Foul on all balls

3andstop

3andstop

Focus
Silver Member
I'm curious to see what most folks think about foul on all balls as opposed to just cue ball.

Also, is this something that the players have a voice in prior to the tourneys at a players meeting perhaps?

The reason I ask is that I just happened upon a boadcast on espn of a womens event and it is foul on all balls. The commentator mentioned that if her hair so much as drapes over her shoulder and touches an OB it is a foul.

IMO, that's ridiculous and no need for it.
 
Last edited:
I'm in favor of all fouls on all balls, all the time. Players get too sloppy touching and replacing balls without penalty. Gentlemen and women should call these fouls on themselves.

When a tournament has a referee present for each match, it will probably be "all fouls". To minimize arguments where no ref is present to witness the foul, most tournaments have gone to "cueball fouls only".
 
Hi guys in the UK the norm is to play all ball fouls and it is hoped like the snooker that players will call fouls on themselves and i will say 99.99999% of UK players are honest and will do that.
 
My opinion on this is that while I can agree that some kind of penalty may be in order, ball in hand for the other player is a bit steep.

I think something more like the opponent being able to replace the ball anywhere within a 1 foot radius or something is more appropriate unless the touch is deemed intentional by a ref.

This is much like mis-cueing under the cue ball. While it is illegal to jump by scooping under the cue ball, it is not a ball in hand foul for miscueing during a draw attempt so long as you hit ball and cushion.

That makes sense. The other is all theatrics and IMO not a positive addition to any game.

Another example, straight pool, While players take intentional scratches all the time, hitting the cue ball with the side of your tip intentionally is a 15 ball foul. Not so if you simply miscue by mistake.

I think that same logic should be followed with all ball fouls.
 
CB foul only is the way foward, accidents are just that and losing your inning accidentlly is jive, now if who your playing has a problem bumping balls to favor themselfs then perhaps in that game it might be a good idea, but in tournments that wouldnt work, i like CB fouls only, the more rules the lesser the player as a rule.
 
Dave Mackay said:
Hi guys in the UK the norm is to play all ball fouls and it is hoped like the snooker that players will call fouls on themselves and i will say 99.99999% of UK players are honest and will do that.
Click to expand...

Well, if there are 100,000 UK players and 99.99999% are honest that leaves 1 player who is dishonest. Do you know who he is?

The ratio is not quite that good in the U.S.
 
3andstop said:
I'm curious to see what most folks think about foul on all balls as opposed to just cue ball.

Also, is this something that the players have a voice in prior to the tourneys at a players meeting perhaps?

The reason I ask is that I just happened upon a boadcast on espn of a womens event and it is foul on all balls. The commentator mentioned that if her hair so much as drapes over her shoulder and touches an OB it is a foul.

IMO, that's ridiculous and no need for it.
Click to expand...


I tend to agree. As a spectator i don't like to see a player lose a frame because they touched a ball. As a player I hate to see my inning end because I touched a ball.

Most times that I have seen these fouls occur, the ball didn't actually move anywhere, it was just touched.

So perhaps it would be a good idea to make a foul only if the ball is moved from it's original position. But the problem there would be that who decides whether it was moved from it's original position, how far is too far?

I dunno, I just don't like the rule.
 
I think all ball fouls is a good rule. If

If a player decides to take a shot where he has an awkward cueing situation, he/she will much more likely to take that shot knowing that if they accidently move the impeding ball, it's no foul.

I played in a weekly 8 ball tournament in Shanghai yesterday afternoon with over 40 players on 12 tables with no referees. The players called fouls on themselves with no problem. You learn to be careful.

Here, even in casual games, except for first time bangers who don't know the rules, people play all ball fouls all the time and think nothing of it.
 
Played in a league with foul on all balls. It sucked! The players are always sharking you by getting in your face trying to see if you touch another ball.

Don't need that. CB foul only.
 
