Fouls on ALL BALLS!

sjm said:
All ball fouls can be a bit ridiculous, too.

I've seen a player lose an innning because his bowtie fell off and hit an object ball. I've also seen a player lose an inning when one of his cufflinks came off and landed on an object ball.

I don't think this is about being a purist at all. Penalizing reversible pre-shot events that are clearly recognized as having no bearing on the upcoming shot's outcome, in my view, adds a random element to the results that can and should be avoided.

An example from golf is when a player tees up the golf ball and accidentally knocks it off, leaving it inches from its starting position, before intending to play the shot. Even in competition, he/she is permitted to place it back on the tee without penalty. Perhaps a purist would say that knocking the ball off the tee is a shot, but the rule makes sense.

I'm fine with all ball fouls for balls moved during the execution of a shot, but don't think pre-shot infractions should be similarly penalized.
Click to expand...

I agree with Stu here. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Pre-shot touching doesn't necessarily interfere with the play of the game. Balls can be replaced to as close to their original spots as possible at the opponents discretion when a ball is moved prior to a person approaching the ball. Yes...it may change slightly...but you do the best you can. Just as if the wind moves a golf ball on the green...the player isn't penalized...they simply replace the ball where they think it was.

And I can guarantee you that my hair has never moved a ball...LOL. So if a strand grazes a ball...that should be a foul? What if a loose hair on my shirt falls off and lands on the ball? Should I be penalized then?

I agree that if a player moves a ball accidentally during a shot...then it can be considered a foul. That would help avoid arguments about whether or not a moving ball crossed the line, etc, etc.

Melissa
 
real bartram said:
yes but in the ipt the all ball rule i think sucked.
if you hit a ball with your shirt you need a ref for every match.
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember Alison Fisher move a ball-in-hand cue ball with her shaft. A foul was called because the cue touched the ball. She seemed a little miffed but didn't say anything and sat down.

It seemed a bit over the top because she wasn't down on her shot. She was just setting up the cue with her ferrule.

I remember someone else had the same thing happen to them at the Orlando event. I can't remember who it was though.
 
As someone who plays in all ball fouls events regularly, I think it has its good points and its drawbacks. The benefits are obviously that the game's rules become less objectionable and super baggy clown clothes would be detrimental to ones game. The drawback is that it increases the payoff in being dishonest. Here in Japan, I have never had a problem with people not calling fouls on themselves, even ones that I didn't notice myself, but the money has always been relatively small. I would imagine many people, even the best of us, would have a difficult time giving their opponent ball in hand once the money gets more substantial. The obvious solution is to have it so that only refs can call fouls and that a player is not required to call it on himself, but that introduces the problem of getting well trained refs for every match.
 
Appears as if some people did not read completely through my original post before responding. Number one rule in good communication is to be a good listener. Number one rule in an online discussion is to read the entire post before answering.

IMO it is easier to call fouls with "all ball fouls" than with "cue ball fouls only." If you move a ball, you've fouled! How simple is that? With the current rules, it can be very contentious whether or not a moved ball affected the outcome of a shot. This is no longer a problem with "all ball fouls."
 
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
Appears as if some people did not read completely through my original post before responding. Number one rule in good communication is to be a good listener. Number one rule in an online discussion is to read the entire post before answering.

IMO it is easier to call fouls with "all ball fouls" than with "cue ball fouls only." If you move a ball, you've fouled! How simple is that? With the current rules, it can be very contentious whether or not a moved ball affected the outcome of a shot. This is no longer a problem with "all ball fouls."
Click to expand...


Agree but if this was a perfect world there would be no such thing as a jump cue either kicking seems to be a lost art these days
 
So how do you propose to enforce the all ball fouls when a ref is not present. With most other infractions, the call favors the shooter when no ref is present. So if that were the case here the rule would do little except cause more arguments among spirited players.

Curious if the intent of the rule would only apply when a ref was present.
 
jay helfert said:
It's time the USA got in step with the rest of the world! "Cue Ball fouls only" is outdated and no longer in the best interest of the game. The way the game is played everywhere else is "Fouls on all balls," and I am convinced it's the best way to play the game. ...
Click to expand...
Well, OK, but what are you going to do about those situations where the attitude of both players is, "Screw him before he screws me," like in a lot of money matches and league play? How are you going to turn a pack of cheats into sportsmen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAM
IMO - All Ball Fouls is the way to go for all games, the rest of the World plays it, surely the more we standardize rules the better off we'll all be?
 
dr9ball said:
So how do you propose to enforce the all ball fouls when a ref is not present. With most other infractions, the call favors the shooter when no ref is present. So if that were the case here the rule would do little except cause more arguments among spirited players.

