Mike Shamos' 14.1 Rule Mistake in Billiards Digest

A

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Mike Shamos has a regular feature in Billiards Digest called "You Make The Call." He presents a situation where two players disagree on the proper rule call in a pool game, asks the reader to make the call, and then gives the correct answer.

In the current issue (February, 2015), the game is 14.1 under World-Standardized rules. The situation Mike presents is that Player A has just scratched twice on the opening break. Player B tells him he is on two fouls, and Player A then scratches a third time. In all 3 scratches, at least two balls (other than the CB, presumably) were sent to a cushion. The issue is whether Player A loses 15 more points for the third foul. Mike answers, no, the fouls were breaking fouls, which do not count toward the 3-foul rule, so Player A has just lost 2 points for each foul, he now stands at -6, and Player B can require him to play yet another opening break.

I think this is wrong in several ways:

1. Scratching on the break, while driving at least 2 other balls to a rail, is not a "breaking foul" (2-point penalty + re-break option), it's just a standard foul (1-point penalty).

2. Since it is not a breaking foul, Player B had no option to make Player A break again after the first such foul. It would have simply been ball in hand behind the line for Player B, with Player A at -1.

3. As a standard foul, Player A's scratch on the break does count for the 3-foul rule, and he is on one foul when he next comes to the table.

You agree?
 
AtLarge said:
Mike Shamos has a regular feature in Billiards Digest called "You Make The Call." He presents a situation where two players disagree on the proper rule call in a pool game, asks the reader to make the call, and then gives the correct answer.

In the current issue (February, 2015), the game is 14.1 under World-Standardized rules. The situation Mike presents is that Player A has just scratched twice on the opening break. Player B tells him he is on two fouls, and Player A then scratches a third time. In all 3 scratches, at least two balls (other than the CB, presumably) were sent to a cushion. The issue is whether Player A loses 15 more points for the third foul. Mike answers, no, the fouls were breaking fouls, which do not count toward the 3-foul rule, so Player A has just lost 2 points for each foul, he now stands at -6, and Player B can require him to play yet another opening break.

I think this is wrong in several ways:

1. Scratching on the break, while driving at least 2 other balls to a rail, is not a "breaking foul" (2-point penalty + re-break option), it's just a standard foul (1-point penalty).

2. Since it is not a breaking foul, Player B had no option to make Player A break again after the first such foul. It would have simply been ball in hand behind the line for Player B, with Player A at -1.

3. As a standard foul, Player A's scratch on the break does count for the 3-foul rule, and he is on one foul when he next comes to the table.

You agree?
Click to expand...

You are correct, scratching in the pocket is not a breaking violation. It's a standard foul and does count towards the 3 foul rule. A breaking violation does not count as a foul towards 3 in a row. The player could break as many times as his opponent chooses until he get 2 balls and the cue ball to the rail.
 
A breaking violation has been referred to as a scratch for as long as I've played the game. Yes, it is different from a scratch in which the cue ball is pocketed, but it's still called a scratch.

Shamos' slant on the rule is absolutely correct here. This type of scratch does not count toward the fifteen point penalty.
 
sjm said:
A breaking violation has been referred to as a scratch for as long as I've played the game. Yes, it is different from a scratch in which the cue ball is pocketed, but it's still called a scratch.

Shamos' slant on the rule is absolutely correct here. This type of scratch does not count toward the fifteen point penalty.
Click to expand...

sjm -- I don't think you are reading the situation correctly. In Shamos' scenario, Player A "scratched" three times in a row on the break by pocketing the cue ball even though at least two other balls went to cushions. On Player A's third breaking attempt, Shamos says: "Three balls contact cushions, but the cue ball goes in a pocket for the third time." So they were not "breaking fouls," just pocket scratches. Player B should have gone to the table after the first such scratch, with Player A on one foul and at a score of -1.
 
AtLarge said:
sjm -- I don't think you are reading the situation correctly. In Shamos' scenario, Player A "scratched" three times in a row on the break by pocketing the cue ball even though at least two other balls went to cushions. On Player A's third breaking attempt, Shamos says: "Three balls contact cushions, but the cue ball goes in a pocket for the third time." So they were not "breaking fouls," just pocket scratches. Player B should have gone to the table after the first such scratch, with Player A on one foul and at a score of -1.
Click to expand...

