Moving balls back: What's the call?

[Jude Rosenstock]

So, last night, I was watching an APA Tri-Cup match and an interesting ruling scenario came up. The shooter accidentally moved a ball and correctly stood-up to negotiate moving it back. The referee instructed her to ask her opponent to move it back. In her attempt to restore the balls, the opponent accidentally moved the cue-ball (everything was clustered).

So, under APA rules, the cue-ball is "always live" and moving it is a foul. However, nearly all fouls pertain to the shooter, not the sitting player. Feel free to tell me what you think the correct course of action is for APA or other formats.

In my humble opinion, unless it is a sportsmanship violation, the sitting player cannot commit a foul. When balls are moved, play is suspended until the table is properly restored and a foul cannot occur during this time. That's my opinion but please tell me what you think.

 

[hang-the-9]

That is interesting, every time I played, the moving of the ball back was done by the player that moved the ball not by the opponent. Thus preventing such a situation.

There is a thing here that can lead to abuse. Let's say the other ball was very close or touching the cueball, then was moved out from it. The opponent tells me to move it back, but it is so close to the cueball that it would be easy to foul. I nudge the cueball while placing it and the opponent calls a foul. Would we have the right to have a ref place the ball and take out the foul situation?

If the cueball is close to the other balls, I would have a ref or a third party attempt to place the ball back. I really don't see why a foul would be called here, but then again, the moving of the ball could have created an advantage for the other place. On the third hand, the player did move a ball, so getting a less favorable outcome would be punishment for moving a ball. Don't start nothin' won't be nothin'.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... That's my opinion but please tell me what you think.

I think that APA has to be contacted for the particular case. In general, players acting as referees or doing official tasks are not penalized for what would otherwise be fouls.

 

[Tooler]

IMO, the ref should of been "more" involved.....

He (ref) could of just as easily discussed it with both players, then replaced the ball himself.

 

[sbpoolleague]

So, last night, I was watching an APA Tri-Cup match and an interesting ruling scenario came up. The shooter accidentally moved a ball and correctly stood-up to negotiate moving it back. The referee instructed her to ask her opponent to move it back. In her attempt to restore the balls, the opponent accidentally moved the cue-ball (everything was clustered).

So, under APA rules, the cue-ball is "always live" and moving it is a foul. However, nearly all fouls pertain to the shooter, not the sitting player. Feel free to tell me what you think the correct course of action is for APA or other formats.

In my humble opinion, unless it is a sportsmanship violation, the sitting player cannot commit a foul. When balls are moved, play is suspended until the table is properly restored and a foul cannot occur during this time. That's my opinion but please tell me what you think.

It is rare when a situation comes up that the BCAPL does not specifically address in its rule book, but I think this is one of those situations.

I think the obvious answer is that there should be no foul (unless there is a sportsmanship issue, as you say). Since there was a referee present, and the restoration was to take place near the cue ball, I would have asked the referee to replace the ball to the agreed upon spot. That way there would be no issues if other balls were disturbed.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

It is rare when a situation comes up that the BCAPL does not specifically address in its rule book, but I think this is one of those situations.

I think the obvious answer is that there should be no foul (unless there is a sportsmanship issue, as you say). Since there was a referee present, and the restoration was to take place near the cue ball, I would have asked the referee to replace the ball to the agreed upon spot. That way there would be no issues if other balls were disturbed.

I was fascinated because I don't think any rulebook talks about it.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

IMO, the ref should of been "more" involved.....

He (ref) could of just as easily discussed it with both players, then replaced the ball himself.

I agree but in local APA events, it's not usual for the referees to lack a degree of experience.

 

[Black-Balled]

The guy who moved the ball should never be the one to put it back.

That is too much 'opportunity.

That is interesting, every time I played, the moving of the ball back was done by the player that moved the ball not by the opponent. Thus preventing such a situation.

There is a thing here that can lead to abuse. Let's say the other ball was very close or touching the cueball, then was moved out from it. The opponent tells me to move it back, but it is so close to the cueball that it would be easy to foul. I nudge the cueball while placing it and the opponent calls a foul. Would we have the right to have a ref place the ball and take out the foul situation?

If the cueball is close to the other balls, I would have a ref or a third party attempt to place the ball back. I really don't see why a foul would be called here, but then again, the moving of the ball could have created an advantage for the other place. On the third hand, the player did move a ball, so getting a less favorable outcome would be punishment for moving a ball. Don't start nothin' won't be nothin'.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

IMO, the ref should of been "more" involved.....

He (ref) could of just as easily discussed it with both players, then replaced the ball himself.

I agree but then again, these were two fairly inexperienced players here. People who have been around the game a long time would probably find a ref to help out. On the other hand, in most situations of this nature, I usually call over my opponent and say, "Can we agree not to call fouls on each other and just get the table restored? Let me know if you feel more comfortable calling over a ref." Bottom line is, you protect yourself from bad/unusual rulings and just be honest.