Foul on all balls is silly. Let the skill of the player win the match, not how careful they are at addressing the table. I shouldn't have to feel like I'm playing Operation while I'm trying to shoot.

Mr. Smith has it right... the player who nudges a ball and loses as a result feels like shit. The player who calls it and steals the game on a technicality feels like shit (or they should anyway). The spectators hate it. If nobody likes it or feels like it adds anything to the game, why bother? What's the idea behind making it a foul anyway, to prevent people from nudging balls to a better position? Is the player REALLY going to try pull a fast one by moving a ball 1/4th of an inch with her hair in an attempt to make a runout easier? Do we need to make a special rule just to make sure people don't cheat or argue about minor brushes? In over a decade of playing I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to turn a slight brush into a big argument. People are happy to move it back.
 
I would like to see foul on all balls used more. Some of the guys I play against, after using the bridge, will have rearranged 2 or 3 balls on the table by the time their through with their shot.
 
3andstop said:
... IMO, that's ridiculous and no need for it.
Click to expand...
In my opinion "all fouls" is the right way to play. If a player is so clumsy or careless that he moves balls around with hands, sleeve, bridge, he ought to be penalized for it. At 14.1, safes are often far more effective if you can't just rest your bridge hand on interfering balls.

The main reason that we have "cue ball fouls only" in the US is the fact that there are too many cheats who will call non-existent fouls and try to use the "all fouls" rule to shark their opponents. I think that's the wrong reason to loosen the rule.
 
Last edited:
TheBook said:
Played in a league with foul on all balls. It sucked! The players are always sharking you by getting in your face trying to see if you touch another ball.

Don't need that. CB foul only.
Click to expand...

I completely and totally agree. There is nothing worse than someone right over your shoulder or right in your line of sight watching you like a hawk. It is distracting and horribly hinders play. In my league, we play cue ball fouls only and if the shooter touches another ball, his/her opponent has the option to have that ball put back to its original spot or left where it is.

In my opinion, this is motivation enough to not foul a ball. No one wants to give someone the option at better position on a ball.
 
I agree that fouls should be called on all balls, but not if you get ball in hand as a result. I think cueball fouls only should result in ball in hand (or bad/no hits, etc.) similar to what we have today, but fouls to all other balls should be loss of turn, but the cueball plays where it lies. Ball in hand is too stiff of penalty for having a piece of clothing/hair touch a ball or inadvertantly touching another ball with your cue or hand.

Dave
 
I guess there's a quandry... if it's "officially" okay to touch balls then I can see the situation Mr. Jewett describes where a player will just rest his hand on the balls and say 'there's no rule against it'. I definitely don't want that to be legal... I guess the rule I'd like is intentional touching such as resting your hand on it is a foul but unintentional brushes are not. Usually pool rules try to shy away from making judgment calls about what a player "intended" to do but I think the difference between brushing a ball and using it as a rest are pretty clear cut.

I don't think it's fair to say "if a player is SO CLUMSY he should be penalized"... you don't need to be spectacularly clumsy or oblivious to have the hem of your shirt or your hair brush a ball. It's sometimes quite awkward and difficult to position yourself so that there's a 0% chance of brushing a ball that's not in your line of sight, especially in situations where you have to stretch over the table.

The 'option' rule about putting it back or leaving it as-is seems fairest. That's how one of the leagues (VNEA) handles it and it seems to work.
 
CreeDo said:
... I don't think it's fair to say "if a player is SO CLUMSY he should be penalized"... you don't need to be spectacularly clumsy or oblivious to have the hem of your shirt or your hair brush a ball. ..
Click to expand...
I hope you weren't trying to quote me since that's not what I said.

In any case, I disagree. Players also nudge the cue ball when they are preparing to break at eight ball. Should they get "do-overs" for their clumsiness? Of course not. They should learn how to play properly. My own experience is that when I am playing all fouls, the number of times I touch a ball goes down. That's because I'm careless when there is no penalty. The number doesn't go to zero, though. That's because of clumsiness.
 
