Playing Safe - The Intent is the Factor - APA

[BarTableMan]

The true defining factor on whether or not to mark a safety in league play... DOES THE PLAYER WANT TO STAY AT THE TABLE FOR ANOTHER SHOT?
1) If a player is trying to play safe and accidentally makes a ball in the APA, a safety should still be marked because the intent was to play safe.
2) If a player is hooked and would be happy if they accidentally made a ball... not a safety. Again, would the player be happy to shoot again? Trying to get a good hit and playing safe are very different things.

If a player does not want to shoot again, it's a safety regardless if an object ball falls.

Trying to get a good hit is only a safety if the player does not want to shoot again. This rarely happens.

 

[Celophanewrap]

The true defining factor on whether or not to mark a safety in league play... DOES THE PLAYER WANT TO STAY AT THE TABLE FOR ANOTHER SHOT?
1) If a player is trying to play safe and accidentally makes a ball in the APA, a safety should still be marked because the intent was to play safe.
2) If a player is hooked and would be happy if they accidentally made a ball... not a safety. Again, would the player be happy to shoot again? Trying to get a good hit and playing safe are very different things.

If a player does not want to shoot again, it's a safety regardless if an object ball falls.

Trying to get a good hit is only a safety if the player does not want to shoot again. This rarely happens.

But without a declaration of something like "I'm about to play a defensive shot", who decides the players intent?

 

[Skippy27]

Trying to get a good hit is only a safety if the player does not want to shoot again. This rarely happens.

Please clarify what you mean by these sentences.

Are you saying they are always trying to get a good hit and keep shooting?

Or

Are you saying they are always trying to get a good hit and not continue shooting?

You need to keep in mind that there are a few things that come into play other than just getting a good hit. IF, they are getting a good hit AND hitting it hard enough to actually make the ball, then yes their intent was to stay at the table. However, IF they are getting a good hit AND they only hit it hard enough to do so and/or did it so they do not open up the other person than they certainly were NOT trying to remain at the table regardless of what they say.

 

[Atlatlien]

But without a declaration of something like "I'm about to play a defensive shot", who decides the players intent?

The scorekeeper, per page 34, rule 23 of the Team Manual.

 

[Celophanewrap]

The scorekeeper, per page 34, rule 23 of the Team Manual.

I get that, so it's totally subjective.
If I'm the scorekeeper and I think it's a defensive shot, then it is a defensive shot

 

[drv4]

I don't agree with the part about if they try to play safe but accidentally make a ball it being marked. Yes they intended to play safe, but they are still at the table, therefore in APA it was not a defensive shot. Intent is the key otherwise.

 

[Atlatlien]

I get that, so it's totally subjective.
If I'm the scorekeeper and I think it's a defensive shot, then it is a defensive shot

Yep. I mark shots as defense if I feel the shooter was not trying to pocket a ball, even if they didn't actually say it was a safety.

I give the benefit of the doubt to lower SLs, but if I get the feeling that someone is sandbagging, I'm going to mark defense on them if I'm not sure it was an honest offensive effort.

The skilled sandbaggers will play (and miss) two-way shots, which I don't mark as defense.

 

[Atlatlien]

I don't agree with the part about if they try to play safe but accidentally make a ball it being marked. Yes they intended to play safe, but they are still at the table, therefore in APA it was not a defensive shot. Intent is the key otherwise.

That adds another variable to an already convoluted situation. Intent should always be the key.

Shit happens and balls roll funny sometimes. Efren's intent was to play safe on this shot. He still had to keep shooting, but I would have marked the shot as a safety in the APA. Intent doesn't change due to the circumstances of the results.

 

[RussPrince]

Kicking at a ball regardless of intention should never be marked as a safety even if the player is trying to play safe off the kick.

 

[Celophanewrap]

I don't agree with the part about if they try to play safe but accidentally make a ball it being marked. Yes they intended to play safe, but they are still at the table, therefore in APA it was not a defensive shot. Intent is the key otherwise.

This to me can be a gray area. I know there are leagues where you can declare a defensive shot and make a ball but turn the table over but that's without a BIH. I think if you continue at the table then you really can't call the preceding shot a defensive shot regardless of the intent

 

[Skippy27]

I don't agree with the part about if they try to play safe but accidentally make a ball it being marked. Yes they intended to play safe, but they are still at the table, therefore in APA it was not a defensive shot. Intent is the key otherwise.

Well if they called safe before they shoot, then it is already marked by me and will stay marked because their INTENT was to miss. Therefore by definition they made a defensive shot and just failed at the defensive part of it. Just like if I try to play soft off a rail and stick a ball between you and the cue and hit too hard leaving you a perfect shoot. I didn't "defend" against you making the ball, yet it should still be marked as I intended to but failed at it. There are very few people that would argue against that as being marked as a defense. So why argue just because your failure resulted in a made ball and you keep shooting?

