Is this a foul?

S

slach

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here's another situation that happened recently (playing 14.1)....

Opponent has a secondary break shot near the cluster. He gets a bit overzealous and his cue shaft hits the cluster on the follow through, spreading it out real nice. The shot was made and the cue ball didn't go near the balls he spread. Is this a foul?

Steve

p.s. this startled my parakeet and he fouled my shoulder
 
slach said:
Here's another situation that happened recently (playing 14.1)....

Opponent has a secondary break shot near the cluster. He gets a bit overzealous and his cue shaft hits the cluster on the follow through, spreading it out real nice. The shot was made and the cue ball didn't go near the balls he spread. Is this a foul?

Steve

p.s. this startled my parakeet and he fouled my shoulder
Click to expand...
This is one reason you might consider playing by the full set of rules.

If you are playing "cue ball fouls only" (which is a misnomer), then often people play that if you move more than one ball, it is a foul. If you are not going to consider it a foul, then the non-shooter usually has the right to put the disturbed balls back where they should be.

My suggestion: try playing by the full rules and see how it goes.
 
Bob Jewett said:
This is one reason you might consider playing by the full set of rules.

If you are playing "cue ball fouls only" (which is a misnomer), then often people play that if you move more than one ball, it is a foul. If you are not going to consider it a foul, then the non-shooter usually has the right to put the disturbed balls back where they should be.

My suggestion: try playing by the full rules and see how it goes.
Click to expand...

Plus 1, and then some.

Dale
 
When a friend and I used to play regularly for fun and practice, we came up with what we considered a good medium.

We would play all ball fouls, but if the foul was OB or other than CB, we would charge the offender 5 balls on the wire, the opponent has the right to replace the balls as close as possible to their original position, and the offending player is allowed to continue shooting.

Just an idea, and a good way I believe, to practice "all ball fouls" without getting aggravated in a practice game. Just brushing or touching an OB would be a 5 ball penalty the way we played. The OB wouldn't have to move, only touched.
 
slach said:
Here's another situation that happened recently (playing 14.1)....

Opponent has a secondary break shot near the cluster. He gets a bit overzealous and his cue shaft hits the cluster on the follow through, spreading it out real nice. The shot was made and the cue ball didn't go near the balls he spread. Is this a foul?

Steve

p.s. this startled my parakeet and he fouled my shoulder
Click to expand...

OMG!! As a European player/coach, it's never crossed my mind thus far that one could do this on purpose if one played "cue ball fouls only" (which we never do, "all ball fouls" is the rule here)! :shocked2: :scratchhead: :nono:

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
My most frequent opponent, Half Fast Larry, and I started playing all ball fouls a couple of years ago. We both agree that it has improved our game even though it hasn't showed up in our scores.

Dave Nelson
 
I've always played all ball fouls, I think it helps keep ones level of attention at a higher level which is generally beneficial to ones play.
 
slach said:
Here's another situation that happened recently (playing 14.1)....

Opponent has a secondary break shot near the cluster. He gets a bit overzealous and his cue shaft hits the cluster on the follow through, spreading it out real nice. The shot was made and the cue ball didn't go near the balls he spread. Is this a foul?

Steve

p.s. this startled my parakeet and he fouled my shoulder
Click to expand...

To answer your question, it almost for sure is a foul under WSR's when playing cue ball only fouls. Here's the rule:

20. Cue ball fouls only

If there is no referee presiding over a match, it may be played using cue ball fouls only. That is, touching or moving any ball other than the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the shot by either touching another ball or having any ball, including the cue ball, going through the area originally occupied by the moved ball. If this does not happen, then the opposing player must be given the option of either leaving the ball where it lies or replacing the ball as near as possible to its original position to the agreement of both players. If a player shoots without giving his opponent the option to replace, it will be a foul resulting in cue ball in hand for the opponent.

Note the bold faced portion. If his cue stick contacted the stack, it almost had to either foul more than one ball or the one ball he contacted almost certainly hit another ball in the stack, especially since you said they broke open real nice.

In the BCAPL rules (1.33-7) it would also be a foul for a couple of reasons:

7. It is a foul if:
a. you disturb the cue ball
b. you disturb more than one object ball;
c. a disturbed ball contacts any other ball;
d. you disturb a ball that is in motion.
 
Last edited:
DogsPlayingPool said:
To answer your question, it almost for sure is a foul under WSR's when playing cue ball only fouls. Here's the rule:

20. Cue ball fouls only

If there is no referee presiding over a match, it may be played using cue ball fouls only. That is, touching or moving any ball other than the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the shot by either touching another ball or having any ball, including the cue ball, going through the area originally occupied by the moved ball. If this does not happen, then the opposing player must be given the option of either leaving the ball where it lies or replacing the ball as near as possible to its original position to the agreement of both players. If a player shoots without giving his opponent the option to replace, it will be a foul resulting in cue ball in hand for the opponent.

Note the bold faced portion. If his cue stick contacted the stack, it almost had to either foul more than one ball or the one ball he contacted almost certainly hit another ball in the stack, especially since you said they broke open real nice.

In the BCAPL rules (1.33-7) it would also be a foul for a couple of reasons:

7. It is a foul if:
a. you disturb the cue ball
b. you disturb more than one object ball;
c. a disturbed ball contacts any other ball;
d. you disturb a ball that is in motion.
Click to expand...

