Chang - Foul or Not?

[jsp]

I'm surprised this is even debatable. This is 100% a foul. You can roll the cue ball around with the ferrule all day long but you can never use the tip to poke at the cue ball like he did. This is common practice everywhere. Absolutely no question.

It's debatable in this case simply because this is a tournament that goes by certain agreed upon rules, and the wording of those rules determine whether something is actually a foul. Whatever is "common practice everywhere" is entirely irrelevant when there are specific rules that the players have agreed upon to participate in the tournament. And in this case, it all boils down to what exactly is meant by a "forward stroke" written in the rules.

IMO, what Chang did was a foul per the rules, since what he did with the cue can constitute as a forward stroke. But rewriting the rules for clarification should help.

Another related question is at what point after the CB is placed with BIH does the CB become 'live' and can't be inadvertently touched? For example, what happens if shooter, after placing the CB in position with BIH, accidentally touches the CB with his stick/finger/clothing? Would that be a foul, even if you can still intentionally grab the CB and reposition it?

 

[Banger]

He's a gambler and he didn't consider this taking a chance. Its just a habit, a natural thing done in practice sessions and when gambling. No one ever calls it when gambling unless you want to lose all your Action and 99.999% of the time its not called in tournament play either.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that if you are going to play in tournaments, then you would be wise to know the rules, and to follow them.

 

[jsp]

For the record, I believe most of the people saying "foul" would never call this if they were gambling with someone. The fact that it's a world championship with a referee is what makes it an obvious foul. Intentions don't mean anything. I would never call this foul playing at my local pool room.

I, too, would never call this foul without a referee. And I think 99.9% of other players wouldn't either. But I do agree that it is the job of the referee to call all fouls as technically written in the rules.

But what I would like to see is a level of sportsmanship in the game in which Filler would give BIH back to Chang due to the ref calling these technicality fouls. But some would argue that Filler giving BIH back to Chang would be unsportsmanlike against the ref. I disagree.

I just experienced deja vu. I commented on a very similar situation with Chang and Filler back in April. In that situation, after pocketing the 10 ball Chang took out an OB from the pocket while the CB was still moving...

 

[sjm]

First of all, I'm no guru as far as this rule. I'm also no guru with respect to the application and interpretation of the law, but in the legal profession, there's often a difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. One of the reasons we have judges is to preside over which of these should prevail in certain cases.

I see a pool referee as playing a similar role to that of a judge. My opinion is that this was a foul by the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law is to disqualify any movement of the cue ball that could possibly be interpreted as a shot. It's hard to imagine anyone interpreting Chang as having done something that could be viewed as a shot attempt.

Like a judge, a pool referee must sometimes interpret the law/rules, applying them in a way that serves justice and sets a precedent for future rulings. It's my opinion that this foul, though valid, should not have been called as the spirit of the rule was not violated.

 

[Bob Jewett]

At snooker the judgement is left up to the referee. Here is the pertinent section:

If the tip of the cue should touch the cue-ball while positioning it, and the referee is satisfied that the striker was not attempting to play a stroke, then the cue-ball is not in play.​

​

This seems like a reasonable way to handle it, but lots of people don't like rules that require judgement of intent.

By the current definition of a shot, Chang played a shot. I think the ruling was correct and that the referee had no "wiggle room" that might have allowed the foul to be overlooked.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I, too, would never call this foul without a referee. And I think 99.9% of other players wouldn't either. But I do agree that it is the job of the referee to call all fouls as technically written in the rules.

But what I would like to see is a level of sportsmanship in the game in which Filler would give BIH back to Chang due to the ref calling these technicality fouls. But some would argue that Filler giving BIH back to Chang would be unsportsmanlike against the ref. I disagree.

I just experienced deja vu. I commented on a very similar situation with Chang and Filler back in April. In that situation, after pocketing the 10 ball Chang took out an OB from the pocket while the CB was still moving...

I haven't seen this before, and just watched it now. I think this "rule" is very bad, and it's also different from event to event. If the promoters insist on this rule, the players IMO should go to their chair and not even attempt to help the ref with the balls, like in Snooker.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I, too, would never call this foul without a referee. And I think 99.9% of other players wouldn't either. But I do agree that it is the job of the referee to call all fouls as technically written in the rules.