In the rules as I understand them, you cannot request a re-break on a pocket scratch in this situation, so it sounds to me that the only type of scratch that occurred was the one pertaining specifically to the breaking violation. If Mike specifically indicates that the cue ball went into a pocket on each "otherwise legal" attempt, then proper procedure was, in my opinion, broken.
 
sjm said:
In the rules as I understand them, you cannot request a re-break on a pocket scratch in this situation, so it sounds to me that the only type of scratch that occurred was the one pertaining specifically to the breaking violation. If Mike specifically indicates that the cue ball went into a pocket on each "otherwise legal" attempt, then proper procedure was, in my opinion, broken.
Click to expand...

Per Mike: "Player A ... has scratched twice even though he sent at least two balls to a cushion each time. He is now on his third attempt. ... Three balls contact cushions, but the cue ball goes in a pocket for the third time."

And even after the third scratch, Mike says "Player A can be forced to play another opening break..."

So, yes, I read that as improper procedure. Player B should have had BIH after Player A's first pocket scratch.
 
AtLarge said:
Per Mike: "Player A ... has scratched twice even though he sent at least two balls to a cushion each time. He is now on his third attempt. ... Three balls contact cushions, but the cue ball goes in a pocket for the third time."

And even after the third scratch, Mike says "Player A can be forced to play another opening break..."

So, yes, I read that as improper procedure. Player B should have had BIH after Player A's first pocket scratch.
Click to expand...

That's my understanding, too. BIH after the first break attempt and the breaker's score would be -1.
 
I am still confused about two different scenarios
One: two balls touch a rail the cue ball goes off the rack into the pocket.
Two: two balls touch a rail and the cue ball touches a rail, goes around the table and into a pocket.
Are both breaking fousl?
I was under the impression that situation two is a one ball foul. Incoming player get ball in hand in the kitchen. No choice for a rerack. The player breaking is on one foul.
 
kaznj said:
I am still confused about two different scenarios
One: two balls touch a rail the cue ball goes off the rack into the pocket.
Two: two balls touch a rail and the cue ball touches a rail, goes around the table and into a pocket.
Are both breaking fousl?
I was under the impression that situation two is a one ball foul. Incoming player get ball in hand in the kitchen. No choice for a rerack. The player breaking is on one foul.
Click to expand...

Neither one is a breaking violation.

Each one is a one-point foul.

The pocket explicitly counts as a cushion contact for the cue ball.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Neither one is a breaking violation.

Each one is a one-point foul.

The pocket explicitly counts as a cushion contact for the cue ball.
Click to expand...

Bob: how about when only one object ball hits the rail and the cue ball goes in the hole.

Mika did that in his match with Chinakhov at Derby.

I deducted two because it was a breaking foul but I was not sure if it would have also counted towards three fouls. Chinakhov took ball in hand and was off to the races with Mika at negative two. I was thinking that Mika was also on the first foul in case Chinakhov needed to do an intentional down the road, but it never came up.
 
dmgwalsh said:
Bob: how about when only one object ball hits the rail and the cue ball goes in the hole.

Mika did that in his match with Chinakhov at Derby.

I deducted two because it was a breaking foul but I was not sure if it would have also counted towards three fouls. Chinakhov took ball in hand and was off to the races with Mika at negative two. I was thinking that Mika was also on the first foul in case Chinakhov needed to do an intentional down the road, but it never came up.
Click to expand...
Because the opponent has the choice on a breaking violation, there is no first foul.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Because the opponent has the choice on a breaking violation, there is no first foul.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bob.

I'm glad it never came up. I would have guessed the other way.

So the two point breaking foul trumps the regular foul, such that the player is not on a foul for purposes of three consecutive foul situation.

I got it, for future reference.
 
I talked to Mike last night. He's been out of the country. There will be a correction in the May issue of BD.
 
So there is a difference between a foul on the break, and a breaking foul.
Got it.
I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top