I agree that all fouls is the way to go, but unless there is a referee (or two) at every table, it can be a recipe for disagreement between the players. It's unrealistic to call a referee when a player is in close quarters since it occurs often during a game. If the incident isn’t observed by the referee, the call goes in favor of the shooter. This can easily be taken advantage of by the shooter. If the shooter isn’t prolific in taking advantage of the rules, it can be difficult for the referee to make a determination and apply a penalty.

From my experience refereeing the IPT events where they played all fouls, it can be difficult or impossible for a referee to be in the proper position to see everything that needs to be seen. Object balls are often close on both sides of the shooter. When players wear loose or thick clothing, they often cannot feel when their clothing touches a ball, and are usually not in a position to see the contact. It can be difficult for the referee to determine if contact is made since it’s a three dimensional world.

I would be interested to read how everyone judges when contact is made between a shooter’s light weight and loose fitting shirt and an object ball underneath the shooter, assuming that the ball can be seen and doesn’t move.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I hope you weren't trying to quote me since that's not what I said.
Click to expand...

Err, ok, I don't see how my paraphrasing really changed what you said:
If a player is so clumsy or careless that he moves balls around with hands, sleeve, bridge, he ought to be penalized for it.

You're making it sound like the player is inept and careless to do this accidentally, when in reality it can happen to anyone, even if they're trying to be careful.

In any case, I disagree. Players also nudge the cue ball when they are preparing to break at eight ball. Should they get "do-overs" for their clumsiness?
Click to expand...

The subject of the thread is 'should it be foul on all balls or just the cue ball?'. The apples-and-oranges example you gave happens to involve the cue ball. So we agree, moving the cue ball is a foul.

The reason I call it apples-and-oranges is that there's no reason to move the cue ball because it's the one you're addressing with the stick. It's front and center in your line of sight and logically your sleeve, bridge hand, shirt tail, and hair will never be anywhere near touching it. You truly would have to be careless or clumsy to move it. But random object balls that are somewhere around your belt line are a different story. It can be tricky to avoid something you can't see and are forced to stretch/bridge over.
 
I've played many international events, all with fouls on all balls. What I've discovered:

1) I never had a feeling that I've been sharked by my opponent if he/she gets too close to see if I've fouled or not. Not even once.
2) Players call fouls on themselves in matches with or without a referee, doesn't matter if the player is only a ballbanger or a world champion.
3) I probably make one such foul per year in tournaments. With that set of rules you need to be careful and soon you'll learn to be. And it's not that difficult to be careful.

What I've read so far it seems that sharking is much more used in the US. Probably a cultural thing as pool and moneymatches has provided a living for a bunch of players for decades already. In Europe gambling in pool has been in much smaller scale throughout the history of the sport.
 
mjantti said:
... What I've read so far it seems that sharking is much more used in the US. Probably a cultural thing as pool and moneymatches has provided a living for a bunch of players for decades already. In Europe gambling in pool has been in much smaller scale throughout the history of the sport.
Click to expand...
Here's a story I heard from two different sources. It's a league match during the day and the match is in a building where the sun shines into parts of the room. Our hero is seated near one of these sunny spots. Somehow, his watch gets into the sun and the reflection happens to land in the eyes of the opponent at the table. There was an earnest discussion when this was noticed.

You may also want to learn about a quaint US playing technique called "jarring." It's well covered in Freddy The Beard's "GosPool" book. It's a pharmacological method rather than something related to physics.

And back in the days when smoking was permitted in pool rooms, Alfredo de Oro would be ready with a large kitchen match to light his cigar when his opponent was shooting in his direction. De Oro had the remarkable ability to know exactly when his opponent's final stroke was, and the match was sure to flare up just as the opponent shot.

One problem with that sort of history in the US is that a lot of players are sensitized to the possibility, so they will consider any small movement by their opponents deOroesque treachery. This leads to arguments even in the absence of malice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top