Island Drive said:It's definitely possible, I once saw a lawyer hanging from his coat tails.
Too funny Bill. I just had to bump this one up one time. Please re-read post #11 and Island Drive's response in post #13. Two of the funniest ever on AZ!
New WPA World Standardized Rules
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Too funny Bill. I just had to bump this one up one time. Please re-read post #11 and Island Drive's response in post #13. Two of the funniest ever on AZ!
Bob Jewett said:
I don't particularly care, I just think it's logical.
Bob Jewett said:
None of the various uk style 8 ball rules have any particular similarities with snooker rules and are philosophically firmly entrenched in the pool family, so that's definitely not the reason
There was for sure an existing affinity for snooker but that basically only influenced the style of the pool tables which became popular. The rules were a different later issue.
There may have been an element of "sod the yanks, we'll do it our own way"
Personally absolutely love 8 ball rules on American equipment nowadays, a personal conversion which came rather late in life to someone who was a dyed in the wool uk style player as a young man playing the open pool circuits many moons ago. In fact I wish I'd pursued the American version earlier in life.
However these rules are indeed wholly unsuitable for uk tables. The main reason is that there are far too many tactical advantages which can be gained by surrounding the tighter uk style pockets and by deliberate fouling, given the penalty only being ball in hand to the opponent. This inevitably leads to very negative and boring play. It's been tried and it simply doesn't work. I'm sure that today's top exponents of both uk style 8 ball and American 8 ball, such as Darren Appleton, Karl Boyes and Mick Hill would fully agree with this assessment.
No idea. I think that the WPA Sports Director should know, but I haven't heard of any planned change. Was there something in particular that needs to be changed?Patrick Johnson said:
Well, OK, but this is a surprising result to me. As I'm sure you are aware, BIH is nearly always fatal on normal pool tables in higher-level comps.memikey said:
Bob Jewett said:
Yes Bob, even this never has been would be very disappointed not to mop up most of the time with BIH on normal tables.......but am afraid there's no mistaking the reality of what I described earlier re these rules on uk tables. If you get the opportunity to bring it up with anyone else well experienced in both types of 8 ball I'm sure they would confirm it too. Thanks for your insights.
Bob Jewett said:
Not that I'm aware of. Just curious.
pj
chgo
Bob Jewett said:
Hi Bob,
Is there a "changes" document showing the differences between old/new rules and regulations?
"The opponent must remain seated as during normal play; should he involve himself in an action other than standard match-playing activities it will be considered exercising his time out and no further time out will be allowed. The time out at eight ball and nine ball is taken between racks and play is suspended. At 14.1, the time out begins between racks; and the player at the table may continue his inning should the opponent decide to take his time out. If the non-shooter takes a time out, he must make sure there is a referee to supervise the table during his absence; otherwise he has no right to protest against any misplay by the player at the table."
Poolmouse
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
You say that the rules were available for comment, but by whom?
One problem that I recently posed to a member of the Rules Committee (so far without answer) was the following.
I am playing 8 Ball, the table is "open" and the followig scenario takes place.
I call a shot but fail to make it but accidentally the 8 ball gets pocketed.
What happens next.....?
3.8 say that the shooter loses if he pockets the 8 ball before his group is cleared but in this case, I don't yet have a group and neither does my opponent.
Another problem that I posed was the following:
Once again playing 8 ball.
I break and pocket 7 solids. The table is now open and I have to call my next shot which can only be stripes. I miss the pot. The table continues to be open and my opponent calls stripes and pots a ball but misses the next one.
I return to the table but can't shoot solids because there are none, neither can I shoot at stripes because they are the group of my opponent.
I can't shoot at the black because I haven't cleared a group!!!
Maybe I am missing something here??
These may seem to be silly questions but as a referee instructor in Spain, I often have to think of answers to questions such as these.
OK, playing the nitpicky devil's advocate game: For the purpose of this, I'll use the same line of reasoning.
The 8 ball went in early, before his group is cleared. You may try to argue that he doesn't yet have a group to clear. Whereas that may be irrelevant. You're looking from the wrong point of view. You can't fulfill the criteria of clearing your group, if you haven't even defined it. Thus in both cases, he hasn't met the criteria for clearing his group before sinking the 8 ball, whether his group has been defined or not.