But what I would like to see is a level of sportsmanship in the game in which Filler would give BIH back to Chang due to the ref calling these technicality fouls. But some would argue that Filler giving BIH back to Chang would be unsportsmanlike against the ref. I disagree.
...snip...

I too wouldn't call this foul in a personal match. But striking the cb forward with the tip has been a foul forever, even while placing. Sometimes when a player is "down on the shot" he/she is still fudging with its position with the ferrule. In that player stance, if the player were to do what Chang did, then it could reasonable be considered a shot.

The giving back of the shot with an intentional foul is definitely against the sportsmanship rules of "trying to win", and would probably be called a foul again.

 

[pt109]

You guys would have been in a lot of fights where i grew up. There's the literate rule itself and this long lost thing called 'common sense'. Anyone with half-a-brain would know this was no foul. Think he was playing a shot?? Rule needs to be re-done as said above saying 'no tip contact' or something. I still say its nitty as fk.

I abided by the snooker rule when I was gambling…..easy enough…don’t touch the cue ball with the tip….
…..don‘t need any other wording.
Never got into an argument on that….I always gave a warning on first offence.

The game of pool needs a legal mind to clean up the rules…snooker has always been ahead.
In ‘91, they were still using the rule that if you knocked an object ball off the table, it was not a foul…
I complained about that rule at a player’s meeting and Joe Kerr had the rule changed within a month

 

[pt109]

That's not really how the WPA rule reads:

6.12 Cue Stick on the Table​

​

If the shooter uses his cue stick in order to align a shot by placing it on the table without having a hand on the stick, it is a foul.​

​

From what it says, I'd say it would not be a foul to place the cue on the table, for example, to tie your shoes or during a timeout, providing it is clear that you aren't also trying "to align a shot."

If I was gambling, my opponent could line up the shot any way he wants….hell, he can use a range finder…..
…….it means he can’t play at a high level.

 

[Rocket354]

At snooker the judgement is left up to the referee. Here is the pertinent section:

If the tip of the cue should touch the cue-ball while positioning it, and the referee is satisfied that the striker was not attempting to play a stroke, then the cue-ball is not in play.​

​

This seems like a reasonable way to handle it, but lots of people don't like rules that require judgement of intent.

By the current definition of a shot, Chang played a shot. I think the ruling was correct and that the referee had no "wiggle room" that might have allowed the foul to be overlooked.

Agreed. It's not the ref's job to decide what the rules "really" mean. He's to enforce the rules as they are, and he made the correct call.

What no one needs, least of all the ref, is the introduction of subjectivity into the job, and then have to deal with complaints/accusations of favoring certain players.

 

[Rocket354]

First of all, I'm no guru as far as this rule. I'm also no guru with respect to the application and interpretation of the law, but in the legal profession, there's often a difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. One of the reasons we have judges is to preside over which of these should prevail in certain cases.

I see a pool referee as playing a similar role to that of a judge. My opinion is that this was a foul by the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law is to disqualify any movement of the cue ball that could possibly be interpreted as a shot. It's hard to imagine anyone interpreting Chang as having done something that could be viewed as a shot attempt.

Like a judge, a pool referee must sometimes interpret the law/rules, applying them in a way that serves justice and sets a precedent for future rulings. It's my opinion that this foul, though valid, should not have been called as the spirit of the rule was not violated.

The ref is not a judge, he's an enforcer. If we allow refs to enforce or not enforce rules at their own discretion then you get different rules for every match, depending on who the ref is, or even what mood he's in. That sets a bad precedent for refs to decide their own version of the rules.

The rule is clear. If people don't like it then propose a better rule and get it approved by the powers that be.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don’t think for one moment what Chang did constitutes a forward stroke. The intent was clear: positioning the cueball.

Yep. Especially when the rule allows using the tip.

Nit City.

pj
chgo

 

[mrshifty]

Just for arguments sake, what if he was moving the cueball like that and it got away from him and hit the lowest number ball on the table and taps it to a rail? Foul, or legal hit? And who gets to decide?

 

[sjm]

The ref is not a judge, he's an enforcer. If we allow refs to enforce or not enforce rules at their own discretion then you get different rules for every match, depending on who the ref is, or even what mood he's in. That sets a bad precedent for refs to decide their own version of the rules.

