Crying Foul with No Witness!

[JAM]

Recently, I watched a couple of players engaged in a 5 ahead one-pocket match. The set progressed and was soon hill-hill, with one side needing only one ball for the win.

However, the only shot he had was a safety play made by his opponent, with the cue-ball and the object ball about an eighth of an inch apart on the opposite end rail of his designated pocket, right near the corner. The player jacked up on the ball, trying to bank the object ball one rail to his pocket, i.e., he "pushed" the ball jacked up.

The foul crier, who needed 6 balls to win the set, was seated about 30 feet from the pocket. He cried foul, stating he saw the cue-ball move ahead of the object ball, but didn't stop. A verbal argument ensued, getting very heated.

Some folks on the rail said that if there is no witness or referee to give a fair ruling, that the decision goes to the player who shot the ball automatically.

What's the right call here, if there is one? Should the player who thought it was a foul have initially gotten a witness to make the call? Since he wasn't right on top of the shot himself and was viewing it cross-table, it was his word against the other player's.

If a player doesn't get a neutral party to judge a "fair" shot at its inception, is it acceptable for him to still cry foul?

I'd be interested to read viewpoints!

JAM

 

[1pRoscoe]

Based upon that, it is a touchy subject... I have seen a few heated arguements on this topic as well.

I think that if he was concerned with foul play, he should've moved closer to have a better view of the shot. When I am playing like that, I'll be no more than 10' away with a view. If my opponent were to jack up on a shot, you can bet your bottom dollar I will be close to see.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I just played in a tournament where they said before the tournament started...

"If there is a questionable shot about to be played, and you don't call a referee to witness the shot, the call *will* go to the shooter. If you don't call a referee, don't whine about the shot."

 

[rayjay]

Without a referee, it's up to the player who's not shooting to get a neutral (preferably an "official" or referee) party to observe the hit and make a determination whether foul or not. If he doesn't do that, then it's the shooter's word. As he was 30 feet away and didn't ask for an observer, he's out of luck. Live and learn. If it's gonna be close, better to be safe than sorry and get an observer to make the call.
rayjay

 

[Teacherman]

How do you go hill-hill in a 5 ahead set?

 

[1pRoscoe]

How do you go hill-hill in a 5 ahead set?

She meant the shooter was on the hill.

 

[Teacherman]

If the call goes to the shooter (when no referee saw the shot), I'll shoot any and all shots, however I want to shoot, them including by fouling......yet never foul

 

[Troy]

I would think the following rule applies ---

" 2.20 JUDGING DOUBLE HITS
When the distance between the cue ball and the object ball is less than the width of a chalk cube, special attention from the referee is required. In such a situation, unless the referee can positively determine a legal shot has been performed, the following guidance may apply: if the cue ball follows through the object ball more than 1/2 ball, it is a foul."

Note the comment about "special attention from the referee" and "guidance MAY apply". This leads me to believe (among other things) that the foul can NOT be called by the opponent from about 30' away.

Troy

Recently, I watched a couple of players engaged in a 5 ahead one-pocket match. The set progressed and was soon hill-hill, with one side needing only one ball for the win.

However, the only shot he had was a safety play made by his opponent, with the cue-ball and the object ball about an eighth of an inch apart on the opposite end rail of his designated pocket, right near the corner. The player jacked up on the ball, trying to bank the object ball one rail to his pocket, i.e., he "pushed" the ball jacked up.

The foul crier, who needed 6 balls to win the set, was seated about 30 feet from the pocket. He cried foul, stating he saw the cue-ball move ahead of the object ball, but didn't stop. A verbal argument ensued, getting very heated.

Some folks on the rail said that if there is no witness or referee to give a fair ruling, that the decision goes to the player who shot the ball automatically.

What's the right call here, if there is one? Should the player who thought it was a foul have initially gotten a witness to make the call? Since he wasn't right on top of the shot himself and was viewing it cross-table, it was his word against the other player's.

If a player doesn't get a neutral party to judge a "fair" shot at its inception, is it acceptable for him to still cry foul?

I'd be interested to read viewpoints!

JAM

 

[Teacherman]

She meant the shooter was on the hill.

Doesn't hill-hill mean both are on the hill?

 

[JAM]

How do you go hill-hill in a 5 ahead set?

You know, you're right, Teacherman. It wasn't an ahead set. Originally, it was supposed to be 4 ahead, but they changed it to a race to 5. When it was all said and done, it was 5:30 a.m. and JAM was a little punchy!

JAM

 

[Teacherman]

I would think the following rule applies ---

" 2.20 JUDGING DOUBLE HITS
When the distance between the cue ball and the object ball is less than the width of a chalk cube, special attention from the referee is required. In such a situation, unless the referee can positively determine a legal shot has been performed, the following guidance may apply: if the cue ball follows through the object ball more than 1/2 ball, it is a foul."

Thanks Troy, but both players know the rules. They both have different claims and no one witnessed it.

