren't they the same categories?

I don't understand your question. Nothing changes in terms of all non-obvious shots have to be called. I'm only giving crystal-clear criteria what an "obvious" (or "non-obvious") shot is.

 

[SLIM]

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?

i would say that it is obvious that he intended to call the shot

slim

 

[Shannon.spronk]

Nevermind I read it wrong

 

[DaveK]

I'm not sure if I understand you. The criteria I proposed is whether a shot is "obvious". Not whether a shot "is called" or not.

???? Obvious shots don't have to be called. NOT obvious shots do have to be called. These two issues are inter-related.

You say "A shot grazing another OB when going to a pocket would NOT be obvious.". These happen by accident occasionally, and I would never think to call one. So if I shoot at an obvious corner, aim a little off and graze a ball on the way to the pocket, I understand you to say that os "NOT" obvious. Since it is not obvious I would have to call it. Since I expected to hit it in the middle I did not call it. What happens ? I say, like in bar rules, my opponent says "you didn't call that kiss, foul". Then the fight starts :thumbup:

Dave

 

[BRussell]

I don't understand your question. Nothing changes in terms of all non-obvious shots have to be called. I'm only giving crystal-clear criteria what an "obvious" (or "non-obvious") shot is.

What? The only point of deciding whether a shot is obvious or not is to decide whether it has to be called. If you significantly narrow the criteria for obvious shots - which is what you're suggesting - you significantly expand the number of shots that have to be called. Right?

 

[longhair]

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?

I haven't yet found an instance where I disagree with you Bob.

Maybe the proposed language needs refer to the obvious pocket rather than the obvious shot.

That said, I've been playing call shot games for more than two decades, and I don't remember ever seeing a legitimate disagreement about which is the obvious shot. If you play the game you know. I like the rule as it stands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jsp]

So would it be counted as a point?

No, it wouldn't, based on strictly interpreting the proposed criteria of what constitutes an obvious shot. The line has be drawn somewhere.