New rack both balls in the rack area

Mick

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Never saw it done, and no mention of that procedure in the old BCA rulebook.
I guess the current generation of players who can no longer reliably avoid fouling an object ball while shooting, can’t be trusted (when acting as their opponent’s referee) to lift the triangle straight up either (?).

You seem cranky. We frequently use a ball marker for ease of racking. I can't see any valid reason not to. Makes it much easier to get a tight rack, and eliminates the possibility of accidentally altering the situation.
 

DynoDan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You seem cranky. We frequently use a ball marker for ease of racking. I can't see any valid reason not to. Makes it much easier to get a tight rack, and eliminates the possibility of accidentally altering the situation.

Not so much ‘cranky’ as puzzled. If the last ball is close enough to make racking risky, then it just seems as though one source of contention is being traded for another (I suppose no one has ever argued over the replaced position of a ‘marked’ ball?). Just saying, while marking the CB for cleaning has been traditionally allowed and specified in the rules, disturbing the position of an OB hasn’t (?). Since you must trust the referee to rack the balls tightly, in the rare instance of clumsiness when he accidentally disturbed the break ball, you also typically trusted him to replace it correctly (to the best of his memory).
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Not so much ‘cranky’ as puzzled. If the last ball is close enough to make racking risky, then it just seems as though one source of contention is being traded for another (I suppose no one has ever argued over the replaced position of a ‘marked’ ball?). Just saying, while marking the CB for cleaning has been traditionally allowed and specified in the rules, disturbing the position of an OB hasn’t (?). Since you must trust the referee to rack the balls tightly, in the rare instance of clumsiness when he accidentally disturbed the break ball, you also typically trusted him to replace it correctly (to the best of his memory).
If the object ball is 1/2mm outside the rack area, it is more or less impossible to rack without disturbing the ball even for the steadiest racker. Instead of moving it and then putting it back to the best of the ref's guess, it makes a lot more sense to mark the position, remove the ball, rack the balls and then put the ball back precisely where it was.

There were lots of things missing or broken in the old BCA rule book.
 

Charles Hartfield

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
"The only question I have is if the object ball is behind the head string and the cue ball is spotted on the head spot,
can the object ball be pocketed straight in and not banked off the foot rail in the two pockets behind the head string?

Also, where is the center spot? Dead center of the table?"



If the last OB is behind the head string and the CB is in the rack, the CB is placed on the head spot and you can shoot
any OB you choose, including the last OB and you can make it in any pocket you choose or you can call a safety.

And, the center spot is the exact middle of the table.

Thank you. Charles
 

zencues.com

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Your welcome.

And to follow up... if the last OB is behind the head string and the CB is in the rack,
but the last OB will interfere with spotting the CB on the head spot then the CB is
spotted on the center spot. The shooting player can then shoot any OB he chooses.








.
 

DynoDan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If the object ball is 1/2mm outside the rack area, it is more or less impossible to rack without disturbing the ball even for the steadiest racker.
There were lots of things missing or broken in the old BCA rule book.

Matter of opinion. I always thought the BCA’s direction that the ‘impossibility’ of the referee’s ‘racking-without-disturbing’ would automatically send the last ball to the headspot, as quite simple/expedient, and encouraged the selection of break balls not so close to the rack area (thus avoiding much nitpicking/contention). But then, I’m just a ‘cranky’ old guy, so what do I know?
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Matter of opinion. I always thought the BCA’s direction that the ‘impossibility’ of the referee’s ‘racking-without-disturbing’ would automatically send the last ball to the headspot, as quite simple/expedient, and encouraged the selection of break balls not so close to the rack area (thus avoiding much nitpicking/contention). But then, I’m just a ‘cranky’ old guy, so what do I know?
So, if the ball is slightly out of the rack, and you have a ref with the shakes, he's supposed to tell you it's in the rack?
 

DynoDan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So, if the ball is slightly out of the rack, and you have a ref with the shakes, he's supposed to tell you it's in the rack?

