Intentional hit on 9 ball with no attempt to touch cue ball

anbukev said:
What you're talking about is this:
6.25: Numbered Balls Struck by the Cue Stick
Striking a numbered ball with the chalked area of tip of the cue stick prior to or at the same time as striking the cue ball constitutes a foul. It is possible to strike the cue ball and have the ferrule or shaft contact a numbered ball at the same time and not result in a foul (for instance, when a player must elevate the cue by hand or bridge over a numbered ball in order to strike the cue ball). If a single numbered ball is moved in this manner and has no outcome on the shot, it may be placed in the original position by the opponent or leave lie.

What had happened is this:
7.4: Flagrant Fouls
If a player moves or pockets any balls illegally by any means such as slapping the table, throwing balls or equipment, pushing on the cloth, striking the balls with the cue or other object illegally, impeding the path of balls, or any action deemed unsuitable by the tournament director, the player loses the game and/or match. A severe and/or second violation may cause the tournament director to impose a suspension and/or expulsion from the tournament. The decision of the tournament director is final.
Click to expand...

Rule 7.4 is a great example of what I've been complaining about for some time regarding ambiguity in the rules...... or perhaps the rules are clear and we who interpret have different views. All we have is language and the words we use define the meaning.

It states "striking the balls illegally" within the context of slapping, throwing and pushing to include using the cue stick or equipment in these offences. The terms they use bear no resemblance to stroking a shot. In fact, the term "stroke" is conveniently omitted.

The nature of the language would suggest a situation where players rake the balls across the table with their arm or cue, throw a bridge on the table or move balls in frustration. While it's possible a player could angrily drive the cue through a pack of ball with the tip of his stick it would have to be in a shockingly noticeable manner to fit the spirit of the rule.
I would be cautious in assuming that striking and stroking carry the same meaning here based on the specific nature of the language.

While it may have been the intent to include stroking the shot, I have to wonder why they would avoid the one specific term that would leave no doubt in defining the action and yet this is the rule everyone wants to use to define the situation.

A more appropriate rule would be one where it addresses the consequences of cuing a ball other than the cue ball. In that situation it would likely require the balls be replaced or spotted and BIH to the opponent but I can't see where there would be a Loss of game. as is suggested in rule 7.4 unless the rules stipulate that pocketing the 9 ball is a forfeiture which apparently was not in the rules at the French tournament..

The French referee didn't see this as a loss of game either.



.
 
wwjdwithca said:
I would agree with the assessment as well, that it was NOT a foul. Your point about being intentional or not is valid, and is frustrating when these things go against you in the heat of a match. Sportsmanship however would dictate that it should be based on intent, and if the player tried to do it, he should admit to it, and it would have been a foul.

in the example that started this thread, the player even admitted that he did the act in question on purpose, yet the official deemed it was not unsportsmanlike, which I think all but the most contrarian individuals agree that it was.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on many levels and intent does play a factor; however, if the player chose not to admit it was intentional, how would we resolve the situation?

Would we assign a different penalty if he didn't admit intent?

If the player intentionally banked the cue ball off a rail and moved the 9 ball away from the pocket but said he was trying to play 3 rails to make a legal shot and the 9 just happened to get in the way.....we wouldn't put the 9 ball back where it was situated. In truth, nobody is required to justify the shots they take so intent becomes very subjective.

This is why the term "Flagrant" is injected into the rules. The behavior must be so shockingly noticeable or evident that it had to be intentional, then and only then can we be sure it was intentional.

Other than a flagrant situation, nobody can be sure of intent and in that respect, all fouls should be treated the same regardless of intent.....if the game is to be fair.
 
Last edited:
rrick33 said:
Rule 7.4 is a great example of what I've been complaining about for some time regarding ambiguity in the rules...... or perhaps the rules are clear and we who interpret have different views. All we have is language and the words we use define the meaning.
It states "striking the balls illegally" within the context of slapping, throwing and pushing to include using the cue stick or equipment in these offences. The terms they use bear no resemblance to stroking a shot. In fact, the term "stroke" is conveniently omitted.
The nature of the language would suggest a situation where players rake the balls across the table with their arm or cue, throw a bridge on the table or move balls in frustration. While it's possible a player could angrily drive the cue through a pack of ball with the tip of his stick it would have to be in a shockingly noticeable manner to fit the spirit of the rule.
I would be cautious in assuming that striking and stroking carry the same meaning here based on the specific nature of the language.
While it may have been the intent to include stroking the shot, I have to wonder why they would avoid the one specific term that would leave no doubt in defining the action and yet this is the rule everyone wants to use to define the situation.
A more appropriate rule would be one where it addresses the consequences of cuing a ball other than the cue ball. In that situation it would likely require the balls be replaced or spotted and BIH to the opponent but I can't see where there would be a Loss of game. as is suggested in rule 7.4 unless the rules stipulate that pocketing the 9 ball is a forfeiture which apparently was not in the rules at the French tournament..
The French referee didn't see this as a loss of game either.
.
Click to expand...
Another good reason to stay away from that nitwit country. :boring2:
 
