is it frowned upon to intentionally foul in straights?
- Thread starter evergruven
- Start date
Not my point. It was mostly offense back in the day, too. The old-timers knew all the tricks to beating an opponent to the shot, and few among today's crop of pros have this tactical knowledge.
I'm comparing knowledge here, not style.
The double hit foul is likely the one foul resulting in the most controversies among players for smaller local weekly tournaments, consisting of many recreational B, C, and D players. As simple as it is, a number of players, even those that have been playing pool most of their lives and consider themselves as pool players, still don't understand this foul and feel like they are getting robbed when I (as TD) am called to the table to judge a shot in which the cue ball is very close to the object ball, and I call them for an obvious double hit foul. It is their responsibility to do their homework and learn what constitutes a double hit foul being committed rather than me having to delay the game in progress to have to explain to them why I called it.
Agreed, Chris. This rule is often discussed at pro level in the players meetings that precede tournaments. Expecting league players to study the rules, however, probably isn't realistic. I think that at league level, the best you can do is go over the rule in the meeting that precedes the first night of league play and, after answering questions regarding the rule, advise the players that the rule will be enforced.
I was under the impression from previous forum discussions that, much like the current direction official rules are taking (non-refereed fouls unenforceable if shooter objects), the amateur/league requirement for avoiding a double-hit foul is gradually becoming: to merely jack-up 45 degrees, regardless of the CB/OB distance (?). Makes you wonder which venerable playing rule will be next to go away just to avoid conflict.
Interesting post, Dan. No area in the rules leads to more confusion than the double hit.
Another rule that makes me crazy is all ball fouls. I recall Van Boening playing safe with the bridge on a 1-ball at the US Open trailing Deuel, if memory serves, 10-9 in the 2017 US Open 9-ball in a race to eleven. The object ball was several feet away and as he lined up for the safe, he grazed a ball that was way below the cue ball, moving it almost imperceptibly, for a foul. It had absolutely no effect on the position or the difficulty of the shot Shane was about to attempt, but the foul cost Shane any chance to win that match.
This should not be confused with what happened with Wu Jiaqing in the 2019 US Open final against Josh Filler, where, trailing 12-10 in the race to thirteen, he nudged an object ball over which he was bridging, and lost the match about 90 seconds later. This clearly raises major issues and was properly penalized.
I was taught many moons ago, when I first learned the rules, that even when not playing all ball fouls, there are some object ball infractions that must always constitute a foul, and the three most common were a) moving a ball over which one was bridging, b) moving a ball around which one is masseing, and c) moving a ball over which one is jumping. If these are enforced, it covers most of the object ball infractions that I feel ought to be penalized.
As it exists today, I think the all ball foul rules can randomize results in our game in a way that doesn't sit well with me. Many of the purists swear by all ball fouls, but it has never sat well with me.
Last edited:
The simple reality is: ‘all ball fouls’ was not a major problem for Mosconi & his contemporaries. The modern/universal ‘CB fouls only’ standard has made us all irretrievably careless, and likely, incapable of competing with those who may have never casually acceded merely to go along.
P.S. My greatest failing is not so much fouling while setting up the shot. It’s the failure to retract my bridge hand or cue soon enough after the stroke. Much like how position suffers when the shot is ultra-difficult, when so much attention is required to avoid fouling while bridging, the relief after you accomplish a successful stroke under that kind of pressure sort of forces your guard down.
I can see a few advantages of all ball fouls, but in my own experience, all ball fouls causes a few too many silly results.
Once upon a time in golf, if you accidentally knocked the golf ball off a tee, even if it was not in attempt to play a shot, it counted as a shot. It was eventually recognized that the rule was a bit silly as it randomized results and got in the way of what seemed fair. Now, if you accidentally knock the golf ball from the tee, it doesn't count and you are allowed to tee up again. To me, when Van Boening nudged a ball as I described in the 2017 US Open 9-ball, it was the equivalent of knocking a golf ball off a tee.
I also recall that Jimmy Burke, perhaps around 1982, a time when one was required to dress formally for the World 14.1 Championships, had his bow tie fall off and when it landed on an object ball without moving it, he was out of luck.
Some "all ball foul" fouls are just ridiculous.
I guess Jimmie should have bought a real bow tie (though I must admit I’ve never worn one....is it like tying your shoelace?). There have been some arbitrary regulations over the years forced on players that I didn’t agree with: I remember when the women had to play wearing skirts (can you imagine concentrating on a tough shot in front of a large audience, while stretched out over a 9 or 10 foot table with your underwear showing?). But, though they might not look so glamorous with their long hair tied up, they otherwise risk fouling should it touch a ball.
