How many times can you

[measureman]

I was asked this question at the room on Saturday. "How many times can you play safe on the same ball? These two players were playing straight pool and were taking turns playing safe on the same ball.
My answer was "Forever".
I don't remember a rule limiting this.

 

[stevekur1]

well you can only go 3 times each to the same rail, after that you need an extra rail by either CB or OB.

hopefully Bob Jewitt will chime in on this one !

-Steve

 

[Bob Jewett]

I was asked this question at the room on Saturday. "How many times can you play safe on the same ball? These two players were playing straight pool and were taking turns playing safe on the same ball.
My answer was "Forever".
I don't remember a rule limiting this.

At one time the number of safes on one ball was explicitly limited by a rule that was very complicated. This has been replaced by the general stalemate rule. If you're not making progress, rack and lag.

 

[AtLarge]

well you can only go 3 times each to the same rail, after that you need an extra rail by either CB or OB.

hopefully Bob Jewitt will chime in on this one !

-Steve

Under WPA rules:

Prior to the 1/1/2008 rules revision, it was almost the way you describe. Essentially (with some other details), the limit was twice for each player. The guy who started it had to get the extra rail on his third time or it was a foul.

But this was changed effective 1/1/2008. Now, there is no limit in the rules on how many times the OB can be sent to the same rail. However, a Stalemate rule was added to the 14.1 rules, referencing the General Rule on stalemates:

4.12 Stalemate
If a stalemate occurs (see 1.12 Stalemate), the players will lag again to determine who will shoot an opening break.

1.12 Stalemate
If the referee observes that no progress is being made towards a conclusion, he will announce his decision, and each player will have three more turns at the table. Then, if the referee determines that there is still no progress, he will declare a stalemate. If both players agree, they may accept the stalemate without taking their three additional turns. The procedure for a stalemate is specified under the rules for each game.​

Edit: Sorry, Bob. I was composing my response while you posted yours.

 

[measureman]

At one time the number of safes on one ball was explicitly limited by a rule that was very complicated. This has been replaced by the general stalemate rule. If you're not making progress, rack and lag.

So if you get two young guys the not making progress could be 3 or 4 safes on the same ball.
If you get two old stuborn old sob's like me it could be awhile.
So with out a ref it's a gray area rule.

 

[AtLarge]

... So with out a ref it's a gray area rule.

Agree. So I guess if one of the players wants to keep going with the safes (declares that they are making progress), so be it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Agree. So I guess if one of the players wants to keep going with the safes, so be it.

Another solution: like lots of close call situations, call a third party over to watch. If no progress is made within three innings, a stalemate is declared and the players lag for break.

If the shots are on a ball close to the cushion, the ball will often freeze within a few shots, and then you are basically back to the original rule, which said the ball was considered to be frozen after 3 shots by each player.

 

[AtLarge]

... and then you are basically back to the original rule, which said the ball was considered to be frozen after 3 shots by each player.

The old rules allowed two (not three) legal safes by each player in that situation. But what was the reason for the change; were the related requirements just so confusing that a change was advisable?

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Another solution: like lots of close call situations, call a third party over to watch. If no progress is made within three innings, a stalemate is declared and the players lag for break.

If the shots are on a ball close to the cushion, the ball will often freeze within a few shots, and then you are basically back to the original rule, which said the ball was considered to be frozen after 3 shots by each player.

Bob, I was never very clear on what happened (using the prior rules) when a player interjected an intentional foul in the sequence. In a spot like that an intentional is basically a meaningless penalty, especially if it bought a slightly-behind player in the safety battle another two chances to turn the tables.

Btw, I really like the new rule. If you had something to do with it, kudos.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[Bob Jewett]

Bob, I was never very clear on what happened (using the prior rules) when a player interjected an intentional foul in the sequence. In a spot like that an intentional is basically a meaningless penalty, especially if it bought a slightly-behind player in the safety battle another two chances to turn the tables.

Btw, I really like the new rule. If you had something to do with it, kudos.

Thanks,
Steve

The old rule was immensely confusing especially if players sort of played away from the near-cushion ball. It was the Europeans, however, who pushed for the new stalemate rule as they were never able to understand the old rule.

 

[Vahmurka]

as the Europeans were never able to understand the old rule.

<--- I second that :embarrassed2: The formula was too confusing and first hard to understand, next hard to explain by those who understood to those who still did not, and last, hard to imply in regular play :smile:

 

[Ratta]

Well,

in the 80/90 s i was also *certified* to educate referees. And i am also serious with my statement: I still cannot understand what is so difficult about this rule.

But ok

lg
the european