It looks bad and it can be dangerous. At one point launching object balls off the table was not a foul at pool.Just out of curiosity, for what reasons do you think it’s the right way to do it? ... (no launching balls off the table)
It looks bad and it can be dangerous. At one point launching object balls off the table was not a foul at pool.Just out of curiosity, for what reasons do you think it’s the right way to do it? ... (no launching balls off the table)
It looks bad and it can be dangerous.
At least one object ball?... Yeah there are a lot of variations [of the rerack rule at one pocket], many incomplete. I like to keep it simple with something like: if at least one ball is pocketed in any pocket, rerack.
I don’t really disagree, but I hate a player making a show of inspecting a rack with his nose like 3” from the balls. I was trying to figure an appropriate penalty but probably was too lenient.My feeling is that the breaker has a right to know what he's breaking. If how long he takes to look is a problem, the break can be on the shot clock. I think he should also have the right to point out to the referee (if he is the racker), that there are gaps. If the ref racks badly, he needs to get feedback.
Yes, I think it is time to rework the layout. All the game rules should be together. And the section on wheelchair/parasport competition probably belongs in the Regulations. Maybe on the next major revision.... all the sections on the individual games be put together. ...
Yes, object ball. That was an oversight. Maybe “legally pocketed” would be another to way to say it. That would also cover the situation — which I forgot — of pocketing an object ball and also scratching. Rules are hard!At least one object ball?
4. Seems like "base of the ball" rules are in effect instead of "full ball" rules for ball in hand behind the head string. This applies to all games, but it's not clear to me what the WPA rules are for behind the line play. I'd like for "on or below the head string" in 6.10 and "crosses the head string" in 6.11 to be defined more clearly. I assume the base of the cue ball is the relevant point in both cases.
for me the whole ball is extremely easier to determine instead of some darkened area of the base of the ball which is an area where the ball contacts the table not an edgeI gave the onepocket.org rules a re-read, and read the WPA rules. Here are some interesting differences I noticed:
Speaking of..
- No mention of re-rack option for balls pocketed on the break. Some form of this is pretty much always used these days in my experience matching up. Pretty sure DCC uses it, too.
- I didn't see any mention of jump cues, which are generally not allowed in one pocket. That could seriously change the strategy of "doubling up" an opponent on the head rail.
- It seems that the WPA rules don't allow the possibility of pocketing an opponents ball while jumping the cue ball off the table for the pocketed ball to be re-spotted. This is sometimes attempted when following the ball in is more difficult. Are there any reasons in particular for this difference? I personally like having this option.
- Seems like "base of the ball" rules are in effect instead of "full ball" rules for ball in hand behind the head string. This applies to all games, but it's not clear to me what the WPA rules are for behind the line play. I'd like for "on or below the head string" in 6.10 and "crosses the head string" in 6.11 to be defined more clearly. I assume the base of the cue ball is the relevant point in both cases.
Maybe "the lowest point of the cue ball" is a more precise way to phrase this. "Center" is pretty good, but it has an overloaded use for tip placement, which might get confusing. Downside of "lowest" is we have to agree which way up is.
I like this idea. 8.13 clears it up for me. @iusedtoberich have a look.See 8.13 Position of Balls.
To make the connection to the definition of "position" in section 8.13 clear, the rules you quoted should say, "it is a foul to play the cue
ball from a position on or below the head string" and "the shot is a foul unless the position of the cue ball crosses the head string before that contact." Additionally, the word "position" in both those rules should be footnoted, with a footnote that says, "See 8.13 Position of balls", so that readers don't have to blindly go searching through the rules looking for a rule that might define when a ball is considered to be behind the head string.