Curious if the intent of the rule would only apply when a ref was present.
Click to expand...

Do we have referees present currently with the existing rules? NO! I will continue to contend that it is easier to call our own fouls when using "all ball fouls" than when using "cue ball fouls only." We use "cue ball fouls only" currently with no referees present and there are many problems because of it. A lot more is open to question with the current rules in place. All the disputes about whether a ball crossed the path of another ball (or the cue ball), whether more than one ball was moved, and did it or did it not affect the outcome of the shot would no longer take place. Once any ball moves it is a foul, PERIOD!

And that is how pool should be played. I don't care if you move that ball before, during or after the shot. It's still a foul! The only balls that should be moved are the cue ball and the object ball struck by the cue ball. And any subsequent balls hit by either of them. "All ball fouls" is actually a far simpler rule system to play by than "cue ball fouls only." It's much more cut and dried as to what is or is not a foul.

That is not only my contention in making these posts but has been my observation as well for over twenty years now. Using the world standardized rules of "all ball fouls" makes for a better game and better players!
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
Well, OK, but what are you going to do about those situations where the attitude of both players is, "Screw him before he screws me," like in a lot of money matches and league play? How are you going to turn a pack of cheats into sportsmen?
Click to expand...

Frankly I'm surprised to see this post from a Straight Pool devotee like yourself. You are the last person I would expect to see dispute my reasoning for switching to "all ball fouls."

You will never turn a cheat into a sportsman, and that's the name of that tune. Fortunately, most players are not inherently "cheats." My belief remains that by using "all ball fouls" rules there is less opportunity to cheat your opponent than with the current rules in use.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Well, OK, but what are you going to do about those situations where the attitude of both players is, "Screw him before he screws me," like in a lot of money matches and league play? How are you going to turn a pack of cheats into sportsmen?
Click to expand...


Duplicate post.
 
jay helfert said:
Appears as if some people did not read completely through my original post before responding. Number one rule in good communication is to be a good listener. Number one rule in an online discussion is to read the entire post before answering.

IMO it is easier to call fouls with "all ball fouls" than with "cue ball fouls only." If you move a ball, you've fouled! How simple is that? With the current rules, it can be very contentious whether or not a moved ball affected the outcome of a shot. This is no longer a problem with "all ball fouls."
Click to expand...

yes but the other guy says your shirt moved the ball
you dont think it did but you might not know 100%.
what do you do there?
 
real bartram said:
yes but the other guy says your shirt moved the ball
you dont think it did but you might not know 100%.
what do you do there?
Click to expand...

Please read (or reread) my original post #1 on this thread. In it I refer to incidental touching of a ball with your hair or shirt sleeve. It DOESN'T have to be a foul!
 
jay helfert said:
Do we have referees present currently with the existing rules? NO! I will continue to contend that it is easier to call our own fouls when using "all ball fouls" than when using "cue ball fouls only." We use "cue ball fouls only" currently with no referees present and there are many problems because of it. A lot more is open to question with the current rules in place. All the disputes about whether a ball crossed the path of another ball (or the cue ball), whether more than one ball was moved, and did it or did it not affect the outcome of the shot would no longer take place. Once any ball moves it is a foul, PERIOD!

And that is how pool should be played. I don't care if you move that ball before, during or after the shot. It's still a foul! The only balls that should be moved are the cue ball and the object ball struck by the cue ball. And any subsequent balls hit by either of them. "All ball fouls" is actually a far simpler rule system to play by than "cue ball fouls only." It's much more cut and dried as to what is or is not a foul.

That is not only my contention in making these posts but has been my observation as well for over twenty years now. Using the world standardized rules of "all ball fouls" makes for a better game and better players!
Click to expand...

Jay,

It is a pretty sad commentary on the sport we love so much that cheating, in any form, has become acceptable. Your opponent is going to screw you so you better do it first. Whether there is a ref at the table or not, a foul is a foul. If winning means so much you will sacrifice your integrity.... Just don't understand.