Thus said shooter could try for stripes, or instead try for solids, by calling the 8 ball and sinking it in called pocket. At which point, the shooter would have met the criteria of clearing the solids, and making the 8 on a successive turn into a called pocket. All criteria has been met.
Am I missing something here?
When given a choice between an obvious non-credible interpretation of the rules, and an alternative choice of a reasonably plausible interpretation of the rules. For a referee or instructor I'd advise avoiding the non-credible interpretation in that case.
No offense intended...
I saw the proposed rules on this forum which received numerous comments in the near months before December (either early November or October).Peter@CEP said:
Devil's advocate argument to an equally nitpicky degree would say:Peter@CEP said:
The 8 ball went in early, before his group is cleared. You may try to argue that he doesn't yet have a group to clear. Whereas that may be irrelevant. You're looking from the wrong point of view. You can't fulfill the criteria of clearing your group, if you haven't even defined it. Thus in both cases, he hasn't met the criteria for clearing his group before sinking the 8 ball, whether his group has been defined or not.
The two underlined points seem to be the fallacy in your logic. If you break and knock in 7 solids, one group has been cleared by you. Of course, you're not likely talking about any realistic incident, rather a theoritical one here. But, if it did ever happen, one group has been cleared by you. Your fallacy is that you're implying "intentionally" cleared. Whereas instead it could be viewed from the point of view that the criteria of being "cleared" has been met. How do you know? Well the table has been "cleared" of solids, clearly. Is that clear?Peter@CEP said:
Thus said shooter could try for stripes, or instead try for solids, by calling the 8 ball and sinking it in called pocket. At which point, the shooter would have met the criteria of clearing the solids, and making the 8 on a successive turn into a called pocket. All criteria has been met.Am I missing something here?
When given a choice between an obvious non-credible interpretation of the rules, and an alternative choice of a reasonably plausible interpretation of the rules. For a referee or instructor I'd advise avoiding the non-credible interpretation in that case.
No offense intended...
Last edited:
Sorry FLICKit but don't agree with all of that answer. You are perhaps being too accommodating. Individual rule clauses have to be read and interpreted in reasonable conjunction with other areas of the rules. There are no ifs, buts or maybes in the scenarios described
The answers to Peter@CEP's questions are as follows:-
1. In the first scenario the game is lost by potting the black in open play in that manner. He has potted the black before clearing his group. It is irrelevant whether or not his group was yet defined. It is only relevant that his group was not yet cleared.
2. In the second scenario, in order to play a legal shot Peter@CEP in fact must shoot at the black after a sequence of shots/visits to the table as described. If he legally pots the black he wins. His group is already defined as being solids. This is because when his opponents group was identified as stripes (which occurred during an earlier visit when his opponent legally potted his first stripe) the solids group automatically at the same time became assigned to Peter@CEP (see rule 3.4). It is irrelevant whether or not Peter@CEP ever has the opportunity to actually shoot at any solids.
Also no offense intended
The answers to Peter@CEP's questions are as follows:-
1. In the first scenario the game is lost by potting the black in open play in that manner. He has potted the black before clearing his group. It is irrelevant whether or not his group was yet defined. It is only relevant that his group was not yet cleared.
2. In the second scenario, in order to play a legal shot Peter@CEP in fact must shoot at the black after a sequence of shots/visits to the table as described. If he legally pots the black he wins. His group is already defined as being solids. This is because when his opponents group was identified as stripes (which occurred during an earlier visit when his opponent legally potted his first stripe) the solids group automatically at the same time became assigned to Peter@CEP (see rule 3.4). It is irrelevant whether or not Peter@CEP ever has the opportunity to actually shoot at any solids.
Also no offense intended
Last edited:
memikey said:Sorry FLICKit but don't agree with all of that answer. You are perhaps being too accommodating. Individual rule clauses have to be read and interpreted in reasonable conjunction with other areas of the rules. There are no ifs, buts or maybes in the scenarios described
The answers to Peter@CEP's questions are as follows:-
1. In the first scenario the game is lost by potting the black in open play in that manner. He has potted the black before clearing his group. It is irrelevant whether or not his group was yet defined. It is only relevant that his group was not yet cleared.
