Foul on all balls

Hope you feel better

richiebalto said:
whats with you.everybody has to explain,everything in complete detail to you,just because you might not understand what they are saying or meaning!
Click to expand...

after getting that off your chest.

I was just wonering if he had any point to his random thoughts.

I feel bad, not sorry, just bad that my question upset you.

If you have a problem with my input on azb feel free to use the ignore option.

Have a good day,

SLIM
 
laserbrn said:
I have always played foul on all balls. I just don't understand playing cue ball fouls only.

Some of the difficulty of shots come from shooting over other balls and if you can simply touch the other balls without infraction the pressure and difficulty of those shots can often be minimized.

Are most tournaments played cue ball foul only or foul on all balls? I hate that "put it wherever you want" crap. Seems to me that the simple rule should always be that if you touch any of the balls in play it's a foul.

Has there been a widespread growth in cue ball fouls only lately?
Click to expand...

As other posters have noted, the 'cue ball fouls only' rule applies when there is no referee presiding over the match. I support that rule 100% and will explain why with a simple question: If the Lakers are playing the Celtics would you be comfortable with Phil Jackson and Doc Rivers calling the fouls on the opposing team? Playing all ball fouls in a non-refereed match is basically making the contestants into officials as well. The opportunities for arguments and skullduggery abound in such a situation, I think.
 
VIProfessor said:
... Playing all ball fouls in a non-refereed match is basically making the contestants into officials as well. The opportunities for arguments and skullduggery abound in such a situation, I think.
Click to expand...
It depends on the contestants. If both players go into the match with the attitude "screw him before he screws me" then all fouls is unlikely to work. Some players have sufficient sportsmanship, honesty and objectivity that it can work. I've played in leagues that called all fouls without a ref.
 
I generally play at home on my table, so I make my rules whatever I want. I only posted this question to the forum to see how people felt about it.

I am not attempting to suggest that one way is better than the other definitively. I won't play CB Foul if I have any say in the matter. I expect the other players to honest, and honorable in their play as I will be. If I move a ball, or inadvertently touch a ball, I call the foul on myself.

I never really thought about it as requiring a referee. In most leagues the rule is that the other player can move it back where they thought it originally was (read: wherever the hell they want). Isn't this still conceding that the shooter did indeed touch the ball? How does this eliminate the need for a referee or mitigate it? If I'm claiming you touched a ball and I'd like to move it don't we have to both agree as players and officials in our self-refereed game that the shooter did indeed touch the ball?
 
I think the question that needs to be answered for whether to play cue ball or all ball fouls is, are we competing to be perfect, or are we competing to shoot better than our opponents?

I don't think either question should be taken as pejorative, as both are admirable goals.

Most professional players (or professional games) will use all ball fouls, and that's fine. Most league players (and league games) will use cue ball fouls, mainly because most leagues include beginning players. It's frustrating to the beginning player that they run the risk of stepping to the table and being unable to shoot because they fouled a ball they weren't even shooting at. The higher level players in the leagues benefit from the rule that was written to allow the lower level players to compete. I have no problem with that. I don't see why anybody else would.

Personally, I find it annoying when the people I play in league don't care if they bump a ball. I care, and I strive not to. I also understand that the focus of the game is on the shooting, not the ability to place your bridge hand impeccably on a crowded table.

I would imagine that all ball fouls is also easier to play on a larger table, where you run less risk of bridging over 10-15 balls at the same time.

Any thoughts?
 
Bob Jewett said:
It depends on the contestants. If both players go into the match with the attitude "screw him before he screws me" then all fouls is unlikely to work. Some players have sufficient sportsmanship, honesty and objectivity that it can work. I've played in leagues that called all fouls without a ref.
Click to expand...
Do you really want to put players in that position? Also as a player I don't want to be having to watch the other guys every move. I don't think it has to do with someone intentionally doing anything it is just better to not add that potential problem to the mix.


I once lost a match 11 to 10. I was pretty mad because I should have gotten out the last rack and didn't. Later a spectator came over to me and said, "You looked pretty mad back there, now I am going to tell you something that is really going to make you mad". The guy I had been playing had scratched when I was in the rest room.