Once traditional rules are abandoned for the sake of convenience, the inevitable ‘slippery slope’ sets the game’s image sliding downhill. What we get then is (for example), things like: ‘the jump cue’. A venerable game of incredible finesse reduced to sideshow exhibitionism.
Or, the gradual toleration of more casual dress codes, which has led nowadays to commonly facing opponents who’s slovenly attire would shame the average homeless street bum.
Once ‘all fouls’ & the ‘double hit’ rule become obsolete, I have to wonder what the next exception to the game’s traditional character might portend?
Once traditional rules are abandoned for the sake of convenience, the inevitable ‘slippery slope’ sets the game’s image sliding downhill. What we get then is (for example), things like: ‘the jump cue’. A venerable game of incredible finesse reduced to sideshow exhibitionism.
Or, the gradual toleration of more casual dress codes, which has led nowadays to commonly facing opponents who’s slovenly attire would shame the average homeless street bum.
Once ‘all fouls’ & the ‘double hit’ rule become obsolete, I have to wonder what the next exception to the game’s traditional character might portend?
My opinion is that most players do not know how or when to take fouls. There is a lot of knowledge and tactical thinking required to actually use fouls intelligently. Some people just don't want to take 3 fouls, for what I think may be ideological reasons, when they absolutely should. Instead they shoot some hail Mary shot and frequently sell out the game. When the table is open and you're locked completely up, take the 3 fouls, unless you're playing a very weak player, or it's just practise (you absolutely should use fouls in pracitse as well IMO).
In many cases, taking fouls only prolongs the inevitable, especially when it's clear that the person absolutely won't take 3 fouls. The knowledge or suspicion that the person won't take 3 fouls changes the tactics a lot. People will use that against you, if they suspect. Don't be that guy.
In many cases, taking fouls only prolongs the inevitable, especially when it's clear that the person absolutely won't take 3 fouls. The knowledge or suspicion that the person won't take 3 fouls changes the tactics a lot. People will use that against you, if they suspect. Don't be that guy.
agree..
to me, promoting care/discouraging sloppiness in pool is a good idea..but funny things do happen.
where do you draw the line tho?
all ball fouls can seem extreme, but also seems fair rule.
ps thank all for the discourse..love to discuss, and learn
Nice article! Good to review stuff like this from time to time. IIRC, the reason you want to leave the cue ball at H (center of the head rail) is because it is harder to take a two rail back scratch to L from there, correct?
Gotta go practice the Crane safety.
Nice article! Good to review stuff like this from time to time. IIRC, the reason you want to leave the cue ball at H (center of the head rail) is because it is harder to take a two rail back scratch to L from there, correct?
Gotta go practice the Crane safety.
Hey Dan. I knew Irving pretty well, saw him play numerous times, and we discussed the two rail kick safety in 14.1 on a few occasions.
The extent to which Crane used the 2-rail safety has been overstated by the pool historians. Though he used it in numerous situations, the position from which he typically liked to play it was when he and opponent were both on two fouls and the pack remained undisturbed. His reasoning, as he explained it to me, was that it wasn't such a terrible result if he missed the pack completely and that if he got the safety, his opponent, already on two, would be under great pressure.
If you want to work on something, Dan, work on your opening break safety, which you will be required to play after a third foul. Unless you're very good at it, the percentages for taking a third foul intentionally drop quite a bit.
In all positions in which an intentional third foul is being considered, among the most overlooked points in the game's tactical theory is that when you take a third foul when you and opponent are both on two, if you execute the opening break successfully, opponent is in hot water.
It's way more important to practice your opening break than to learn the Crane safety.
Yes, I've made a mental list, and I've taught many of the tactical shots and concepts I learned from Irving to many, yourself included.
Another thing Crane professed to me was that if you are underneath a frozen pack and against the bottom rail, unless on two fouls, take a very soft foul into the back of the pack, because your next chance will nearly always be easier. He hated to play safe when the cue ball was frozen to a rail.
By the way, one need not be that old to have seen the most leading edge tactical play. Allen Hopkins did about 95% of the things Irving did when it came to tactical play.
Last edited:
I think that Crane's strategy on taking a foul and leaving the cue against the bottom of a full pack would only makes sense if the opponent was already on one foul. Otherwise, the opponent can simply keep sending you back to that bottom rail - once Crane was on two fouls, still on the bottom rail, and now the opponent is on two fouls- it would be Crane's move to shoot for a THIRD time off that bottom rail- and he would be at a disadvantage as he would have to make a legal safety from where he hated to shoot or be on 3 fouls first!