Foul Calls

[dmgwalsh]

Two situations came up in a league match. One is at 1:14:57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_taJRfmD1M0

I am not sure if you can tell from our view. My opponent was thinking of shooting the 5 ball into the bottom left from our perspective. I told him to let me know if he was actually going to shoot it, because I wanted someone to watch the hit. He said he was going to jack up and shoot a little bit away, but I thought he would most likely foul on one of the three other balls to the right of the object ball. He eventually decided not to take it and he safed and left me a combo. What do you think?

The other came at 1:28:39. We are playing cue ball fouls only. After I shot the ball, I touched another ball that moved but it did not interfere with the cue ball. He called it a foul. I thought he was wrong but gave in because I did not really see exactly what happened at the time, plus I was ahead by 40 or 50 balls at the time.

Did I foul or not?

 

[stevekur1]

I would say that the 1st situation would of been a foul.

And the 2nd situation is a foul that would end your inning because it may of effected the outcome of the path of other balls. But since you are playing cueball fouls only there would be no point deduction. I our league that would just end your inning.

Steve

 

[acousticsguru]

Two situations came up in a league match. One is at 1:14:57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_taJRfmD1M0

I am not sure if you can tell from our view. My opponent was thinking of shooting the 5 ball into the bottom left from our perspective. I told him to let me know if he was actually going to shoot it, because I wanted someone to watch the hit. He said he was going to jack up and shoot a little bit away, but I thought he would most likely foul on one of the three other balls to the right of the object ball. He eventually decided not to take it and he safed and left me a combo. What do you think?

The other came at 1:28:39. We are playing cue ball fouls only. After I shot the ball, I touched another ball that moved but it did not interfere with the cue ball. He called it a foul. I thought he was wrong but gave in because I did not really see exactly what happened at the time, plus I was ahead by 40 or 50 balls at the time.

Did I foul or not?

1st situation: the angle is deceiving, but the fact alone that he could shoot the 9 with a level cue after he decided not to shoot the 4 tells me that had he used the bridge, and I mean one high enough to stroke downwards such as a Keller bridge head or spider, he could have made a legal hit. The problem there would be aiming (I'm short, so I know from experience that I'd almost need to stand on a chair to have a full view of the shot), and getting enough speed on the 4 for it to reach the pocket, in addition to making sure one doesn't accidentally jump over the edge of the 4 and thus miss it altogether (and jump on top of the 9 - seen that before, too).

2nd situation: you moved the 4 with your cue shaft, which needless to say would be a foul anywhere in Europe, but you were playing cue ball fouls only, correct? Moving the 4 did not affect the path of the cue ball, nor would it have been in the cue ball's way given you drew the cue ball to the rail above that ball on the side rail (= I'm having problems telling what color it is), so my assumption is that this would not be a foul in a "cue ball fouls only" scenario - but then I haven't played cue ball fouls only in over twenty years (although in league play, without referee, it makes more sense as it leads to fewer disagreements over clothing/hair etc. fouls). The way I remember "cue ball fouls only" rules, your opponent would get to move the 4 back to where the both of you agree it was before you inadvertently moved it, though, correct?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[dmgwalsh]

I would say that the 1st situation would of been a foul.

And the 2nd situation is a foul that would end your inning because it may of effected the outcome of the path of other balls. But since you are playing cueball fouls only there would be no point deduction. I our league that would just end your inning.

Steve

Not sure about the first situation, Steve. We probably would have needed to see the shot attempted to be sure.

The second situation would be a foul in all ball foul matches, but is not a foul in cue ball only foul rules. I think that is what you are saying.

1st situation: the angle is deceiving, but the fact alone that he could shoot the 9 with a level cue after he decided not to shoot the 4 tells me that had he used the bridge, and I mean one high enough to stroke downwards such as a Keller bridge head or spider, he could have made a legal hit. The problem there would be aiming (I'm short, so I know from experience that I'd almost need to stand on a chair to have a full view of the shot), and getting enough speed on the 4 for it to reach the pocket, in addition to making sure one does accidentally jump over the edge of the 4 and thus miss it altogether (and jump on top of the 9 - seen that before, too).

2nd situation: you moved the 4 with your cue shaft, which needless to say would be a foul anywhere in Europe, but you were playing cue ball fouls only, correct? Moving the 4 did not affect the path of the cue ball, nor would it have been in the cue ball's way given you drew the cue ball to the rail above that ball on the side rail (= I'm having problems telling what color it is), so my assumption is that this would not be a foul in a "cue ball fouls only" scenario - but then I haven't played cue ball fouls only in over twenty years (although in league play, without referee, it makes more sense as it leads to fewer disagreements over clothing/hair etc. fouls). The way I remember "cue ball fouls only" rules, your opponent would get to move the 4 back to where the both of you agree it was before you inadvertently moved it, though, correct?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

Thanks for the analysis, David. As for the first scenario, I suppose if one jacked up enough and shot straight down, then it would not matter much about the other balls to our right of the object ball. I suppose the stick would be out of the way before the cue went into them almost immediately after hitting the cue into the object ball. It looked treacherous, but maybe not.

As to the second, I think you are correct, too. So long as we were playing cue ball fouls only, I do not think it was a foul since the moving of the ball did not affect the path of the cue ball. I let him call the foul on me, but in retrospect I think it was not a foul.

