Foul on all balls questions

[arsenius]

We play foul on all balls around here, referee or no. Basically on your honor. Yesterday I was playing straight pool and my opponent accidentally nudged an object ball with his hand before he stroked the cue ball. He sat down without shooting, and I took my shot from where everything lay. Is that the right way to handle this foul? Should he have instead continued with his shot, or should it have been my option?

I'm wondering because I was actually at a disadvantage as a result of his foul. I had put him in a difficult situation, where he couldn't cue the ball easily, but it was then handed back to me as a result of his foul.

I'm also wondering what happens when you are spotting balls. Imagine it is my turn to shoot and a ball needs to be spotted from my opponent's inning. If I spot this ball and touch an object ball, could a foul be called on me? I don't think anyone would call it a foul where I play, but what about tournaments? Can a foul be called? Does the player who pocketed the ball need to spot it, in order to avoid this problem?

 

[Paul Dayton]

He took the first scratch. If the leave is so hard, take a foul yourself and let him shoot his way out of it. Worse comes to worse, he fouls three in a row, loses a bunch of points and has to shoot a break shot.

When spotting a ball it isn't a foul if a ball is touched.

 

[mullyman]

He took the first scratch. If the leave is so hard, take a foul yourself and let him shoot his way out of it. Worse comes to worse, he fouls three in a row, loses a bunch of points and has to shoot a break shot.

When spotting a ball it isn't a foul if a ball is touched.

Let me clarify that by saying it's not a foul to touch another ball if the touch is a result of you having to spot the ball up against it. If it's another ball that gets nudged by the edge of your hand or something then yes, it's a foul. See diagram below.

As for your first question, I concur with Mr. Dayton, if it's his first foul then the cue ball stays where it's at and you need to figure a way to turn that disadvantage into an advantage for yourself.
MULLY

CueTable Help

 

[pdcue]

Let me clarify that by saying it's not a foul to touch another ball if the touch is a result of you having to spot the ball up against it. If it's another ball that gets nudged by the edge of your hand or something then yes, it's a foul. See diagram below.

As for your first question, I concur with Mr. Dayton, if it's his first foul then the cue ball stays where it's at and you need to figure a way to turn that disadvantage into an advantage for yourself.
MULLY

Not to be picky, but Bob Jewett, who knows a thing or two about rules,
has responded on this issue several times.

The general idea is that if there is no referee, the player can not
commit a foul when 'acting as a ref', for example spotting balls.

Makes sense to me.

Of course, I think you should only play fouls on all balls,
and many players don't agree with that opinion.

Dale

 

[mullyman]

Not to be picky, but Bob Jewett, who knows a thing or two about rules,
has responded on this issue several times.

The general idea is that if there is no referee, the player can not
commit a foul when 'acting as a ref', for example spotting balls.

Makes sense to me.

Of course, I think you should only play fouls on all balls,
and many players don't agree with that opinion.

Dale

I can understand the theory behind it but knowing how many cheating ass clowns there are out there, especially if you're gambling on a game, they could "accidentally" nudge a ball the 1/4 inch it would take to screw up your next shot and not be penalized for it. Interesting rule.

I agree that fouls should be on all balls, except when you're spotting and have to rest the spotted ball against the ball on the line. Actually moving that ball should be a no no but touching it with the ball being spotted shouldn't be, of course. Other than that, yeah, touch a ball it's a foul. Especially for A class players. When you reach that level you need to have enough control over yourself not to be moving balls around with your hand or your stick.

I have John Schmidt's 164 ball run DVD and personally, in my opinion, that run finished when he nudged that 9-ball with his cue.
MULLY

 

[selftaut]

Lets just say that in a tournament format, playing all ball fouls without a referee would be and is a nightmare. Look at what happened in the worlds last year between Bob Maidhof and Stevie Moore with out a ref, big arguments can and will occur in this scenerio.

 

[mullyman]

Lets just say that in a tournament format, playing all ball fouls without a referee would be and is a nightmare. Look at what happened in the worlds last year between Bob Maidhof and Stevie Moore with out a ref, big arguments can and will occur in this scenerio.

Interesting. Here in Japan has always been all ball fouls and it's hardly ever a problem. I don't recall ever hearing about anything. Up until the last 10 years or so miscues were fouls regardless of if you hit the lowest numbered ball or not. If you miscued it was a foul. No gray area. Wasn't very fond of that rule though.
MULLY
push out after the break still isn't an option in amateur play here

 

[selftaut]

Interesting. Here in Japan has always been all ball fouls and it's hardly ever a problem. I don't recall ever hearing about anything. Up until the last 10 years or so miscues were fouls regardless of if you hit the lowest numbered ball or not. If you miscued it was a foul. No gray area. Wasn't very fond of that rule though.
MULLY
push out after the break still isn't an option in amateur play here

In the worlds last year they didn't use refs until the final rounds, but did play all ball fouls. Bob was using a bridge and Stevie called a foul, Bob said he did not touch a ball with the bridge he didn't think it was a foul. If you know Bob then you know he is honest as can be, but Stevie kept it up until an argument broke out, Bob just unscrewed and left. Bad day for all ball fouls.

Moral of the story, 2 players at the table can't be held to work out ball fouls without a ref, the decision goes to the shooter.

 

[mullyman]

Good story. I didn't see that one.
MULLY

 

[3andstop]

Lets just say that in a tournament format, playing all ball fouls without a referee would be and is a nightmare.

I completely agree. I'm not even sure it's such a good idea if you're gambling. I prefer the idea that the opponent has the option to re-place the moved ball. Same thing with just playing a fun game.

Last night I was watching TAR and they had an interesting "all ball foul" rule. Now I don't know if this is standard stuff these days since I've been out of it for over 20yrs, but this was a 9 ball tourney and the rule was something like this.

If you touched one ball, your opponent had the option to re-place it. If you moved more than one ball, or if the ball you moved ended up in the path of your shot in any way, its a foul.

I thought that was a very common sense middle ground.

 

[arsenius]

Thanks for the clarification guys. In my game, I did just re-freeze him to the stack, taking a foul myself.

 

[pdcue]

Lets just say that in a tournament format, playing all ball fouls without a referee would be and is a nightmare. Look at what happened in the worlds last year between Bob Maidhof and Stevie Moore with out a ref, big arguments can and will occur in this scenerio.

Not that your point isn't valid, but, IMHO - you shouldn't base rules on
how people may react to them. Also, anyone who would argue about
a foul on an OB, it seems to me, would also eventually argue about
a CB foul.

I agree that on a practial basis, the only workable aproach is shooter
has the last word. For tournaments, why not do the same thing most
do for 'bad hits; etc.?
If you think a foul is likely have a ref/TD/designated observer function
as a ref for that one shot. If you don't ask for someone to watch the shot, you can't complain.

Dale