In my league (WPA rules observed with some variations), the rule says: an ERO (Eight Ball Runout) is defined as upon your first attempt at the table, if there are 15 balls on the table and you successfully run all of your chosen group and legally pocket the eight ball, you earn an ERO.
Here's the situation: I broke, made the eight ball and scratched. By rule, it is now my opponents choice to spot the eight ball and continue with ball-in-hand behind the headstring or rerack and break himself. He chose to spot the eight ball and ran out.
My question: Does the option situation remove the opportunity for an ERO as defined because when he first approached the table, there were only 14 balls (the eight ball was down) and his choice of which option was his first choice at the table? Both sides were argued, didn't effect the outcome of the game or match, just a curiosity.
It doesn't really matter to me in this case because it only bennefits the second player in as much as he is credited with an ERO. But at the end of the year, there will be a bonus paid for most ERO's, so it could have an effect on that outcome. Just trying to research this obscure ruling so we actually might have an answer next time it happens.
Isn't it amazing how many little things happen that the rules 'almost' cover but just not quite. And then listen to the spin some put on the rules to bend it in thieir own direction.
Thanks...Ken
Here's the situation: I broke, made the eight ball and scratched. By rule, it is now my opponents choice to spot the eight ball and continue with ball-in-hand behind the headstring or rerack and break himself. He chose to spot the eight ball and ran out.
My question: Does the option situation remove the opportunity for an ERO as defined because when he first approached the table, there were only 14 balls (the eight ball was down) and his choice of which option was his first choice at the table? Both sides were argued, didn't effect the outcome of the game or match, just a curiosity.
It doesn't really matter to me in this case because it only bennefits the second player in as much as he is credited with an ERO. But at the end of the year, there will be a bonus paid for most ERO's, so it could have an effect on that outcome. Just trying to research this obscure ruling so we actually might have an answer next time it happens.
Isn't it amazing how many little things happen that the rules 'almost' cover but just not quite. And then listen to the spin some put on the rules to bend it in thieir own direction.
Thanks...Ken