Called shots rule

[GADawg]

[As nitty and peckerheaded as it sounds, Player B is unfortunately right, although Player B is a pedantic opportunistic fool, IMHO.

-Sean[/QUOTE]

I agree with your conclusion.

However I think there is a grammatical rule against using "peckerhead" and "pedantic" in the same sentence. Perhaps even the same paragraph. :wink:

 

[sfleinen]

As nitty and peckerheaded as it sounds, Player B is unfortunately right, although Player B is a pedantic opportunistic fool, IMHO.

-Sean

I agree with your conclusion.

However I think there is a grammatical rule against using "peckerhead" and "pedantic" in the same sentence. Perhaps even the same paragraph. :wink:

HA HA HA HA!!

You got me there, GADawg!! Two points!

-Sean

 

[Pushout]

Player A (playing solids) pocketed a 1-ball with a combination but he DID NOT CALL the shot. Before his next shot his opponent (Player B) interrupted him saying that the shot was not called, so it was a safety, so now it is Player B to shoot. Player A did not agree, so the players have called a Referee (You). And now, what is your decision?

The shot looks obvious to me as it looks like the 2 does not go in the other corner. In Straight Pool I'd have no problem with this. I don't play 8 ball, however.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Even though this combination is obvious, we can't have a rule that all combinations must be called "unless they're obvious" because that invites endless arguments about what's "obvious" and what's not. The rules must define what "obvious" means, and the only practical way is to say all combinations are not obvious.

As the opponent I'd let it go, but as a TD I'd have to rule the shot illegal, and it's not being nit-picky. It's upholding the letter of a rule that has good reason to be upheld to the letter.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Here is a situation that came up a couple weeks ago. Your opponent is solids and gets down to shoot without calling anything. turns out he missed anyway but had he made one he should of called it as there are multiple ways of playing this shot even thought he didnt think so. Latter he said it was obvious that he was playing the 2 is the side. So how would you play this?

CueTable Help

The 2 in the side is not obvious. One reason is that the combination 1 in the side is an obvious alternative.

Another reason is that I'd probably bank it and might hit the bank badly enough to put it directly in the other side (yes, you want my action).

pj
chgo

 

[GADawg]

The 2 in the side is not obvious. One reason is that the combination 1 in the side is an obvious alternative.

Another reason is that I'd probably bank it and might hit the bank badly enough to put it directly in the other side (yes, you want my action).

pj
chgo

If I were his opponent and he cut the two into the side, I would let that slide as obvious, but a combination on the one would have to be called.

If it was me shooting solids and I was playing the two in the side, I would call it just to be clear, but I think it is not required

I sort of like your bank idea.. If you shoot it a pocket speed and either stick the cue ball or draw back a couple inches, you haven't really left much

 

[witzar]

My thanks go to sfleinen and Patrick Johnson for their great posts! :smile:
Now I have no more doubts in the subject. Thanks again for explaining this so clearly!

 

[sfleinen]

Two different pockets for that combination/carom

The shot looks obvious to me as it looks like the 2 does not go in the other corner. In Straight Pool I'd have no problem with this. I don't play 8 ball, however.

Pushout:

Actually, the 2 ball will go in the upper righthand corner, if it's hit with a bit (just a bit, maybe half a tip) of righthand draw, cut to the left slightly (meaning, aim slightly to the right of center on the 2-ball), and hit HARD. (You'll need to let your stroke out on this one.) The 1-ball will go streaking into the bottom righthand corner pocket, and the 2-ball will carom off the 1-ball into the upper righthand corner pocket.

This is a favorite One Pocket shot of mine, even though it gives up a ball to your opponent (obviously, one has to "play the score" when considering this shot -- you wouldn't play this if your opponent only needs one or two balls).

But I digress... that's neither here nor there. The point being, even though that combination is obvious where it's going even to Rainman, by "the letter of the law" (i.e. the WPA/BCA rules), it isn't obvious. Like I said, Player B is "technically correct," but he/she is a pedantic fool.

-Sean