 

[Skippy27]

Kicking at a ball regardless of intention should never be marked as a safety even if the player is trying to play safe off the kick.

You RussPrince, are completely wrong.

So by your wisdom, if a player is playing safe then it should not be marked as safe if during that safe they had to kick at the ball? What if I have to bank a ball on the other side of yours or the 8 to put it in a better position or block yours? Should we not count that either because of the difficulty factor?

How about if I am kicking at the 8 ball and miss and scratch? Should we count that as a lose? I mean I am kicking at it so I should get some kind of leniency because that is just hard.

 

[Skippy27]

This to me can be a gray area. I know there are leagues where you can declare a defensive shot and make a ball but turn the table over but that's without a BIH. I think if you continue at the table then you really can't call the preceding shot a defensive shot regardless of the intent

Let's not go out on a tangent here. The subject clearly says APA thus it is the APA rules we are playing by.

In those rules it says if the players INTENT is NOT to make a ball then it is a defensive shoot.

How you guys feel about it or whether or not you think it is fair is irrelevant. If the INTENT is not to make a ball, regardless of reason, then it is a defensive shoot and should be marked as such per the rules. Anything less and you are not following the rules.

Clearly if you don't call safe and accidentally make a ball then nobody would probably be any wiser, unless of course you completely stick yourself in doing it. Then you will have someone like me that watches and would then see what happened and then consider your skill level before I decide to mark it or not (subjective view). If you call safe and make a ball, I don't even have to be subjective. You took that away when you called safe. It is your fault for making the bad safe.

 

[RussPrince]

Not sure what you're getting at, but all I'm saying is this. If a player is hooked and needs to kick at a ball just to make a legal hit, regardless of the "intent" there should be no safety marked.

In other words, looking for people playing safe off a forced kick is beyond the scope of the APA and is not worth arguing over given the general caliber of players in the apa.

You RussPrince, are completely wrong.

So by your wisdom, if a player is playing safe then it should not be marked as safe if during that safe they had to kick at the ball? What if I have to bank a ball on the other side of yours or the 8 to put it in a better position or block yours? Should we not count that either because of the difficulty factor?

How about if I am kicking at the 8 ball and miss and scratch? Should we count that as a lose? I mean I am kicking at it so I should get some kind of leniency because that is just hard.

 

[RussPrince]

Let's not go out on a tangent here. The subject clearly says APA thus it is the APA rules we are playing by.

In those rules it says if the players INTENT is NOT to make a ball then it is a defensive shoot.

How you guys feel about it or whether or not you think it is fair is irrelevant. If the INTENT is not to make a ball, regardless of reason, then it is a defensive shoot and should be marked as such per the rules. Anything less and you are not following the rules.

Clearly if you don't call safe and accidentally make a ball then nobody would probably be any wiser, unless of course you completely stick yourself in doing it. Then you will have someone like me that watches and would then see what happened and then consider your skill level before I decide to mark it or not (subjective view). If you call safe and make a ball, I don't even have to be subjective. You took that away when you called safe. It is your fault for making the bad safe.

Not sure why you care about safeties so much. If you were keeping score on my match I'd call every shot a safety just so you'd run out of paper lol.

 

[drv4]

I think in the above scenario where someone makes a ball while trying to play safe, the shot is not marked. For instance, I break, make a solid, try a safe, but accidentally make one, run out from there for a break and run. How can you have a defensive shot marked in a 0 inning game? Doesn't make since for the formula to have more than one defensive shot marked per turn at the table for a shooter. Doesn't work for the handicap formula.

 

[RussPrince]

I think in the above scenario where someone makes a ball while trying to play safe, the shot is not marked. For instance, I break, make a solid, try a safe, but accidentally make one, run out from there for a break and run. How can you have a defensive shot marked in a 0 inning game? Doesn't make since for the formula to have more than one defensive shot marked per turn at the table for a shooter. Doesn't work for the handicap formula.

Not sure that matters. You could have succeeded in your safety and the other player could run out. If he lost the initial lag then it's still a zero inning game...

 

[trob]

People complicate something so simple. If your shooting a shot with no plans on making a ball it's safe. Simple.

 

[Mrdodd72]

Kicking at a ball regardless of intention should never be marked as a safety even if the player is trying to play safe off the kick.

Huh?! Two thirds of my kicks are 100% safety. What about a kick shot makes it unable to be a safety? Doesn't make sense.

 

[sbpoolleague]

I was watching a peewee football game a few years ago and a parent starts screaming at a ref who supposedly blew an offsides call. After a couple of minutes of listening to "C'mon yur blind, ref" and "this game is fixed" I turned to the guy and said "Dude, they are 8 yr olds.

DUDE, YOU ARE PLAYING IN THE APA.