I came out and saw him in the chair. I walked to the table and played the balls from where they were with no shot, I had to play a safe. At no point did anyone say the cue ball had scratched and it was just laying on the table but I really have ball in hand. My opponent when he saw what I was about to do turned his head pretending not to know what was happening. Spectators later all told me they wanted to say something but were afraid not knowing what was the right thing to do. When it comes to competition of any kind I am afraid our fellow man can not be trusted to do the right thing in many cases.
 
samy1969 said:
Uh, why is it okay to touch the golf ball when it's on the putting green?
Click to expand...

It's "okay" because the golf is "marked" with a flat object (generally a coin) so the golf ball is not in the way of someone else's putting line. That way the golf ball can be replaced in the same position on the green from which it was lifted. It didn't used to be that way and people would have "chip" their ball over their opponents ball if it was in their putting line. This brought into play "defense" in the game of golf...since the rule is now that you have to mark your ball, golf has become a purely "offensive" sport...(:rolleyes: yeah, I know how that reads!!!).

Believe it or not, the same thing is done in pool tournaments. I've seen where a pro will complain (errr, sorry, "remark") that a cue ball has chalk marks on it. The referee will place a wedge to mark the cueball's position, clean the cueball and then use the wedge to replace the cueball in the same position...(see below for "lift, clean and place").

randyg said:
There's a "pick & clean" rule also.
randyg
Click to expand...

A.K.A. "Lift, Clean and Place". You still have to mark the balls position before lifting...generally with a tee stuck in the ground...of course I don't see referees using a tee on a billiard table...it wouldn't say much for the density of the slate! :p
 
laserbrn said:
I generally play at home on my table, so I make my rules whatever I want. I only posted this question to the forum to see how people felt about it.

I am not attempting to suggest that one way is better than the other definitively. I won't play CB Foul if I have any say in the matter. I expect the other players to honest, and honorable in their play as I will be. If I move a ball, or inadvertently touch a ball, I call the foul on myself.

I never really thought about it as requiring a referee. In most leagues the rule is that the other player can move it back where they thought it originally was (read: wherever the hell they want). Isn't this still conceding that the shooter did indeed touch the ball? How does this eliminate the need for a referee or mitigate it? If I'm claiming you touched a ball and I'd like to move it don't we have to both agree as players and officials in our self-refereed game that the shooter did indeed touch the ball?
Click to expand...

In situations like leagues or tournaments it does alleviate some of the potential arguments. Yes, the shooter has to admit he touched the ball but because it doesn't cost him his inning there is much less arguing over it. Also, keep in mind that when playing all ball fouls it is a foul to touch a ball, not just move it. There are many arguments that occur because the shooter may have touched a ball and not know it (like with a piece of clothing).

Even when playing CB fouls only I've found that most players take care not to disturb balls, if nothing else to avoid putting them at the disadvantage of the opponent having the choice to either let it stay or move it back. While I came up playing all fouls and prefer it that way, I'm also not against anything that will keep league moving along and not getting bogged down in disputes every few racks. It ends late enough as it is.
 
Last edited:
laserbrn...That's correct. League rules for most leagues specifically state that if a ball is moved, the shooter may NOT move it back without the express permission of the opponent (if the opponent chooses, the moved ball stays where it is). Moving it back on your own (without notification from the opponent) is a ball-in-hand foul. If the moved ball is moved back, it's return location must be agreed upon by both players. I've seen this rule played out in national tournaments many times.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

laserbrn said:
In most leagues the rule is that the other player can move it back where they thought it originally was (read: wherever the hell they want).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
My personal opinion is that in tournament play, ALL BALL FOULS should be used. I contend that it is actually easier to officiate with this rule than Cue Ball Fouls Only. Pretty simple - you touch or move a ball you foul. Using cue ball fouls there is a lot of room for controversy as to what constitutes a foul.

