Does anybody know the freaking rules?

[DynoDan]

Technically it is unsportsmanlike conduct. There is no explicit foul associated with shooting the break ball early.

Common sense might dictate, if you allow your opponent to shoot before the balls are racked, you have essentially conceded the match. Same with ‘conceding’ the last shot.

Question now: Is a concession ever considered ‘unsportsmanlike conduct’? Though I feel any player obviously has the right to quit anytime, with a televised or paid-attendance ‘championship’ event (excepting illness or injury), I could see where that designation might well apply, though what kind of ‘foul’ penalty would really be relevant if a competitor disappointed the spectators by conceding and walking out on the final?

 

[ChrisinNC]

It is hard to fathom a tournament finals at this level, even without a referee for the match, that neither the tournament director or either of the players were aware of the correct ruling. As it turned out, this incorrect ruling did have a direct impact on the outcome of this match. Alex has no one to blame but himself, as he should have known the rule. It sounds like Alex did question the incorrect ruling by the TD at the time, but didn't stand his ground and request that the TD check the 14.1 rulebook to confirm.

Makes you wonder how many other 14.1 rules these pro players or TD's don’t know? As supremely talented as these players are, it sure isn’t a very good look for them or for the tournament director. Reminds me of a few years back when Donovan McNabb, quarterback for the Eagles, ran out the clock in a sudden death overtime game, unaware that the game ends in a tie if neither team scores in that first overtime.

 

[mjantti]

In my opinion if the referee announces the remaining balls, the non-shooter must protest if he/she thinks the announcement regarding the score is wrong. It is a standard that if you let the following shot take place, you accept the situation and cannot protest afterwards. If the ref calls "shooting for 3" then that is official and stands despite the score if no one objects. In that case Irving was 100% correct and the ref/scorekeeper were wrong.

There was a similar case in a 14.1 European Championships final over 10 years ago. Thorsten ran only a total of 121 or 122 balls in the final because the table referee made a similar wrong announcement about the remaining balls without anyone objecting.

Shooting the final ball without reracking is dumb, especially from the non-shooting player part. In the case that the shooter misses the final ball with the non-shooting player letting it happen without a rerack I'd say the non-shooter has already forfeited the match and the ruling goes to the shooter.

But a little wrinkle about shooting that last ball without the balls being racked.... According to one report, Alex did not need one ball at that point, he needed two due to an earlier scoring error. Which brings up the question of how should scoring errors be addressed? It is probably no good for the opponent to jump up at that point and say, "Alex, my buddy just told me that we made a mistake on the score and you still need a ball. Let's look at the video. He says it was rack before last." The rules and regulations do not address how to handle that. At nine ball, I think you correct the score if the actual score can be determined.

A classic case of the wrong score was in a big tournament match with Irving Crane running out and nearly finished with the game. The ref said, as refs did at the time, "Mr. Crane playing for three." Irv plans his run, makes three balls, and happens to freeze the cue ball on the end rail (or some such) after the game ball. At that point the scorekeeper (of which big tournaments had one or two at each table) pipes up and says, "Oops, I added wrong and Mr. Crane still needs a ball." Crane ended up suing the tournament management and I think he won.

Rule sets don't talk about such errors but maybe they should.

 

[ChrisinNC]

To add to my previous post, as a fellow senior, my guess is that Mr Burrows, with his vast experience as a 14.1 tournament director, is aware of this opening break rule, and likely just suffered from a temporary senior moment, which all of us seniors can certainly relate to. My hunch is that Chinahov, being a European player with considerable straight pool tournament experience, was likely aware that this was an incorrect ruling, but gladly took advantage of the opportunity - and he did!

 

[alstl]

Watching the American 14.1 straight pool championship. Alex Pagulayan makes a legal break (2 balls and the cue ball to the rail) and then scratches. Of course this is a legal break (-1 point, a regular foul, Not a -2 breaking foul) and the opponent can -NOT- ask for a rerack.

Now both commentators Mika Immonen and Danny Barouty aren't sure about the rules. There is no referee to interject. Ruslan asks for a rerack and Alex Pagulayan complies !!!

Alex Pagulayan makes a much lesser break, Ruslan gets a shot, and runs 99, pretty much sealing the fate of the match.

It took Steve Lipsky to text Danny Barouty for the whole operation to realize that they made a real bad mistake.

So my question is: does anybody knows the rules of 14.1 other than Steve Lipsky?

I'm not sure about there not being a referee. There was a referee earlier when there was a question about whether a break ball was outside the rack.

 

[sparkle84]

I'm not sure about there not being a referee. There was a referee earlier when there was a question about whether a break ball was outside the rack.

There was no referee officiating any of the matches. Andy Lincoln was the tournament director and throughout the event was called to tables to watch hits or determine break ball eligibility. He was not however, hovering near tables at any time, even during the semis and finals. He was watching from a distance, most of the time, which is more than I can say for John Leyman.
I'm of the opinion there should be a referee for the semis and finals whether it's Andy or someone he or Peter designates. There were qualified people there.
Another thing that could and should be done is to go over the rules in the players meeting. It's really not that complicated and wouldn't take long.
I'm going to bring this stuff up next year and hopefully some changes will be made.

 

[mjantti]

What also confuses me sometimes that if you have a unclear situation regarding the rules, why don't the players/ref just look them up from their mobiles? It takes maybe 1-2min to get 100% accurate information.

 

[dmgwalsh]

To add to my previous post, as a fellow senior, my guess is that Mr Burrows, with his vast experience as a 14.1 tournament director, is aware of this opening break rule, and likely just suffered from a temporary senior moment, which all of us seniors can certainly relate to. My hunch is that Chinahov, being a European player with considerable straight pool tournament experience, was likely aware that this was an incorrect ruling, but gladly took advantage of the opportunity - and he did!