Speaking of fouls, this happened about a week and a half ago at the Amway WPA Women's 9-Ball World Open 2015.

https://youtu.be/33yQRNa2fuI

Ref or no ref, I would call a foul on myself. All in all it's about integrity. My final say in this matter is, don't ever intentional move an object ball unless you are conceding the game.
 
Last edited:
The girl who shot it knew she fouled. If you watch her body language
after the shot and the ref started walking, you could tell she thought he was walking over to call the foul but when he didn't she started to chalk her cue and looking
at the next shot.
I thought boxing judges were retarded but I guess its leaked over to pool.
 
rrick33 said:
I had a ball frozen against the cue ball in the middle of the table and my opponent had to jack up with a steep approach to strike the cue ball. He grazed my ball first before contacting the cue ball and it was ruled a legal shot under BCA.

I think it was a bad call but If its OK to do it unintentionally, then why not intentionally? .
Click to expand...


I can't even believe anyone could possibly be this unaware of some pretty basic pool rules. So, lets look at other sports.

If you accidently hit a batter in baseball, he gets first base.
If you intentionally hit the batter, he gets first base, and you are thrown out of the game.

In football, if you accidently do helmet to helmet contact, you are penalized some yardage.
If you intentionally strike him in the helmet you are tossed out of the game.

In Hockey, you could accidently hit a guy upside the head while going for the puck and you might get a few minute penalty.
But if you go from behind him, and intentionally take his head off, you would be ejected and fined.

If I accidently run you over with a car, I get a ticket, and your wife gets a big check when you die from my insurance company.
If I intentionally run you over with my car, I go to jail for manslaughter or worse, 2nd or 1st degree murder and St. Peter then can explain the rules to you ;)
 
ChicagoRJ said:
I can't even believe anyone could possibly be this unaware of some pretty basic pool rules. So, lets look at other sports.

If you accidently hit a batter in baseball, he gets first base.
If you intentionally hit the batter, he gets first base, and you are thrown out of the game.

In football, if you accidently do helmet to helmet contact, you are penalized some yardage.
If you intentionally strike him in the helmet you are tossed out of the game.

In Hockey, you could accidently hit a guy upside the head while going for the puck and you might get a few minute penalty.
But if you go from behind him, and intentionally take his head off, you would be ejected and fined.

If I accidently run you over with a car, I get a ticket, and your wife gets a big check when you die from my insurance company.
If I intentionally run you over with my car, I go to jail for manslaughter or worse, 2nd or 1st degree murder and St. Peter then can explain the rules to you ;)
Click to expand...


Your examples might have held a little weight if they didn't all apply to sports that require a referee to make the judgment ....even when played at the most remedial organized level.

I doubt that your local pool league has 2 or 3 referees watching every shot of every match like all the examples you provided.

Your view of my comments on intent have been taken very narrowly. I'm not suggesting that intent does not apply; however, we can rarely qualify a players intent unless it's outrageous.

If there's no referee, who determines intent? Do you flip a coin?...maybe paper-rock-scissors? How about a pissing contest?

As such the rules should be applied equally regardless of intent or perceived intent unless it was flagrant or if the referee deems it so should one be available.

You can always ask the player of his intent........but what happens if his answer is contrary to your perception?

What are you going to do then? I suspect you'll do what everybody else does. You'll have to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and treat it the same regardless of intent.

Or...Maybe St. Peter will come down and make the call for us.
 
Last edited:
This thread reminds me of an old friend of mine, Rocco. Father time had caught up with Rocco, who was so worn down he had to turn to his bench for every shot. "Shoot the 3 ball, someone said to Rocco!"
Rocco proceeded to cue up to the 3 ball, directly.....and shot it directly into the nearest hole.

Sometimes life can be both funny and sad at the same time.
 
Disregard my post. I didn't catch that the shooter used his cue to hit the 9 directly with no cb. I've used the cb to intentionally knock the 9 in (out of order) to prevent BIH and easy 9 combos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top