The rule is clear. If people don't like it then propose a better rule and get it approved by the powers that be.

Yes, the ref is a judge, especially when it comes to unsportsmanlike conduct rules. He/she is also a judge during the play, as Jay Helfert, who has refereed countless matches, has offered on numerous occasions.

At the International in what I believe was 2021, the ref had to judge whether a shot clock foul had occurred or not when his own delay in removal of the template had contributed to the expiration of the shot clock. The letter of the law says that the shot clock had expired, but the referee judged that strict application of the rule was unfair on that occasion and ruled "no foul". Jay Helfert strongly approved of the non-literal interpretation of the rule on that occasion.

There are many times a referee has the right to interpret, as well as apply, the rules.

 

[23DenaliBDE]

I would have called this on my toddler in a friendly match. Let's pretend we are teaching someone to play for a second. My toddler, for example. Dad, what's BIH? Well, Son, you now get to shoot from wherever you want. While the ball is in my hand? Don't be dumb Denali Jr, you chuck onto the table and then whack at it multiple times with your cue while it rolls around. It's how the pros do it!

 

[DeadStick]

I, too, would never call this foul without a referee. And I think 99.9% of other players wouldn't either. But I do agree that it is the job of the referee to call all fouls as technically written in the rules.

But what I would like to see is a level of sportsmanship in the game in which Filler would give BIH back to Chang due to the ref calling these technicality fouls. But some would argue that Filler giving BIH back to Chang would be unsportsmanlike against the ref. I disagree.

I just experienced deja vu. I commented on a very similar situation with Chang and Filler back in April. In that situation, after pocketing the 10 ball Chang took out an OB from the pocket while the CB was still moving...

That’s crazy that such a similar nitty foul happened to the same player, while playing the same opponent, within a span of a few months. And in this first incident, I’m surprised he got away with breaking down his cue after the foul. Props to Filler for not enforcing that sign of concession.

Chang must be feeling snakebit at this point.

 

[Bob Jewett]

One way to look at it....

If the cue ball was not in hand and the player was playing a pushout after a break and the cue ball was where a mechanical bridge was needed but the player didn't want to bother and the player used exactly the same motion Chang did.... It would be a legal shot.

From that perspective, Chang played a shot.

 

[pt109]

That’s crazy that such a similar nitty foul happened to the same player, while playing the same opponent, within a span of a few months. And in this first incident, I’m surprised he got away with breaking down his cue after the foul. Props to Filler for not enforcing that sign of concession.

Chang must be feeling snakebit at this point.

Pretty bad reasoning here, IMO….you make it sound like it HAPPENED to him….he DID it

 

[Rocket354]

Yes, the ref is a judge, especially when it comes to unsportsmanlike conduct rules. He/she is also a judge during the play, as Jay Helfert, who has refereed countless matches, has offered on numerous occasions.

At the International in what I believe was 2021, the ref had to judge whether a shot clock foul had occurred or not when his own delay in removal of the template had contributed to the expiration of the shot clock. The letter of the law says that the shot clock had expired, but the referee judged that strict application of the rule was unfair on that occasion and ruled "no foul". Jay Helfert strongly approved of the non-literal interpretation of the rule on that occasion.

There are many times a referee has the right to interpret, as well as apply, the rules.

A ref has to use judgment in cases that aren't black and white. A ref delaying the proceedings is not a player missing the shot clock. Unsportsmanlike conduct is too broad a category to enumerate all possibilities.

Chang broke a clear black and white rule. There's no judgment to use, nor should there be.

 

[9Ballr]

It feels like we’ve addressed this “touching the cueball with the tip during BiH” a thousand times. I always understood this not to be a foul. But John called it. The wording says, “forward stroke.” I don’t think for one moment what Chang did constitutes a forward stroke. The intent was clear: positioning the cueball.


Really, I’m not looking for opinions from people who have nothing to do with creating or clarifying the rules. So really looking to Bob, Dr Dave, RandyG, even Ozzy.

https://fb.watch/oheynQ8kvm/?mibextid=v7YzmG

Yes, touching the cueball with the tip = foul. Especially like that. It's one thing if cue is on top of it but at the tip, but this is very clearly a foul.