obviously it could be a strategic move to run into the pack and not hit a rail,
but is that ever considered poor form? what about other fouls?
but is that ever considered poor form? what about other fouls?
is it frowned upon to intentionally foul in straights?
- Thread starter evergruven
- Start date
Another of the many reasons casual players don't take to the game.
For the most part, only knowledgeable players take intentional fouls against other knowledgeable players, so it's not viewed as unsportsmanlike by such players.
Unsportsmanlike fouls, which carry an additional 15 point penalty, are rarely called in an unofficiated game, either. For example, opponent might nudge a dead cluster with their hand as they play safe. I recall this happening to me once, and when they replaced it the dead ball had vanished. They claimed it wasn't dead in the first place, and I really didn't have any idea how to argue the point, so I got the worst of it.
Another issue is when a player tries to take an intentional foul undetected. The most common infraction of this type is when a player is nearly, but not frozen to an object ball and hits through it, sometimes breaking clusters in this manner. It's happened to me more than once and even cost me a match once. My opponent clearly did this in an unofficiated match and the best I could do was ask whether the shot was legal. When they said "yes" I really had no recourse, as, despite the fact that I had looked to see if the cue ball was frozen to the object ball, I could never prove the balls weren't frozen, so I ended up getting the worst of it.
Most intentional fouls are fair game and acceptable to nearly every player but, as noted, there are exceptions.
Unsportsmanlike fouls, which carry an additional 15 point penalty, are rarely called in an unofficiated game, either. For example, opponent might nudge a dead cluster with their hand as they play safe. I recall this happening to me once, and when they replaced it the dead ball had vanished. They claimed it wasn't dead in the first place, and I really didn't have any idea how to argue the point, so I got the worst of it.
Another issue is when a player tries to take an intentional foul undetected. The most common infraction of this type is when a player is nearly, but not frozen to an object ball and hits through it, sometimes breaking clusters in this manner. It's happened to me more than once and even cost me a match once. My opponent clearly did this in an unofficiated match and the best I could do was ask whether the shot was legal. When they said "yes" I really had no recourse, as, despite the fact that I had looked to see if the cue ball was frozen to the object ball, I could never prove the balls weren't frozen, so I ended up getting the worst of it.
Most intentional fouls are fair game and acceptable to nearly every player but, as noted, there are exceptions.
If the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, you are permitted to shoot at that ball. If the cue ball is not quite frozen, you may not hit the cue ball twice and you may not have the tip of the cue stick on the cue ball when it hits the object ball. This is a very, very common problem and I'm surprised you have not encountered it yet.
As snooker and carom, you are never allowed to shoot towards (or even partly into) a ball that the cue ball is frozen to.
In order for the balls to be considered frozen they must be declared as such. In Stu's situation, the balls were evidently not declared frozen (and agreed to) so the call should have gone in his favor.
There is a video of a match of two world champions playing 14.1. Just after a break shot the cue ball and an object ball are lined up to the side pocket but they are separated by maybe a quarter-inch. The player fumes and whines because he knows that he can't play the only shot available without fouling. His seated opponent is probably looking to see what sort of safe will be played.
Suddenly the player calls the ball in the side and strokes through hitting the cue ball twice. The move does not give the seated opponent time to call over a ref. After the expected complaint by his opponent, the fouler said, "No one was watching -- my word against yours." That was one of the nastiest, cheating, thug moves I've seen a so-called "professional" pull.
The good news is that they met again later and the victim ran out on the cheating thug and eliminated him from the tournament.
thanks bob.
seems like if there's space in between balls, a player would have options to choose from rather than flat out cheating.
is the no double hit rule a more or less standard rule in all games, 8, 9, 1p, etc.?
in bca 8/9 they told us we had to hit frozen balls at an angle, but that's the only time I've encountered that rule.
the tip not allowed to be on the cue ball at cue-object ball contact seems like a tricky one..
Unless I’m mistaken, in an ‘unofficiated’ match, your opponent is the referee (thus the necessity of calling attention to frozen balls you intend to shoot). If the match does have a ref who is distracted elsewhere, and your opponent elects to shoot anyway, then he is automatically deferring to your judgement.
Last edited:
No, unfortunately. The standard in the US is that if only the two players are present and one claims a foul occurred and the other (shooter) says no foul occurred, it is assumed no foul occurred. It is, of course, a really nasty move to shoot a foul shot in a situation that is very likely to be a problem before your opponent has a chance to ask for a third party to watch.