 

[Teacherman]

You can't rule all unwitnessed events to the shooter. You can't rule all unwitnessed events to the opponent.

You have to at least flip a coin or put the ruling to chance. Because, if I'm the shooter I'll use it to my advantage or if I'm the opponent I may use it to my advantage.

No real good way to handle it. But, giving it automatically to one or the other is clearly wrong.

 

[JAM]

I would think the following rule applies ---

" 2.20 JUDGING DOUBLE HITS
When the distance between the cue ball and the object ball is less than the width of a chalk cube, special attention from the referee is required. In such a situation, unless the referee can positively determine a legal shot has been performed, the following guidance may apply: if the cue ball follows through the object ball more than 1/2 ball, it is a foul."

Note the comment about "special attention from the referee" and "guidance MAY apply". This leads me to believe (among other things) that the foul can NOT be called by the opponent from about 30' away.

Troy

And this is the way the majority of the friendly railbirds saw it, too!

However, one player needed only 1 ball for the win, and the other guy who cried foul needed 6 balls. They were racing to five, and it was hill-hill.

After the heated argument, which got quite loud, the foul crier said he wasn't going to budge until his opponent spotted up a ball. Thus, the alleged foul player conceded and did spot a ball to get the game going. He ended up winning the set on his next turn at the table.

JAM

 

[Teacherman]

In a gambling match, the sucker should always win the ruling..........if the player wants to keep the sucker around.

Right christyd???????????

BTW, do you know who the sucker is if you look around and can't see one?

 

[DaveK]

If the call goes to the shooter (when no referee saw the shot), I'll shoot any and all shots, however I want to shoot, them including by fouling......yet never foul

I guess you just gotta watch some folks closer than others ... and be careful who you play !

Around here the situation is like rayjay described. Mostly, on shots where a foul is quite possible, the opponent will ask for a neutral party to referee the shot. If they don't, and a close call needs to be made, the shooter tends to have the final say.

We also play a couple of 45-degree rules when CB and OB are within a chalk-cube distance. If you shoot into the ball and have your cue elevated at least 45 degrees, no push foul can be called. Also, if you shoot at least 45 degrees of cut on the close ball, again no foul can be called. Don't know how common this approach is, but would be interested to hear if any other halls have similar rules (hey, I don't get out much ).

Dave

 

[Billy_Bob]

If the call goes to the shooter (when no referee saw the shot), I'll shoot any and all shots, however I want to shoot, them including by fouling......yet never foul

If it is an "invitation only" tournament, I wonder if you would get invited next time around?

 

[JAM]

Most Tour Directors, being players themselves, have a high tolerance for shenanigans, but you can't con a con.

Most times, people look at unjust foul-crying as a "move," in an effort to thwart the other guy's momentum; a pregnant pause, if you will, to slow him down if he's on a roll or a high run.

Much like racking problems appearing at the end of matches when the score is close!

In the incident I cited, the foul-crier was on the verge of losing the set, with his opponent needing only one ball. It was unfortunate that it occurred at that time, too.

Moral of the story, I guess, is that when in doubt of a shot, one should get a neutral party or a referee immediately. It's up to the player who is seated to do so if a shot looks questionable (IMO).

JAM

 

[Teacherman]

If it is an "invitation only" tournament, I wonder if you would get invited next time around?

Just pointing out some things to the rookies around here.

 

[jjinfla]

If questionable call someone to watch (usually your partner)

If you didn't call someone to watch then call "foul" and hope he will agree with you. If it's obvious he usually will. If it's close he still might agree with you. If it needs explanation call someone to explain the rule (your partner).


And Jam this past weekend I saw a woman call a foul. The other woman was stunned and asked what did I do? She was told her shirt touched another ball.

They were playing CB fouls only and of course they both knew this. So it wasn't a foul. But it did upset the woman was was up 2 zip. She was still talking about it when she was down 3-2.

Players will do anything to break concentration.

Jake

 

[Bob Jewett]

...
Moral of the story, I guess, is that when in doubt of a shot, one should get a neutral party or a referee immediately. It's up to the player who is seated to do so if a shot looks questionable (IMO).

This is the part that's problematic. The shooter must have known that the shot he was about to shoot might lead to controversy. If he wants to be a cheating bully, he can just shoot it quickly and and claim "shooter's privelege" as to the call. If he wants to play fairly and without argument, he should begin by asking his opponent how he plays the shot. There are lots of players who say it is OK to shoot through a near-by ball no matter how many times the cue ball is struck, and no matter what the applicable rules say. After that, the shooter may want to ask a neutral party to come over.

I don't much care for the "shooter is right in all disputes" "rule".

One way to make the call after the fact is to get some balls on a different table, set them up in a position both players agree is correct, and have the (alleged) fouler shoot the shot again to achieve about the same result as the first shot. A neutral player can judge the reenactment if both players can agree that it was like the original.