While likely no longer relevant, this issue has nonetheless inspired a rereading (and interpretation) of the old rulebook (mental masturbation?) and some reflection/musing:
Apparently, the current rules dictate that when a close breakball’s location is designated/decided as outside of the drawn rack lines, it’s position is then marked, and replaced after the balls are racked. That decision is obviously final, since the ball has been marked/moved.
Back in the day (when drawing lines on the table was not always common or permitted), you COULD ask the referee for a definite decision (the rules stated that the referee MUST be ‘responsive’), but if in error, that decision was NOT final. If he then discovered that it was NOT ‘possible’ to rack without disturbing it, the ball then went to the headspot. If he was clumsy and moved it, he then replaced it to the best of his ability. Much as players are not allowed to lay their cue on the table as a guide, but must maintain a grip, the rulebook ‘implied’ (not specifically stated) that the triangle could only be hovered over the rack area to determine whether the last ball was ‘out’.
I believe the game was thus more interesting then since more judgment was required in breakball determination. You never really knew for sure if that ball was in the rack area until the actual racking was attempted!
P.S. While ‘rereading’, I discovered a rule I had never encountered before. Namely, that when spotting a ball behind the foot spot where the CB interferes, it CONNOT be frozen to it!
Learning something new everyday.
 

DynoDan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
...while marking the CB for cleaning has been traditionally allowed and specified in the rules, disturbing the position of an OB hasn’t (?).

My mistake. The old BCA rulebook stated that a player may request ANY BALL be marked/cleaned at any time.
 

Althair

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just want to thank everyone for the responses to my original question. So delighted to hear from Bob Jewett again. I think I was asking him questions about Mosconni's explanation about why English curves cue ball path 25 years ago in "newsgroups" in early days of the internet.

Sent from my SM-A600U using Tapatalk
 

Danny Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
bca

OK - cue ball and 15th ball (break ball or play safety). You spot the object ball on the head spot and play the cue ball from in the kitchen. My question is: IS THE OBJECT BALL LOCATED ON THE HEAD SPOT LEGAL TO SHOOT AT? My impression is that a ball ON the head string is not "in" the kitchen and should be a legal shot. But I'm having difficulty finding the right answer in the official BCA rules. Thank you!

Sent from my SM-A600U using Tapatalk

Yes the bca rule book is awkward, we need a new governing body for Pocket Billiards. Maybe they know u cannot play straight pool in one of their bar leagues - so they display the rules in a difficult manner? I really don't think that 14.1 fits into their business plan or model of promoting bar leegs'.
 
Last edited:

Danny Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
Ohh ya

If the object ball is 1/2mm outside the rack area, it is more or less impossible to rack without disturbing the ball even for the steadiest racker. Instead of moving it and then putting it back to the best of the ref's guess, it makes a lot more sense to mark the position, remove the ball, rack the balls and then put the ball back precisely where it was.

There were lots of things missing or broken in the old BCA rule book.

There are a few things' as u stated that are definitely broken or crooked in the bca drive by media sludge these dais'. Besides their little book of rules. bca = beaurorcratic - corrupt - asinine. They are truly a bad outfit, If i were to join a bar league it would for sure not be bca government liars.
 
Last edited:

king cut

Registered
I’m a little confused, are you saying that the thickness of the rack doesn’t matter as long as the 15th ball doesn’t interfere with the 14 racked ball when the rack is not there it’s ok. I thought the lines where drawn on the outside of the rack, not the inside of the rack!
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I’m a little confused, are you saying that the thickness of the rack doesn’t matter as long as the 15th ball doesn’t interfere with the 14 racked ball when the rack is not there it’s ok. I thought the lines where drawn on the outside of the rack, not the inside of the rack!
The rule says in part:

A ball is considered to interfere with the rack if it is within or overlaps the outline of the rack.
The outline is drawn outside the triangle. The rules don't actually state that and they probably should. The marking would be done by the installer and nearly all of them know to mark the outside. That is "obviously" what needs to be marked but things are not so obvious to new players.
 
Last edited:

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thanks Bob, that clears it up and that’s the way we always played.

And so far as I know, it has been played that way for 100 years. The only recent addition is the marking part.

The rules for the 1921 National Championship simply say "interferes with the framing" without further definition, which is open to interpretation. If a ball is so close that it needs to be marked to avoid accidental bumping, it could reasonably be said to "interfere" with the process of racking. I was not there for the tournament, so I don't know exactly how balls very close to the triangle were handled in practice.:wink:

I had a situation recently when I should have marked the ball but I was really careful taking the triangle off and I didn't move the ball enough to make any difference, probably.
 
Top