Cue ball close to object balls

croscoe said:
I executed the shot you showed me just yesterday. Fella there with us (said to be a certified ref/ump in Vegas a while back) said less than a chalk with was foul unless jacked or angled....Well used the chest to stop the cue, soft stop shot half the chalk width. No balls in the way just the 2 and room to cue flat. All agreed good hit ....he still paused and daaa still bad by the rules???? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Without looking it up right now, I recall the rule not stating that a chalk width is automatically a foul, but that if within a chalk width, the ref must take precautions to be careful if a foul or not.
 
Hitting toward the object ball that close, the general rule is that if the cue ball rolls over one half its diameter toward where the object ball was, then it is a foul. Hitting at a thinner angle changes that call. Some orgs rules state that the shot must be hit with the cue elevated 45 degrees or it is a foul, which is a nonsensical rule to me as there are lots of ways to hit the cue without fouling, including hitting the cue ball directly into the object ball with force IF you stop the forward motion of the cue by using the side of the table to bang your knuckles into.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Charlie...Isn't that a great shot to know? LOL Some people will still not believe you can't shoot that without a double hit...but we know better! I try to show that to every student...:thumbup: You still got 10 feet of snow in the back yard? LOL

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

croscoe said:
I executed the shot you showed me just yesterday. Fella there with us (said to be a certified ref/ump in Vegas a while back) said less than a chalk with was foul unless jacked or angled....Well used the chest to stop the cue, soft stop shot half the chalk width. No balls in the way just the 2 and room to cue flat. All agreed good hit ....he still paused and daaa still bad by the rules???? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
JimSabatke said:
Hitting toward the object ball that close, the general rule is that if the cue ball rolls over one half its diameter toward where the object ball was, then it is a foul. Hitting at a thinner angle changes that call. Some orgs rules state that the shot must be hit with the cue elevated 45 degrees or it is a foul, which is a nonsensical rule to me as there are lots of ways to hit the cue without fouling, including hitting the cue ball directly into the object ball with force IF you stop the forward motion of the cue by using the side of the table to bang your knuckles into.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Don't know where you are getting that as a general rule. In reality, if the cb goes past the contact point with no hesitation, then it is a foul. On a direct hit, the cb always stops dead on contact. Then, what spin and momentum it has determines which direction it will go. (forward or backward).
 
Where I got my information was both the BCA and WPA rulebooks. However, I was having trouble locating the rule again. Once I know a rule cold, I don't tend to look it up every time the situation arises, so I was surprised that I couldn't find it. Then I did a Google search for "billiards foul chalk cube" and got hits that all references to "the width of a cube of chalk" have been removed from both rulebooks. This has to have been in the past few years as I did find it in the rules 3-4 years ago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Neil said:
Without looking it up right now, I recall the rule not stating that a chalk width is automatically a foul, but that if within a chalk width, the ref must take precautions to be careful if a foul or not.
Click to expand...
The "chalk width" rule was never a rule. It was a guideline for incompetent referees and in my opinion should never have been in the rule book. A chalk's width has nothing to do with whether the shot is a foul or not.
 
JimSabatke said:
Where I got my information was both the BCA and WPA rulebooks. However, I was having trouble locating the rule again. Once I know a rule cold, I don't tend to look it up every time the situation arises, so I was surprised that I couldn't find it. Then I did a Google search for "billiards foul chalk cube" and got hits that all references to "the width of a cube of chalk" have been removed from both rulebooks. This has to have been in the past few years as I did find it in the rules 3-4 years ago. ...
Click to expand...

The change was in the January, 2008 revision of the WSR. The BCA seems not to clean up its old pages, so it's still possible to find the old, broken rules if you do the right ("wrong") google search.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The change was in the January, 2008 revision of the WSR. The BCA seems not to clean up its old pages, so it's still possible to find the old, broken rules if you do the right ("wrong") google search.
Click to expand...


Sounds about right. I know for sue that I found it much later than that, so I must have gotten a hold of old rules. Around here people,are still quoting that one. Other searches show quite a few discussions on this forum that refer to this rule as of around two years ago, as being in use.

The double hit rule seems to be one that people think they understand, and I would guess most on this forum do understand, but there are many players who have really no idea that they are double hitting a lot, or don't care. I imagine that is the reason for failed rules or guides like the chalk rule.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
JimSabatke said:
I just read through most of the BCAPL rules. Man, are they insane for allowing what would be fouls in the BCA rules I try to play by. They allow pushes and double hits in situations where it's fairly easy to avoid them. One example, my normal playing partner will hit the outside of the cue ball often on "thin" hits of close balls, which by my understanding is pretty much a double hit, while hitting the inside of the ball has the effect of the cue bouncing away from the object ball, and the cue going between them untouched. The BCAPL just assumes any thin shot is legal, even if there is actually a double hit.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely incorrect. The BCAPL rules say no such thing. Specifically, what they do say is in Rule 1-30-2:

"It is a foul if your cue tip is still in contact with the cue ball when the cue ball strikes an object ball. However, such a stroke may be considered legal if the object ball is legal and cue ball strikes it at a very fine angle." (Emphasis added.)

"May be." Not "assumes is legal"

Furthermore, BCAPL Applied Ruling 1-30 adds:

"...when attempting to avoid a foul by complying with the provisions of the rule, there is not necessarily a particular angle that will guarantee a legal shot in any given circumstance. Whether a shot of this type is legal is affected by several factors, and the referee's judgment is final."

