How are your morals?

[jjinfla]

Gromulan,

Finally, someone with common sense. I tend to agree with your views with the exception of I know nothing about snooker.

From reading most of the explanations of why rules should not be followed it seems obvious that the people are just not disciplined enough to play the game properly and of course they have to blame someone else for their shortcomings.

Marking the pocket in 8-ball is a prime example. EVERYONE who ever picked up a cue and decided to play APA 8-ball knows that they have to MARK the pocket. Even if the 8-ball is right in front of the pocket. Everyone knows this. Marking the pocket is synonymous with APA. Everyone knows that it is a loss of game not to mark the pocket. So there is no excuse when you do not mark it. I don't like marking the pocket. I think that is childish. I think calling the pocket should be sufficient. But I do not make the rules and if I want to play APA 8-ball I have to play by THEIR rules. My other option is to not play.

We are not allowed to pick and chose which rules we wish to obey.

Jake

 

[Boro Nut]

why don't you ask yourself why the rule was invented? the purpose was to keep people from stopping the cue ball if it was going to scratch.

if its obviously NOT going to scratch, then its abusing the rules calling it.

again.....i stand by my guns, you're proving yourself over and over to be a complete idiot.

thanks

VAP

You pot the nine ball, and the white returns down the centre of the table - no danger of scratching - and hits you because you couldn't get out of the way quick enough. Would you claim the game or are you saying the rule only applies if you didn't break it deliberately? If the rules clearly and categorically say you lose, does this mean you win really? Help me out. Pool is a very confusing game. What other rules can you break deliberately without penalty? Shouldn't somebody write them down so we all understand them in some er... rules?

I don't know the rules of pool. I don't feel embarrassed about it. You wouldn't be having these discussions if most people did. But I suspect it doesn't say anthing at all about stopping a cue ball scratching. Might that not be just your interpretation of what you think the rules meant instead of what the rules actually say. I suspect it really alludes to interfering with any ball in motion at any time, or it should. It should define that the stoke is not complete until all balls have come to rest. None of these issues are grey areas in snooker. It's all there, clearly defined in the rules. You should buy a copy.

Boro Nut

 

[matthew staton]

I have a few situation's that I would like to her some thoughts on.
If you are playing in a call pocket format match, and a player has an obvious shot on his final ball, but does not call it. Do you give him the win? Does it matter what situation you are in? Do you have the same answer whether it's the first rack of a tourney, or the hill hill match in the finals?
For those of you who are in APA this one is a little different. I think that everyone playing for any length of time has been faced with this, or heard from someone who has. The situation I speak of is when an opposing team putt's up players that will break the 23 rule. If you notice it before the match starts do you tell the other team, or do you let the match begin and make them forfeit the entire match? Does it make a difference whether or not its a regular session match, playoffs, regionals, or nationals?
The last one is simple, and something that everyone has come across. That is what do you do when your opposing player shoots the wrong couleur group. Do you tell him before he shoots if you notice. Or do wait until he shoots it and call the foul? As with all the rest, does it matter on the situation?
I have read this board for a while. This is the first thread I have posted. A friend of mine and I debated these issues, and I was wondering the opinions of other players. Thank you for your comments.

Mike

RULES ARE RULES - if a guy shoots the wrong ball in .I am not going to tell him thats his problem if he is that stupid he could ask before the shot if he forgot. lol I see the pot heads do this all the time.I don't care if a guy calls the pocket as long as I no where the ball is going to begin with I may call foul thoe if the other team are being jerks. I played a idiot in a tounament the other day shot in the 8 ball in nine ball tounament and said safe it was funny I was rolling on the ground hill to hill for the money match then he sat down and I said ok do ya quit or you going to shoot the 9 ball lol he was pissed .....

 

[Qnut]

I played a idiot in a tounament the other day shot in the 8 ball in nine ball tounament and said safe it was funny I was rolling on the ground hill to hill for the money match then he sat down and I said ok do ya quit or you going to shoot the 9 ball lol he was pissed .....

Am I the only one who hasn't got a clue what this says?

Let p,u.n,c,t.u,a.t.i,o.n be your friend.

 

[AceHigh]

I haven't read all of the posts, but I figured I'd post a funny story regarding morals.

I was playing a local 9ball handicapped tournament, and there was a new guy there. I was giving him the 7 ball, and I become aware that he wasn't aware of certain rules. In a race to 4, I would play safe, and he would do the "scoop jump", which most people know is illegal. But I said to myself, "Hey, this guy really sucks, I'll let it slide and tell him after the match." Anywas, I lost 4-3 after he crapped in his money ball. Oh well.