Kinda funny. The recent announcement of the WPA Athlete's Commission is decently aligned with the concepts of what I was advocating for here. I would alter my recommendation given this development. Instead of putting players directly on the rules committee, I would encourage the rules committee to make use of the Athletes' Commission. At a minimum would be (1) "Hey, we're opening up a revision window. Do you have any suggestions?" and (2) "Here is a draft of our upcoming proposed rule changes for your review and comment."I’m thinking of what a rules committee for a governing body of an international sport should be. Basic tenets of transparency like acknowledging rules changes are being considered. Publishing who is on the committee. Ensuring there is adequate professional player representation on the committee (active and retired). Public comment periods on proposed changes.
I would ask this. Are those “purists” making any effort to understand the preferences of the players or are they firm in a belief that they alone know what’s best for the sport? Because if it’s the latter, there’s a problem inside the bureaucracy.
I’m not trying to assert what I believe is the gospel either. But in that regard, I’d point back to my first paragraph in this post.
You know who would be perfect for something like that if willing, Jayson Shaw. He advocates for what truly is best for the spot, not just short sighted things that would specifically benefit just himself. And he has a good grasp on the wisdom between purity and practicality.
I don't think I've ran into that scenario before, the way that usapl did scoring, unless the game is hill hill, if one of the players reached the point totals the match is over. If it's hill-hill, then the winner of that game wins. Meaning if you need one ball and I need one ball, even if you make that one ball in the game it's not a win, you have to play out the rack. It certainly would be very unfair to the person breaking if they make balls for the other side and they end up winning due to that without even playing.So, a worst-case scenario is he needs two points to win the match and you break and make two of each group. Do you lose immediately, or could you run out and tie somehow?
In my experience, all ball fouls should only be two situations:Thanks, Stu.
This doesn’t seem to be much of a problem except in the US. Maybe it is time for Americans to learn how to play the game properly. You should not be touching balls you are not supposed to touch. If you start getting penalized for it, you will probably start doing it much less frequently.
Regardless, the American pool leagle systems seem intent on having their own rules anyway. The list of league rule differences is quite long.
That's exactly what "all ball fouls" is without a ref. Anyone who has played much under "all ball fouls" out in the real world of typical poolrooms and bars and amateur local tournaments should know that.In my opinion, that is just an invitation for folks to argue.
I’ve only ever played “cueball fouls only” and you can easily say it’s a source of arguments. You have to explain moving two balls is a foul and people act like you’re a jerk for enforcing it. BCAPL rules is it’s a foul if a moving ball passes within a 7” diameter circle of the original ball position. But nobody knows about that have their own informal concept of whether the disturbed ball “crosses the path of a moving ball”. And it gets dicey if someone disturbs an object ball frozen to the cueball. Or if someone moves a ball back without giving their opponent the opportunity to decide. I’ve seen plenty of arguments in these scenarios where “all ball fouls” would have ended all debate on the topic.That's exactly what "all ball fouls" is without a ref. Anyone who has played much under "all ball fouls" out in the real world of typical poolrooms and bars and amateur local tournaments should know that.![]()
I have not seen the arguments you are talking about with cueball fouls only. I agree many players have mistaken ideas of what the rules are, but I would expect many more problems with all ball fouls in CSI/ BCAPL situations with all balls.I’ve only ever played “cueball fouls only” and you can easily say it’s a source of arguments. You have to explain moving two balls is a foul and people act like you’re a jerk for enforcing it. BCAPL rules is it’s a foul if a moving ball passes within a 7” diameter circle of the original ball position. But nobody knows about that have their own informal concept of whether the disturbed ball “crosses the path of a moving ball”. And it gets dicey if someone disturbs an object ball frozen to the cueball. Or if someone moves a ball back without giving their opponent the opportunity to decide. I’ve seen plenty of arguments in these scenarios where “all ball fouls” would have ended all debate on the topic.
But I can say I’ve never played “all ball fouls” so I can’t comment on how often you get a Lombardo/Frost situation among amateurs. But it doesn’t give me too much sympathy for beer belly contact because it’s already a shame the lengths players will go to avoid using the bridge. So if they touch a ball, it’s still on them for not avoiding it.