Lyn
 
Jay, While on this subject, could you or a knowledgable bca league player help with this situation. We were playing "bca league" rules 8 ball in a bar on a bar box the other night. A player pocketed his object ball in called pocket and in standing up from the shot knocked the 3 ball into the opposite corner pocket with the butt of his cue. He claims that with cue ball fouls only, it was not even a foul!! Also, then there was the question, assuming that this was not a foul (which I just can't imagine it wouldn't be a foul), of whether the 3 should be spotted, brought back up to its original location, or left down??? Could you or someone else in the know please answer this situation please?
Thank you all for any help on this. There was quite an arguement over it.
 
obsespool said:
Jay, While on this subject, could you or a knowledgable bca league player help with this situation. We were playing "bca league" rules 8 ball in a bar on a bar box the other night. A player pocketed his object ball in called pocket and in standing up from the shot knocked the 3 ball into the opposite corner pocket with the butt of his cue. He claims that with cue ball fouls only, it was not even a foul!! Also, then there was the question, assuming that this was not a foul (which I just can't imagine it wouldn't be a foul), of whether the 3 should be spotted, brought back up to its original location, or left down??? Could you or someone else in the know please answer this situation please?
Thank you all for any help on this. There was quite an arguement over it.
Click to expand...
Anyone????
 
jay helfert said:
Frankly I'm surprised to see this post from a Straight Pool devotee like yourself. You are the last person I would expect to see dispute my reasoning for switching to "all ball fouls."

You will never turn a cheat into a sportsman, and that's the name of that tune. Fortunately, most players are not inherently "cheats." My belief remains that by using "all ball fouls" rules there is less opportunity to cheat your opponent than with the current rules in use.
Click to expand...
Jay, I don't disagree with your main point, I just think it will be hard to implement in the US. What are the chances that any major league event will be "all fouls?" How about the US Open 9-ball? I think part of the solution would be to have referees in more tournaments, but that takes training.
 
jay helfert said:
Do we have referees present currently with the existing rules? NO! I will continue to contend that it is easier to call our own fouls when using "all ball fouls" than when using "cue ball fouls only." We use "cue ball fouls only" currently with no referees present and there are many problems because of it. A lot more is open to question with the current rules in place. All the disputes about whether a ball crossed the path of another ball (or the cue ball), whether more than one ball was moved, and did it or did it not affect the outcome of the shot would no longer take place. Once any ball moves it is a foul, PERIOD!
Click to expand...

Jay, can you elaborate on why you think 'cue ball fouls only' is confusing? It's always been very simple, basic, cut, and dry to me. If the cue ball doesn't touch the player's object ball, or the lowest numbered ball on the table first (depending on the game), and cause either the cue ball or an object ball to touch a rail, then it is a foul.

Seems to me the problems you could run into with 'cue ball fouls only' (i.e. push-through shots, whether the player contacted the correct ball first, whether the ball touched a rail or not, etc) will still exist, only we will be calling fouls on all other balls on top of them. In my opinion, that doesn't help the game, it hinders it and slows it down.

I can understand the desire for a universal system for determining how we should approach a situation like, for example, a player who accidentally disturbs the current lie of one or more balls on the table with his/her body or cue. However, it has been my experience that the hardest part about a situation like that is determining where the ball(s) was/were ... not whether or not to punish the offender.

When the dust settles, and after you call the foul for someone contacting a ball, you're still faced with the hard part, which is figuring out exactly where the ball was.
 
obsespool said:
Jay, While on this subject, could you or a knowledgable bca league player help with this situation. We were playing "bca league" rules 8 ball in a bar on a bar box the other night. A player pocketed his object ball in called pocket and in standing up from the shot knocked the 3 ball into the opposite corner pocket with the butt of his cue. He claims that with cue ball fouls only, it was not even a foul!! Also, then there was the question, assuming that this was not a foul (which I just can't imagine it wouldn't be a foul), of whether the 3 should be spotted, brought back up to its original location, or left down??? Could you or someone else in the know please answer this situation please?
Thank you all for any help on this. There was quite an arguement over it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this completely encompasses what you're wondering about, but I'll post it anyway. From the BCA website:

4.16 ILLEGALLY POCKETED BALLS
Illegally pocketed balls remain pocketed and are scored in favor of the shooter controlling that specific group of balls, solids or stripes.

Sounds to me like the ball remains pocketed. Sorry, friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top