 

[PoolBum]

I play in a tournament at the 1 and only pool hall in my town and it seems that everyone that plays does not know the rules. I'm always telling someone about double hits, illegal jump shots, and no rail after contact. I don't mind it if they don't know but it's the guys that I have to tell over and over that get to me. When they have ball in hand and set the CB right next to the OB and slam it toward the 9, I let them do it, then tell them that it's a foul and explain why. I don't take ball in hand but I warn them that someone may the next time they do it. They don't see the double hit, they think it's just extreme follow, lol. I point out that it's impossible for the CB to travel as fast as the OB, lol. I have pointed out to an opponent that he was shooting at the wrong ball playing 9 ball and he ended up beating me. Oh well, I wouldn't feel right if I watched a guy shooting at the wrong ball, then took ball in hand afterward. Although, it has happened to me several times. I had ball in hand on the 1 and the 2-9 combo was the only option to play position for. I lined up the position for the combo, then proceeded to shoot at the 2-9, forgetting to shoot the 1 first, lol. Funny thing is, I missed the combo, hanging the 9, then he calls a foul and makes the 1-9 combo. Oh well, live and learn, right? Peace, John.

I think it's rude of you not to point out the flaws in their form or their position play while you're playing them as well.

 

[chefjeff]

(snip) None of these issues are grey areas in snooker. It's all there, clearly defined in the rules. You should buy a copy.

Boro Nut

Actually, it is impossible for it "all" to be there. Rules cannot be 100% comprehensive.

That's why there is, for example, an standard (vs. a "rule") for unsportsmanlike conduct. Imagine trying to come up with EVERY possible case of unsportmanlike conduct. Thus, the standard, not a set of rules.

Also, the two players at the table can agreed to go around the rules. They can default on them, so to speak. The example someone posted above is stopping the cueball as it is still rolling after the game ball BECAUSE it cannot possibly scratch or affect the game in any way. Most players would agree to default on that rule in this case because there is "no harm, no foul."

I've been searching the net for whatever philosopher it is who talks about the impossiblity of rules covering any and every possible situation, but only came up with an economic/law article by a guy who is good at some things, but an idiot at others. Perhaps it will help you understand the fringe area of the rules:

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/fillgaps.htm

Jeff Livingston

 

[Boro Nut]

Actually, it is impossible for it "all" to be there. Rules cannot be 100% comprehensive.

Oh I totally agree. Unfortunately nobody thought to tell the Billiards and Snooker Control Council when they drafted their fully comprehensive rules.

That's why there is, for example, an standard (vs. a "rule") for unsportsmanlike conduct. Imagine trying to come up with EVERY possible case of unsportmanlike conduct. Thus, the standard, not a set of rules.

Yeah they could have come a cropper with that one. Fortunately, knowing full well what sportsmen can be like, they decided instead to go for 'Rule 15 - Willfull or persistently unfair behaviour' and to make it a rule not a standard - penalty award of game and/or indefinite ban

Also, the two players at the table can agreed to go around the rules. They can default on them, so to speak.

In the absence of a referee they can decide the outcome with a coin toss if they like. But you can't agree to skirt round the rules and stay within the rules at the same time. I bet there isn't a single mention in the rules of a player's right to refuse to accept a foul awarded in their favour. There certainly isn't in snooker.

The example someone posted above is stopping the cueball as it is still rolling after the game ball BECAUSE it cannot possibly scratch or affect the game in any way. Most players would agree to default on that rule in this case because there is "no harm, no foul.

When does the game start and when does the game finish? It should be clearly defined. It certainly is in snooker. Obviously at snooker the first score on the black, fair our foul, ends the game, so if you are far enough in front, you can elect to screw the white in-off as well if you want to. Your opponent gets the 7 points, but what the hell. Conversely, the game of 9 ball consists of potting one single ball to decide the outcome. It's silly, but there you go. Now, given those circumstances, which single ball of those nine balls available would YOU chose to deliberately foul on in execution of the shot? I'm struggling a bit with the definition of idiocy being bandied about.

Boro Nut

 

[chefjeff]

Oh I totally agree. Unfortunately nobody thought to tell the Billiards and Snooker Control Council when they drafted their fully comprehensive rules.

There you go again with the, now, lie, "fully comprehensive." Don't believe me? How about believing YOURSELF??? YOU said:

"bet there isn't a single mention in the rules of a player's right to refuse to accept a foul awarded in their favour. There certainly isn't in snooker. "

You made my point quite well....thank you.

Jeff Livingston

 

[DaveK]

Actually, it is impossible for it "all" to be there. Rules cannot be 100% comprehensive.

Oh I totally agree. Unfortunately nobody thought to tell the Billiards and Snooker Control Council when they drafted their fully comprehensive rules.

OK, how about this : The 'Foul and a Miss' rule includes provision for "a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on", yet there is no definition for "impossible to hit". What is impossible for me and what is impossible for Raymond Ceuleman (sp?) are horses of two very different colours ... so which one is it ? Or is it something elso entirely ? A bit nebulous to say the least, surely not 'comprehensive'.

Having said this, I believe that the rules of snooker are more comprehensive than whatever other 'pool' game rules that are out there, especially the rules at a couple of the bars I sometimes play at !

Dave

 

[Boro Nut]

OK, how about this : The 'Foul and a Miss' rule includes provision for "a situation exists where it is impossible to hit the ball on", yet there is no definition for "impossible to hit". What is impossible for me and what is impossible for Raymond Ceuleman (sp?) are horses of two very different colours.