 

[Masayoshi]

Just play all ball fouls and remove the situation entirely.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Seriously, can anyone think of a scenario where the non-shooter could commit a foul (outside of unsportsmanlike conduct)? I understand the APA rule-set is meant to be a sort of introduction to pool but they have essentially created wordage that allows for such an occurrence.

 

[hang-the-9]

The guy who moved the ball should never be the one to put it back.

That is too much 'opportunity.

It would be moved to where the other player also agreed it was. Usually the person that moved the ball has the best idea where it was anyway, half the time in league the opponent is not even watching the table.

 

[CCCue]

APA states any balls accidentally moved must be replaced by the opponent. Doesn’t say what happens if they move cue.

 

[Celophanewrap]

As the cue ball is always alive my initial thought is ball in hand for the shooting player.
If it's regular league night (and to avoid any kind of confrontation or argument) we probably
just move the cue ball back to a spot that we both agree on.
Playoffs of beyond I believe it's a ball in hand foul for the shooter

 

[Skippy27]

As the cue ball is always alive my initial thought is ball in hand for the shooting player.
If it's regular league night (and to avoid any kind of confrontation or argument) we probably
just move the cue ball back to a spot that we both agree on.
Playoffs of beyond I believe it's a ball in hand foul for the shooter

This was my thought initially, however, lets say you leave me, or I leave myself, on a ball (touching). Then instead of shooting over it I acci-purposely move that ball from the queue ball in my back stroke and thus now make you put it back (as it is opponent moves it back). This creates an instant foul situation for you being you can't possibly put it back on the cue ball without touching the cue ball. Which we know is a foul.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

So, last night, I was watching an APA Tri-Cup match and an interesting ruling scenario came up. The shooter accidentally moved a ball and correctly stood-up to negotiate moving it back. The referee instructed her to ask her opponent to move it back. In her attempt to restore the balls, the opponent accidentally moved the cue-ball (everything was clustered).

So, under APA rules, the cue-ball is "always live" and moving it is a foul. However, nearly all fouls pertain to the shooter, not the sitting player. Feel free to tell me what you think the correct course of action is for APA or other formats.

In my humble opinion, unless it is a sportsmanship violation, the sitting player cannot commit a foul. When balls are moved, play is suspended until the table is properly restored and a foul cannot occur during this time. That's my opinion but please tell me what you think.

I agree completely with the spirit of what you say. However, the rulebook is quite clear that any contact with the cue ball is a foul. That said, the APA rulebook is pretty much a disaster. It was not written by anyone with the desire or ability to be clear and articulate, and adequately cover the many things that come up while playing a match.

KMRUNOUT

 

[pt109]

As the cue ball is always alive my initial thought is ball in hand for the shooting player.
If it's regular league night (and to avoid any kind of confrontation or argument) we probably
just move the cue ball back to a spot that we both agree on.
Playoffs of beyond I believe it's a ball in hand foul for the shooter

The cue ball is not alive in this situation...nobody is at the table to shoot.
Neither the ref or either player can make a foul spotting a ball.
..I'm drawing from snooker on this, but it makes sense.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

That is interesting, every time I played, the moving of the ball back was done by the player that moved the ball not by the opponent. Thus preventing such a situation

.

Then it was done wrong every time you played. The opponent is required to replace the moved ball.

There is a thing here that can lead to abuse. Let's say the other ball was very close or touching the cueball, then was moved out from it. The opponent tells me to move it back, but it is so close to the cueball that it would be easy to foul. I nudge the cueball while placing it and the opponent calls a foul. Would we have the right to have a ref place the ball and take out the foul situation?

Of course, if a ref was present. If a ref was not present, I would simply tell my opponent that I am going to place the ball as close to where it was as I can without feeling as though I am risking fouling. If it is critical that the ball was, say, frozen to the cueball, I will inform my opponent, make sure I have his or her consent to re freeze the balls without a foul. If I don't get that consent, the match has just ended and I file a protest.

If the cueball is close to the other balls, I would have a ref or a third party attempt to place the ball back. I really don't see why a foul would be called here, but then again, the moving of the ball could have created an advantage for the other place. On the third hand, the player did move a ball, so getting a less favorable outcome would be punishment for moving a ball. Don't start nothin' won't be nothin'.

I agree completely that under no circumstances should I incur any punishment whatsoever resulting from my opponent moving a ball.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I agree but in local APA events, it's not usual for the referees to lack a degree of experience.

I sure wish I played in your area. My experience, including at the National Championships, is very different.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I agree completely with the spirit of what you say. However, the rulebook is quite clear that any contact with the cue ball is a foul. That said, the APA rulebook is pretty much a disaster. It was not written by anyone with the desire or ability to be clear and articulate, and adequately cover the many things that come up while playing a match.

KMRUNOUT

I actually don't think the rulebook is very clear when it comes to this. What happens is, someone says "The rule clearly states the cue ball is always live" therefore, it is always a foul to move the cue ball. However, the rulebook *also* states, "If any of the following fouls are committed, the
penalty is ball-in-hand for the incoming player. " The "incoming player" is the one who moved the cue ball. I'm just being literal, I'm not claiming to make sense. You're right, the rulebook is definitely a disaster.