This is definitely the correct rule.
Playing cue ball fouls only isn't the free for all that some think it is.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
To answer your question, it almost for sure is a foul under WSR's when playing cue ball only fouls. Here's the rule:

20. Cue ball fouls only

If there is no referee presiding over a match, it may be played using cue ball fouls only. That is, touching or moving any ball other than the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the shot by either touching another ball or having any ball, including the cue ball, going through the area originally occupied by the moved ball. If this does not happen, then the opposing player must be given the option of either leaving the ball where it lies or replacing the ball as near as possible to its original position to the agreement of both players. If a player shoots without giving his opponent the option to replace, it will be a foul resulting in cue ball in hand for the opponent.

Note the bold faced portion. If his cue stick contacted the stack, it almost had to either foul more than one ball or the one ball he contacted almost certainly hit another ball in the stack, especially since you said they broke open real nice.

In the BCAPL rules (1.33-7) it would also be a foul for a couple of reasons:

7. It is a foul if:
a. you disturb the cue ball
b. you disturb more than one object ball;
c. a disturbed ball contacts any other ball;
d. you disturb a ball that is in motion.
Click to expand...

Good to know! What this means, ironically, is that "all ball fouls" isn't the more difficult of the two to put into practice (= in the absence of a referee), however.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
acousticsguru said:
Good to know! What this means, ironically, is that "all ball fouls" isn't the more difficult of the two to put into practice (= in the absence of a referee), however.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. The problem with all ball fouls is that the shooter loses his inning even when touching an object ball, and there are often situations where he doesn't see or even know that he did - like when stretching for a shot and his shirt touches a ball, or sometimes when jacked up over balls maybe his cue touches the ball but he didn't see it because he was focused on the shot. So it can sometimes lead to arguments when his opponent jumps up, yells foul, and attempts to take over the table with BIH.

With CB only fouls, because the shooter doesn't lose his inning there usually are fewer arguments.

For the record, I come from a straight pool background and do prefer to play all ball fouls.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
Well, yes and no. The problem with all ball fouls is that the shooter loses his inning even when touching an object ball, and there are often situations where he doesn't see or even know that he did - like when stretching for a shot and his shirt touches a ball, or sometimes when jacked up over balls maybe his cue touches the ball but he didn't see it because he was focused on the shot. So it can sometimes lead to arguments when his opponent jumps up, yells foul, and attempts to take over the table with BIH.

With CB only fouls, because the shooter doesn't lose his inning there usually are fewer arguments.

For the record, I come from a straight pool background and do prefer to play all ball fouls.
Click to expand...

Theoretically. In the absence of a referee, in case of doubt, the decision is invariably in favour of the player at the table. But you're right, it does lead to arguments when the opponent keeps insisting - the problem is nonetheless that once one calls for an official, e.g. the tournament director, the call is invariably going to be in favour of the player at the table, because no official can call a foul they didn't witness. Since we play "all ball fouls" all the time, everybody knows this, so there are no arguments unless someone's convinced their opponent knows about the foul, or is liable to give in.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
acousticsguru said:
Theoretically. In the absence of a referee, in case of doubt, the decision is invariably in favour of the player at the table. But you're right, it does lead to arguments when the opponent keeps insisting - the problem is nonetheless that once one calls for an official, e.g. the tournament director, the call is invariably going to be in favour of the player at the table, because no official can call a foul they didn't witness. Since we play "all ball fouls" all the time, everybody knows this, so there are no arguments unless someone's convinced their opponent knows about the foul, or is liable to give in.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying but with all ball fouls, if the shooter fouls but for whatever reason says he didn't, then you have no option to restore the position of the disturbed ball. With CB only fouls at least you have the option to leave it where it is or move it back. The option is often to your advantage because it often occurs with a ball along or on the rail - usually more of a problem for the shooter than if it was moved off the rail a couple of inches.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
I know what you are saying but with all ball fouls, if the shooter fouls but for whatever reason says he didn't, then you have no option to restore the position of the disturbed ball. With CB only fouls at least you have the option to leave it where it is or move it back. The option is often to your advantage because it often occurs with a ball along or on the rail - usually more of a problem for the shooter than if it was moved off the rail a couple of inches.
Click to expand...

It's a long time since I last played "cue ball fouls only" (in the U.S. - no one here has heard of this rule, unfortunately, because I think in the absence of a referee, it's generally the more fair of the two - in the presence of a referee, it would be the other way round, IMHO). It's my impression that "agreeing upon" where the moved ball was alone could lead to arguments? (But then, sorry to say, players in the U.S. have always seemed to me to be somewhat prone to arguing, or perhaps thinking of it as a means of sharking opponents.)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti
 
acousticsguru said:
It's a long time since I last played "cue ball fouls only" (in the U.S. - no one here has heard of this rule, unfortunately, because I think in the absence of a referee, it's generally the more fair of the two - in the presence of a referee, it would be the other way round, IMHO). It's my impression that "agreeing upon" where the moved ball was alone could lead to arguments? (But then, sorry to say, players in the U.S. have always seemed to me to be somewhat prone to arguing, or perhaps thinking of it as a means of sharking opponents.)

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been my experience. In fact I can't remember the last time two players couldn't agree on the original position of the ball when the opponent wanted it moved back, not even in a professional event played CB only fouls. Maybe it's just because the shooter knew he fouled and is just happy he isn't losing his turn.
 
Not exactly 14.1 rules, but in VNEA rules, cue ball fouls only, the opponent is the only one who can move the ball(s) back. If the shooter grabs one and moves it back, then it's a foul, because they intentionally touched a ball.

The opponent is the only one who gets a say in where the ball is moved back to. This can, once in a while, cause a problem, but most people are only trying to restore the original situation, not gain an advantage.

Still, as we like to say, if you don't want your opponent to move the balls around to their advantage, don't move them accidentally and it will all be moot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top