Impossible to hit means impossible to hit legally whoever you are, such as when you pot a red and the pack closes around the cue ball, or when laying a snooker, balls not-on converge around the ball on, leaving no possibility of the white passing them from any direction. It is a foul to jump. In that situation you are required to play toward the ball on and forfeit the relevant number of points for the foul without being asked to replay the shot.

Boro Nut

 

[Boro Nut]

There you go again with the, now, lie, "fully comprehensive." Don't believe me? How about believing YOURSELF??? YOU said:

"bet there isn't a single mention in the rules of a player's right to refuse to accept a foul awarded in their favour. There certainly isn't in snooker. "

You made my point quite well....thank you.

Jeff Livingston

Are you trying to make the point that if the rules don't define what's not in them then they aren't comprehensive? They comprehensively define what constitutes a stroke, when it commences, when it is deemed to be over, what is a foul, and what the penalty is. Sounds comprehensive to me.

Quite clever of them that when you think about it, defining what the penalty is, right there in the rules. They saved themselves an awful lot of paper not defining the infinite variety of penalties that it's not. Imagine what a mess it would have been if they'd merely defined what the penalty might or might not be (at the strikers discretion) like at the end of 9 ball games, and they neatly avoided any possibility of you deciding not to accept it all in one fell swoop. Well done that man.

You can't opt to accept or refuse the points with an is. The referee opens his gob and the marker whips them on before you can say 'I'm not that bothered thanks all the same'. They've had years of training with is. They know an is inside out. They could spot a maybe a mile off. So you're stuck with them unfortunately, short of fiddling the scoreboard and risking a ban. But that's the risk you take playing snooker.

Boro Nut

 

[DaveK]

Impossible to hit means impossible to hit legally whoever you are, such as when you pot a red and the pack closes around the cue ball, or when laying a snooker, balls not-on converge around the ball on, leaving no possibility of the white passing them from any direction. It is a foul to jump. In that situation you are required to play toward the ball on and forfeit the relevant number of points for the foul without being asked to replay the shot.

Boro Nut

Ah yes, you found a nice (read easy) example nut. How about when the ref says 'play again' and you say 'it's impossible', and he says 'no, play again'. This exact scenario happened to a friend of mine who played (OK, tried to play) pro snooker in the UK. He had an impossible shot but the silly ref made him shoot over and over until his English opponent no longer needed snookers to beat him in that frame. The problem is that the concept of 'impossible' is not defined, and is subject to the whim of the ref, which demonstrates that not everything is covered by the 'comprehensive' rules of snooker, they are not "100%". My point was not about that rule, it was merely an example

Dave

 

[DaveK]

In the absence of a referee they can decide the outcome with a coin toss if they like. But you can't agree to skirt round the rules and stay within the rules at the same time. I bet there isn't a single mention in the rules of a player's right to refuse to accept a foul awarded in their favour. There certainly isn't in snooker.
Boro Nut

No, this would appear to be wrong. The rules do not say anything about coin tosses. Rather, the Interpretation rule states "When there is no referee, such as in a social game, the opposing player or side will be regarded as such for the purpose of these Rules. " So, by the rules, without a referee the opponent becomes the ref, and they call (or not) fouls.

When does the game start and when does the game finish? It should be clearly defined. It certainly is in snooker. Obviously at snooker the first score on the black, fair our foul, ends the game, so if you are far enough in front, you can elect to screw the white in-off as well if you want to. Your opponent gets the 7 points, but what the hell.

And this is only partially true. Snooker also includes the concept of a stalemate. The Stalemate rule states "If the referee thinks a position of stalemate exists, or is being approached, he shall offer the players the immediate option of re-starting the frame." So you see nut, there are other ways to end a frame. Of course you may argue 'it's not a frame at all, if it were, wo won ?' , and that would be a resonable argument. Also the concept of conceding is in the rules of Snooker (and I'm sure many would like it in pool as well, eh VAP ?). Of course you may only concede a frame when you are the striker, so you have to wait your turn to give up.

Dave

 

[Boro Nut]

How about when the ref says 'play again' and you say 'it's impossible', and he says 'no, play again'.

If that's what the rules said at that time and the referee was correctly applying them - they also say he is the sole arbiter - then you can't argue that it's a situation not covered by the rules. If you want to come up with a situation that is not covered by the rules in all the years they have been tweaking them Dave I would try to avoid the ones that occur almost daily.

The miss rule has evolved over time, because of the players themselves, who rightly judged that the person who should benefit from a potentially match-winning shot should be the person who played it. I agree. It wasn’t always the case, but it was always covered by the rules.

Boro Nut

 

[Boro Nut]

No, this would appear to be wrong. The rules do not say anything about coin tosses.

I agree. That's why I said it wasn't in the rules. That's why it wouldn't be snooker.

And this is only partially true. Snooker also includes the concept of a stalemate.

Yes, it's another example of a situation that is already covered by the rules. There have been many times in the past when I have not known what the rule was that covered a particular situation, and made it a point to find out. I never once doubted there was one though. I haven't been disappointed yet.

Boro Nut