2. In the second scenario, in order to play a legal shot Peter@CEP in fact must shoot at the black after a sequence of shots/visits to the table as described. If he legally pots the black he wins. His group is already defined as being solids. This is because when his opponents group was identified as stripes (which occurred during an earlier visit when his opponent legally potted his first stripe) the solids group automatically at the same time became assigned to Peter@CEP (see rule 3.4). It is irrelevant whether or not Peter@CEP ever has the opportunity to actually shoot at any solids.
Also no offense intended
OK.... The only confusion I have is that you said you don't agree... then you basically agreed with all of my premises in contradiction with Peter@CEP.
1. You and I both agree that "He has potted the black before clearing his group. It is irrelevant whether or not his group was yet defined. It is only relevant that his group was not yet cleared."
Therefore it would be a loss.
2. You and I both agree that "It is irrelevant whether or not Peter@CEP ever has the opportunity to actually shoot at any solids."
Therefore he can shoot the 8 into a called pocket and legally win.
If we stop sweatin' the minor knick knacks... You and I both agree.
FLICKit said:
The alternatives in 3.8 do not allow for this situation, the only ways to lose the rack according to this rule are:
1) fouling when pocketing the 8 ball ( i didn't do that)
2) pocket the 8 ball before my group is cleared ( I didn't have a group at that stage
3) Pocket the 8 ball in an uncalled pocket ( you could possibly get me on that point but it is arguable as it really refers to when I am actually on the 8 ball)
4) drive the 8 off the table
The other scenario although unlikely, is obviously possible.
I never had a group so therefore I can't shoot at the 8 Ball according to the rules.
The BCAPL actually cover this situation in their new version of the rules.
Rules really need to be crystal clear and not open to arguments like this.
Be interesting to see Bob Jewett's reply.
I put the preliminary version of the rules up for comment in 2005 at http://www.sfbilliards.com/Rev1.htmlPeter@CEP said:
Beyond that, I believe the next full revision was distributed to the national federations some months ago. Did your federation get them and pass them on?
Have you cleared your group? No, you have not, because you do not have a group. Therefor you lose. While it does require a little thought to see the result, I think the wording is not ambiguous.
Yes. The wording was carefully chosen to cover this very rare situation. The rules do not state that you must clear your group. The rules use what is called a "passive" construction:
"The eight ball may be called only after the shot on which the shooter?s group has been cleared from the table."
The case that is not covered directly is when all of the stripes and solids are off the table without groups having been chosen. In that case, a stalemate will probably result.
Losing is not the same thing as "can't win".
pj
chgo
Bob Jewett said:
Rules, schmules! The people at Matchroom will tweak the "rules" any way they want if they think it will make the tournament better. They would do it at the WPC as well. Check how often they have changed the format, and the "rules" for 9-Ball.
They came in and took over the World Championships nine years ago. And made it bigger and better than ever. With the WPA it was just another minor tournament that many top players passed up. Let's tell it how ii is for once, and not how we wish it was.
The Mosconi cup an "exhibition". That's like saying the Ryder Cup in golf is an exhibition and they don't have to adhere to the rules of golf. The Mosconi Cup is, and has been, one of the most important competitions since it's inception, also presented by the people at Matchroom
Bob Jewett said:
Just play Eight Ball! Hogwash! Do you have any idea how many different versions and sets of rules there were in this country for the game of Eight Ball? It was (and is) played differently everywhere you go.
I commend the BCA rules committee for attempting to come up with a standardized set of rules for Eight Ball, but don't condemn another country because their version of Eight Ball was different than ours. Their version of Black Ball (aka English Eight Ball) was actually more consistent with one set of rules over there, than we were over here, with all our rule changes.
The rules of Eight Ball have been changed so often by the BCA that you have to ask every year, what rules are we playing by. It's almost as if a group of lawyers have taken over the rules committee. It's all become so much legalese. There is an old saying that applies here. K.I.S.S., Keep it simple stupid! They somehow forgot that. In their eminent wisdom, they have decided to make it more complicated and confusing.
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
Jay,
this is what I commented about 8 ball in post # 22
"As long as you have the game of 8 Ball and irrational individuals we are bound to have arguments and parking lot fights".
__________________
the post # 22 which I am pasting it here.
vagabond said:
I don't know anyone who has been around more places and seen more pool games than this guy. He's literally been all over the country and the world sweating pool action for many years. He, better than anyone, can attest to all the different ways Eight Ball has been (and still is) played in this country alone.
I don't make this stuff up!