In this country All Ball Fouls was the rule for all the Straight Pool championships for decades. It was the advent of 9-Ball tournaments in the 60's that brought the new Cue Ball Foul Only rule into play. In most every international event I attend All Ball Fouls is the rule in use. I will continue to contend that it should be used in major American events as well.

I for one, don't like to see a player jacked up over a ball and shoot and move the impeding ball. In my book that should be a foul, but here it isn't called that way. Just about everywhere else it's a foul and it should be. If you can't bridge over balls and shoot without moving them it should be a foul, plain and simple. JMHO as always.
 
jay helfert said:
My personal opinion is that in tournament play, ALL BALL FOULS should be used. I contend that it is actually easier to officiate with this rule than Cue Ball Fouls Only. Pretty simple - you touch or move a ball you foul. Using cue ball fouls there is a lot of room for controversy as to what constitutes a foul.

In this country All Ball Fouls was the rule for all the Straight Pool championships for decades. It was the advent of 9-Ball tournaments in the 60's that brought the new Cue Ball Foul Only rule into play. In most every international event I attend All Ball Fouls is the rule in use. I will continue to contend that it should be used in major American events as well.

I for one, don't like to see a player jacked up over a ball and shoot and move the impeding ball. In my book that should be a foul, but here it isn't called that way. Just about everywhere else it's a foul and it should be. If you can't bridge over balls and shoot without moving them it should be a foul, plain and simple. JMHO as always.
Click to expand...


Well said. I agree completely.
 
I have played either league or tournaments in Finland, Germany and Holland and never seen anything but 'all ball fouls' in any of the tournaments I have played...
 
Kimmo said:
I have played either league or tournaments in Finland, Germany and Holland and never seen anything but 'all ball fouls' in any of the tournaments I have played...
Click to expand...
How often are there "earnest discussions?" Is it common to ask a third party to watch problematic shots or do you just have your opponent watch?
 
Bob Jewett said:
How often are there "earnest discussions?" Is it common to ask a third party to watch problematic shots or do you just have your opponent watch?
Click to expand...

I have had perhaps 10-15 times over the past 10 years discussions about a legality of a shot.
Actually when I KNOW this is going to be dicey shot (which ball am I going to hit first, touche-possibility or anything like that), I call the opponent to come and see, kinda to pre-empt the possibility for any dubious calls from the sidelines.. If there is no referee...the opponent is the referee...but I have had situations as well when a third party was called in PRIOR to the shot (which is fine with me).
So I have never had an issue really...normal thing is that it is the opponents duty to call a foul (although I call a foul on myself usually already before that happens even when they did not see it). On occasion a third party could be called to ref a shot but 99% of cases is solved just between the players and it seems to work pretty ok here.
 
Randon Thought

Say you are playing cue-ball fouls only and you are jacked up over several balls and it is nearly impossible to form a proper bridge. Is there a rule that would prevent a player from placing there fingers on an adjacent object ball to aid in forming a bridge?

Just wondering
 
Kimmo said:
I have had perhaps 10-15 times over the past 10 years discussions about a legality of a shot.
Actually when I KNOW this is going to be dicey shot (which ball am I going to hit first, touche-possibility or anything like that), I call the opponent to come and see, kinda to pre-empt the possibility for any dubious calls from the sidelines.. If there is no referee...the opponent is the referee...but I have had situations as well when a third party was called in PRIOR to the shot (which is fine with me).
So I have never had an issue really...normal thing is that it is the opponents duty to call a foul (although I call a foul on myself usually already before that happens even when they did not see it). On occasion a third party could be called to ref a shot but 99% of cases is solved just between the players and it seems to work pretty ok here.
Click to expand...
I prefer all fouls....but not without a referee.
It's the fouls that you DON'T know you've made that are the problem.
I want to avoid a situation where my OPPONENT says my shirt touched
a ball (which I can't know)..need an un-biased third party.
 
SLIM said:
even more non topic related comments.

By yhe way, that was the point of my original post:

What does any of this have to do with the original posters topic.

SLIM
Click to expand...

even more non topic related comments.

By yhe way, that was the point of my original post:

What does any of this have to do with the original posters topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top