Did I miss something? Did someone say that Peter made a ruling on that opening break?

I thought I heard Alex say "OK, if that's the rule". I was under the impression that Chinakhov told him he had to re-break.

 

[BayGene]

That opening break, etc.

First of all, that was a great event with what many have been the highest general level of any 14.1 tournament...ever. Massive thanks to Peter, Andy et al.

My old song: There should be an active referee attending all finals and semi-finals, at least, of 14.1 tournaments. We all remember the Strickland-Shaw debacle at Steinway some years back.

That of course is an overhead issue, but a necessary one.

 

[Bob Jewett]

What also confuses me sometimes that if you have a unclear situation regarding the rules, why don't the players/ref just look them up from their mobiles? It takes maybe 1-2min to get 100% accurate information.

I agree with your analysis of the score situation above. The correction needs to be made before a shot is taken.

The sad reality is that most people who run tournaments have no idea where to find the World Standardized Rules online and many (or most?) of them have no idea that there are WSRs. Adding to the sadness is the ignorance of even the top players. I am trying to recall even one player who is familiar with the current rules and I can't.

If I were king all the players would be required to take a test prior to the tournament and those who failed would take a two-hour class with a charge of $300. Perhaps they would read the rules then and for what appears to be all of them it would be the first time.

 

[mjantti]

I agree with your analysis of the score situation above. The correction needs to be made before a shot is taken.

The sad reality is that most people who run tournaments have no idea where to find the World Standardized Rules online and many (or most?) of them have no idea that there are WSRs. Adding to the sadness is the ignorance of even the top players. I am trying to recall even one player who is familiar with the current rules and I can't.

If I were king all the players would be required to take a test prior to the tournament and those who failed would take a two-hour class with a charge of $300. Perhaps they would read the rules then and for what appears to be all of them it would be the first time.

I see the problem also with the current situation especially on American soil where World Standardized Rules (WPA) are not in use. Instead it seems there are countless local and tournament variations that create the illusion that there are no standardized rules available at all.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Did I miss something? Did someone say that Peter made a ruling on that opening break?

I thought I heard Alex say "OK, if that's the rule". I was under the impression that Chinakhov told him he had to re-break.

Sorry if I just made that assumption, but as it was the final match, I just figured he must have been observing and had the opportunity to get involved in this situation. If he didn't, he certainly should have. In hindsight, if Alex questioned Ruslan's request for him to have to re-break the balls again, he should have referred to a higher authority before giving in to it.

 

[alstl]

There was no referee officiating any of the matches. Andy Lincoln was the tournament director and throughout the event was called to tables to watch hits or determine break ball eligibility. He was not however, hovering near tables at any time, even during the semis and finals. He was watching from a distance, most of the time, which is more than I can say for John Leyman.
I'm of the opinion there should be a referee for the semis and finals whether it's Andy or someone he or Peter designates. There were qualified people there.
Another thing that could and should be done is to go over the rules in the players meeting. It's really not that complicated and wouldn't take long.
I'm going to bring this stuff up next year and hopefully some changes will be made.

I'm not criticizing the tournament. It is by far the best tournament I've see this year. I can also understand why the players don't know the rules. There aren't any straight pool tournaments. When these guys play 14.1 most of the time it is just practice.

 

[stevekur1]

If no Ref is present or available and both players agree on the decision then so be it. the both agreed and the fate of that decision is set.

can't look back and you definitely cant drag a commentator into the mix blaming him for not stepping in to know the rules.

Just my .02 Cents
Steve

 

[dmgwalsh]

Sorry if I just made that assumption, but as it was the final match, I just figured he must have been observing and had the opportunity to get involved in this situation. If he didn't, he certainly should have. In hindsight, if Alex questioned Ruslan's request for him to have to re-break the balls again, he should have referred to a higher authority before giving in to it.

OK. As I thought. That was just an assumption on your part that Peter stepped in and that Peter had a “senior moment”.

What happened was there was no ref and probably Ruslan or someone erroneously told Alex that he had to re-break. Alex has played enough straight pool that he should know that rule. If he was uncertain of what the rule was, he should have asked someone. It is on him to know the rules of the game that he is playing.

All in all, a tremendous event with great players and tons of nice play. Kudos to Peter, Andy and all involved.

 

[sparkle84]

I'm not criticizing the tournament. It is by far the best tournament I've see this year. I can also understand why the players don't know the rules. There aren't any straight pool tournaments. When these guys play 14.1 most of the time it is just practice.

I disagree a little bit with that. I hardly ever play 9ball but I know the rules.
People may be under the mistaken impression that 14.1 rules are very complicated, they're really not. Rules for fouls and other general things are the same as any other game. The opening break is a different situation but the rules about it are pretty straightforward and very simple to learn and remember.
The only other thing where there could be an issue is concerning OB or CB in rack. That's usually pretty straightforward also though there are a couple situations that rarely occur where different rules apply depending on the positions of the balls. There is one situation where if the CB is left in the rack it's legal to shoot an OB residing in the kitchen.
But again, all these things are fairly simple to learn and remember.
There used to be a rule where if an object ball was within a balls width of the rail then you could only play safe off it twice before having to go to a different rail. After 2 times it was considered the same as being on 2 fouls and failure to execute would result in 15 ball penalty. Your opponent had to warn you, same as regular fouls.
That rule was changed awhile back and now it's legal to bump a ball to the rail an indefinite number of times. I think that's where a stalemate can be declared as Bob mentioned.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I think that's where a stalemate can be declared as Bob mentioned.

Yes. There is also a stalemate rule at 9 ball but I have never seen it applied. It would take repeated safeties without fouls and I can't see that happening. Or at least not for too long.