We should probably switch over to all ball fouls. It might help encourage me to keep a still bridge after the shot.

 

[alstl]

Doesn't look to me like your opponent knows the rules. You are fortunate to have a 14.1 league in your area.

 

[Dan White]

Situation 1: Technically he did not play safe. He fouled by not sending a ball to a rail.

Situation 2: I'm no rules expert, but what I remember from "cue ball fouls only" rules is that in order for it NOT to be a foul, you have to tell your opponent you hit a ball (before you shoot again), and give him the option of either leaving the ball where it is, or replacing it closest to where he thinks it was... or something like that.

 

[Dan White]

Off topic comment, if I may. After you made that combination, it was apparent that the 10 was a good break ball, and that the 6 was a problem ball. If you don't mind my saying, you ignored the 6 and it was your downfall. With the shot at 1:16:30 you had a good opportunity to follow down below the 6 and shoot it in the upper corner pocket. That would have given you a good chance at getting into the next rack nicely. After you hit that combination, my thought was that the only problems you had were the two balls tied up at the bottom rail (couldn't tell if they went, which they did) and the 6. It isn't clear that you had a plan to get on the break ball.

 

[zencues.com]

#1 - can't tell without actually shooting the shot... though the actual shot was a foul.

#2 - no foul under "cue ball only fouls" play.


14.1 should always be played with "All Ball Fouls" rules. Because there are times when
you intentionally leave your opponent where he likely will foul if they shoot at a certain ball or if they shoot at all.

It is an important part of the game.






.

 

[dmgwalsh]

Situation 1: Technically he did not play safe. He fouled by not sending a ball to a rail.

Situation 2: I'm no rules expert, but what I remember from "cue ball fouls only" rules is that in order for it NOT to be a foul, you have to tell your opponent you hit a ball (before you shoot again), and give him the option of either leaving the ball where it is, or replacing it closest to where he thinks it was... or something like that.

Dan: I was just asking if people thought he could have avoided a foul, if he had taken the shot. I know it is hard to tell from the camera view. I thought those balls to our right of the proposed object ball posed a serious threat. I may have been wrong.

As for 2, with cue ball fouls only, it would still be a foul if for example I had knocked a ball with my hand and the cue ball then hit the ball I knocked or went through the path of where the knocked ball went. That did not happen so I think it should not have been a foul.

#1 - can't tell without actually shooting the shot... though the actual shot was a foul.

#2 - no foul under "cue ball only fouls" play.


14.1 should always be played with "All Ball Fouls" rules. Because there are times when
you intentionally leave your opponent where he likely will foul if they shoot at a certain ball or if they shoot at all.

It is an important part of the game.

.

Agree with points one and two.

You may be right on all ball fouls. I joined the league years ago and we have just continued with the rules they were playing with. I think I may try to play all ball fouls next session.

 

[stevekur1]

Not sure about the first situation, Steve. We probably would have needed to see the shot attempted to be sure.

The second situation would be a foul in all ball foul matches, but is not a foul in cue ball only foul rules. I think that is what you are saying.



Thanks for the analysis, David. As for the first scenario, I suppose if one jacked up enough and shot straight down, then it would not matter much about the other balls to our right of the object ball. I suppose the stick would be out of the way before the cue went into them almost immediately after hitting the cue into the object ball. It looked treacherous, but maybe not.

As to the second, I think you are correct, too. So long as we were playing cue ball fouls only, I do not think it was a foul since the moving of the ball did not affect the path of the cue ball. I let him call the foul on me, but in retrospect I think it was not a foul.

We should probably switch over to all ball fouls. It might help encourage me to keep a still bridge after the shot.

I am sorry about that. when i originally watch the video on my mobile device it was hard to see the path. just watched it again on a pc.

in the 2nd situation that would not have been a foul in my league. if that moved ball would of altered the path of the cueball it would of been a foul. in this situation we would just say that it would be up to the opponent to put the object ball where it was, though you cannot play that ball as your next shot. no point deduction is given.

-Steve

 

[dmgwalsh]

Off topic comment, if I may. After you made that combination, it was apparent that the 10 was a good break ball, and that the 6 was a problem ball. If you don't mind my saying, you ignored the 6 and it was your downfall. With the shot at 1:16:30 you had a good opportunity to follow down below the 6 and shoot it in the upper corner pocket. That would have given you a good chance at getting into the next rack nicely. After you hit that combination, my thought was that the only problems you had were the two balls tied up at the bottom rail (couldn't tell if they went, which they did) and the 6. It isn't clear that you had a plan to get on the break ball.

That 6 sure started looking worse and worse.
After shooting the combo, the break ball could have been the 6 or the 10.
I thought I could get over behind them and shoot one of them in the lower left, but kept getting the wrong angles.

The six up top early on would certainly have solved the problem, although I am hesitant to shoot up top unless I have to especially with all those croppies hanging around begging to be pocketed.

Good Observation.

 

[elvicash]

I say no in the second situation for sure. The cue ball hit the rail came out to the middle of the table the ball you touched was behind and even where it rolled out the cue ball rolled unimpeded so NO foul on that shot in my opinion.

 

[Bob Jewett]

The first shot he would have had to hit much harder to cut the ball to his right into the pocket. Most players don't have a short enough stroke to avoid fouling in that high-speed situation (even though he is left handed and would not have needed to use a bridge).

As others have said, no foul in the second but you should be playing all fouls.