Wow, neither I nor the ref I called over knew this. I thought myself pretty scholarly on the matter of the rules, but this was a clear hole in my knowledge. Thanks for the lesson, Bob.
Great situations and examples discussed, Bob.
Also, to address the OP question, (IMHO) it’s poor form for any 14.1 player to NOT know the rules in detail - beginner or veteran player - and knowing said rules, every 14.1 player knows that intentional fouls are integral to the great game.
~ K.
Also, to address the OP question, (IMHO) it’s poor form for any 14.1 player to NOT know the rules in detail - beginner or veteran player - and knowing said rules, every 14.1 player knows that intentional fouls are integral to the great game.
~ K.
Bob Jewett said:
The BCA ‘Rules For Tournament Play’ (#1.16) used to be: “When a referee is not available, the player who is not shooting will assume the duties of the referee to the extent of play on the table”.
So, when did that change become the “US Standard”, and what deterrent is there then against committing a foul if the rules say that you can just deny that you did?
Last edited:
The main problem with letting the opponent call fouls without appeal is that some opponents will call fouls that did not occur. "Disputed calls go to the shooter" has been sort of the US standard for a while. Here is the current regulation from the World Standardized Rules about this which is in the section of how to handle disputes when there is only an "Area Referee" and no ref at the table:
If a dispute arises between two players in an unrefereed match, and the area referee is asked to make a decision without having seen the cause of the dispute, he should be careful to understand the situation as completely as possible. This might include asking trusted witnesses, reviewing video tapes, or reenacting the shot. If the area referee is asked to determine whether a foul occurred and there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred.
While is might appear there would be little ethical difference between situations where your opponent (acting as referee) calls an unjustified foul against you, vs. your denying a foul that you DID commit, the latter is much worse since the result is that ‘unrefereed’ matches are now apparently (?) just that in reality. Can you imagine if the pro sports teams suddenly decided to eliminate all umpires/referees merely in order to save the cost of their salaries? Fans would likely be appalled at the turmoil that would create. Why this issue should now be an exception for pool is beyond me.
This is not really a thread about pro pool, but about ordinary every day straight pool situations. Although there is usually an area referee in major pro events, a referee assigned to a single match is quite rare at all levels of play in all of pool's disciplines. Even at the US Open 9-ball in April, there was an area referee for the first 488 matches, and a referee assigned to the final table for the last 15 matches.
This thread considers some of the ethical issues that can arise from how things work in our sport, given that the cost of having one referee per match in pool is prohibitive ..... sad but true.
A point not discussed (though likely now irrelevant, considering the ‘no holds barred/unrefereed’ direction the game is apparently taking), is the traditional regulation of what form an intentional foul shot might legally take. Many years ago, I would merely tap the top of the CB with my ferrel, not realizing then that I was likely guilty of ‘unsportsmanlike conduct”, since the official rules dictated that you must ‘stroke’ the shot,
Yes, but it's a largely lost art at the pro levels of the game, save those players over 50 years old. Even in the BCA US Open 14.1 in 2000, when Bob Jewett and I sat next to each other in the stands, we were both shocked at how much of the tactical knowledge of the game had disappeared.
Last edited:
Speaking of which, in my league playoffs semifinal, my opponent played safe on a 14-ball rack from the kitchen by playing onto the two head balls intending to get a back corner ball to the cushion and leave the cue ball frozen on the top of the rack. In ye olde days none of the top players ever played that shot. They would go two rails to the back of the rack for a soft foul if they had to, but they would never play a shot on 14 "solid" balls for any kind of legal safe from the kitchen.
My opponent was surprised when his shot did not get a ball to the cushion. He was mad when I saw the three-ball combination that I could shoot from my nearly frozen position at the top of the rack. Suddenly I was the bad guy for not having frozen all the balls in the rack -- which he did not bother to check. With five-year-old balls, getting them all to freeze would have been a challenge. Further, I imagine that shooting from the head spot to the top of a perfect rack will not get a very good safety. I have to imagine because I have never actually tried it.
As Stu mentioned, we were perplexed by some of the safety plays at the 2000 US Open 14.1. I even wrote a column about it. See the July 2000 column in http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2000.pdf . Ned Polsky was also perplexed.