Furthermore still, the BCAPL rules mirror WSR - AKA your "BCA" rules - almost exactly. This is from WSR 6.7:

"If the cue ball is very close to an object ball, and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball contact is made."

JimSabatke said:
Same thing with high angle shots. They also allow the tip, shaft or ferrule of the cue to disturb an object ball behind the cue ball on the the backstroke.
Click to expand...

Your reference is incomplete and misleading. The BCAPL rules only allow for accidental movement of a single ball in such a situation. Also, per the BCAPL rules, if the referee judges that any such movement was intentional, it is specifically penalized as a deliberate foul.

The same situation is partially covered under WSR Regulation 20, but the rules

JimSabatke said:
...I try to play by...
Click to expand...

are potentially more forgiving than BCAPL rules, allowing for movement of multiple balls under Regulation 20, and not specifying any particular penalty for intentional movement.

JimSabatke said:
Are these rules used much in the "real world," or just in BCAPL leagues?
Click to expand...

Just in the "real world" of 60,000+ BCAPL players, and anyone else who wants a set of rules that closely mirrors WSR while providing drastically more guidance in hundreds of real world "what if" situations.

Buddy
 
The way I read this, and I think I'm right, the "may" only refers to that it applies if two conditions are met, thin hit and legal object ball. If those conditions are met, it is not a double hit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
JimSabatke said:
I think it is a matter of semantics. Both interpretations are the same. I don't think "may" is optional as long as it is a legal object ball and the hit is thin.
Click to expand...

Both "interpretations" are not the same, and in no Rules World that is written in English and taken seriously by the writer and referees are the word "may" and the words "will" or "shall" synonymous.

That works to your benefit in your scenario of inside vs. outside tip placement, since the violator committing a foul under BCAPL rules by using excessive outside placement and not enough angle will not get any traction with the referee by arguing that the word "may" should turn the foul into a legal shot and thereby save him.
 
I was editing.a clearer explanation when you answered. It doesn't work to my benefit because I don't like that rule and I will do anything legal to avoid a double hit, even if this rule allows it. However, it doesn't change that the rule is there and used exactly how I described it. If I have a choice, I won't play by BCAPL rules.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Uh - OK.

My head hurts almost as much as when, during a BCA state tournament in 2002, after I called a clear double hit on a player he looked at me, raised his stick up to display it to me and, in total sincerity and earnestness said "This is a Schon."
 
I play with people who double hit all the time. It drives me batty. This whole thread started when I was discussing a player telling me I should make a shot that there was no way I couldn't double hit. I told him that and he got extremely angry and brought over others who were agreeing with him. If you didn't read that far back, the cb was about 1/16" behind the object ball and he wanted me to do a high angle shot, which I could never pull the cue back from in time. Not only was he wrong, but he was obnoxious insisting on the shot I should make.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
tatcat2000 said:
That is absolutely incorrect. The BCAPL rules say no such thing. Specifically, what they do say is in Rule 1-30-2:



"It is a foul if your cue tip is still in contact with the cue ball when the cue ball strikes an object ball. However, such a stroke may be considered legal if the object ball is legal and cue ball strikes it at a very fine angle." (Emphasis added.)



"May be." Not "assumes is legal"



Furthermore, BCAPL Applied Ruling 1-30 adds:



"...when attempting to avoid a foul by complying with the provisions of the rule, there is not necessarily a particular angle that will guarantee a legal shot in any given circumstance. Whether a shot of this type is legal is affected by several factors, and the referee's judgment is final."



Furthermore still, the BCAPL rules mirror WSR - AKA your "BCA" rules - almost exactly. This is from WSR 6.7:



"If the cue ball is very close to an object ball, and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball contact is made."







Your reference is incomplete and misleading. The BCAPL rules only allow for accidental movement of a single ball in such a situation. Also, per the BCAPL rules, if the referee judges that any such movement was intentional, it is specifically penalized as a deliberate foul.



The same situation is partially covered under WSR Regulation 20, but the rules







are potentially more forgiving than BCAPL rules, allowing for movement of multiple balls under Regulation 20, and not specifying any particular penalty for intentional movement.







Just in the "real world" of 60,000+ BCAPL players, and anyone else who wants a set of rules that closely mirrors WSR while providing drastically more guidance in hundreds of real world "what if" situations.



Buddy
Click to expand...


Buddy,

As I read the WPA rules on thin hits (as excerpted in your post) I think it does mean that very thin hits that barely graze the ball are not a foul even if there may be a double hit. On the other hand, the bcapl rules you quote say it may still be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I looked at that shot a bunch of times. I really wish they had an overhead view. It looked to me like there was just a bit more room than the first look. The close view of the one and eight looked like there was a not impossible gap between the OB and cushion, and the safety moved the OB out a little bit away from the cushion. I know if I were making that shot, having a high bridge on the rail would make it a lot easier. Clearly not a foul, but looks like about a half inch between CB and OB, again hard to tell for sure, which is a lot more distance than the small fraction of an inch I was initially talking about. The original post was also a situation well away from the rail, so more difficult to get the cue angle that high. That was a really nice shot though following a safety that could have been played better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top