Proposed World Standardized Rules

Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
A nearly final draft of the proposed new World Standardized Rules of pool are available for one last, quick check before they are sent out to national federations and voted on by the WPA General Assembly at the end of November. This revision has been in progress for about two years. I think it's clearer than the present set of rules. I know it's far more uniform in intent and style.

See http://www.sfbilliards.com/WPA_New_Rules_28Oct2007.pdf

Any questions or comments? If you see anything that's a real disaster, please send me email at jewett@sfbilliards.com. Note that a companion set of regulations, which specify how tournament management and referees are supposed to handle situations and such is in a separate document that will be ready shortly.
 
Nick B said:
... No one pocket, rotation or banks? ...
Click to expand...
The WPA does not currently sanction or organize competitions in those games and I think it would be a mistake for the WPA to try to set official rules for them. In the future, I suppose sections for them could be added, even if not official, but for one pocket right now, try onepocket.org.
 
Shortside K said:
nice to see they addressed the problem of "pattern racking" in the 9-ball rules....
Click to expand...
The only alternative was to specify a position for each ball, maybe rotating through positions with each new rack to keep the breaks different. In the end, the committee decided to stay with "random" but define it better.
 
Looks good to me. I think the descriptions are clearer than the existing rules, so hopefully the discrepancies are cleared up.

I have a question. In 9 ball, if a breaker miscues in an attempt to break the balls, it's a foul. The incoming player gets ball in hand, currently anywhere on the table. I would like to see it say something like "if a break is attempted but the rack is not contacted, it is a foul. The incoming player gets ball in hand behind the head string, and must break the rack, meeting all the legal requirements of the open break shot."

Chris
 
TATE said:
Looks good to me. I think the descriptions are clearer than the existing rules, so hopefully the discrepancies are cleared up.

I have a question. In 9 ball, if a breaker miscues in an attempt to break the balls, it's a foul. The incoming player gets ball in hand, currently anywhere on the table. I would like to see it say something like "if a break is attempted but the rack is not contacted, it is a foul. The incoming player gets ball in hand behind the head string, and must break the rack, meeting all the legal requirements of the open break shot."

Chris
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%
 
thoughts

I just read general rules, nine ball and eight ball tonight. As someone else mentioned, you do refer to a rule with x's and never went back and put in the rule number.

One question is concerning eight ball. Loss of game on all fouls when shooting at the eight ball? The truth is that I have never bothered sorting out all of the new rules since I came back to pool and simply play by whatever local rules are in effect but I don't think even the local tournaments are played loss on all fouls. IE hitting the wrong ball first or moving an object ball accidentally. Is this an existing rule or new?

I also note that the one isn't racked in the front of the eight ball rack any more which is going to cause some discussion.

The rules concerning random racking of nine ball are clearer but still ultimately futile since racks can still be stacked. I think you should have bit the bullet and installed a set racking order. The nine ball rack will always be subject to manipulation by skilled rackers and breakers regardless but a set order would make things fairer. If I put in a set order I would also specify the mirror image could be requested also.

The new rules make a soft nine ball break legal if it works and illegal if it fails to pocket a ball or drive four balls to a rail. That is a loophole that seems a little odd. Why not simply say four balls must be driven to a rail or pocketed?

Overall the rules do seem to be clear. Unfortunately, like contracts, the more you write the more loopholes creep in.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
I just read general rules, nine ball and eight ball tonight. As someone else mentioned, you do refer to a rule with x's and never went back and put in the rule number.
Click to expand...

Hu, I figured this out. Those references are to the 'regulations', the other document Bob mentioned. They're not done yet, so they'll be filled in later?

-s
 
Bob,

Since unsportsmanlike conduct is so prevalent, could section 6.15 be expanded or clarified?

Under 6.15.a, what constitutes distracting an opponent?

Under 6.15.g, how much time must elapse to be considered delay of game? Is a restroom break a delay of game? What about taking a cell phone call when it's your turn to shoot?

A lot of players deliberately and repeatedly give their opponents slug racks. Is this unsportsmanlike conduct that could this be addressed here?

A lot of players knowingly commit obvious fouls but don't inform their opponent. Consequently, their opponent may not get the benefit of BIH if they were not paying attention. Isn't this unsportsmanlike conduct?
 
bob,

In 14.1, my understanding is that if a player chooses to take an intentional foul, and taps/touches the cue ball with the ferule, not the tip, it is an important foul, akin to a unsportsman like conduct, with penalty of subtracting 15 balls. Additionally, I suppose the incoming player has the choice of playing the table with bih behind the headstring or having the offending player replay an opening break. Not sure though, about what occurs after the penalty.

Anyway, I don't see this scenario covered in the rules.

Rg
 
Lag distance

You need a standardized tool too measure the distance of two lagged balls that appear to be a tie, this gives no chance of favoritism.
 
Thanks for allowing all of us to reveiw and make suggestions. That is a smart move since the more eyes that read the rules, the less chance of something slipping through.

I have a couple of questions. In 8-ball under 3.3 The Break Shot. I have seen and used a 'safety break' from time to time. I understand that no balls need be called, however, I think it would be a good idea to require the breaker to declare his intent to utilize a 'safety break'. This would allow the opponent to pay extra attention to watch for a legal break...4 object balls to a rail. I have had the situation occur to me where, after racking and as I walked back to my chair to get my cue, and my back was to the table, my opponent executed a 'safety break'. When I turned back around, all the balls were done rolling and I had no idea if the break was legal.

Another thing I noticed...or didn't see...was the rule concerning object ball frozen to a rail. This is a situation that requires some special definition whereas the cue ball may hit any rail or the frozen object ball must contact another rail. I recall this being defined before, I just didn't see it addressed in this proposed set. 8.4 mentions the frozen ball to a rail, but does not define what a leagl shot would be.

Also in rule 8.4, it is mentioned that it is the "shooters responsibility" to get a frozen ball declared before a shot on that frozen ball. Is that a change? I seem to recall it was the opponents reponsibility to declare the ball frozen. What happens if the shooter simply shoots the frozen ball softly (for a safety) and the opponent then calls a foul declairing the ball was frozen...after the shot. Would it be a foul on the shooter for not asking if the ball was frozen? I can see some heated arguements arising from this rule.

I think most of the changes were very good. They did seem to define things a little better. Good work.

L8R...Ken
 
Here's the text under 1.12, Stalemate:

If the referee observes that no progress is being made towards a conclusion, he will announce his decision, and each player will have three more turns at the table. Then, if the referee determines that there is still no progress, he will declare a stalemate. If both players agree, they may accept the stalemate without taking their three additional turns. The procedure for a stalemate is specified under the rules for each game.
Click to expand...

In some ways it's a bit vague, and the timeline of events shifts back and forth.

Here's my take on it:

If the referee observes that no progress is being made towards a conclusion, he will declare a potential stalemate. If both players agree, they may accept the stalemate at this time. If both players do not agree, each player will have three more turns at the table. At the conclusion of those three turns, if the referee determines that there is still no progress towards a conclusion, he will declare a stalemate. The procedure for a stalemate is specified under the rules for each game.
Click to expand...
 
In the new 14.1 rules, after three consecutive fouls, the other player does not have the option of taking the table as it lies? He must make the opponent shoot again.

Is there a rule on how many safeties can be made to the same rail? Sorry if it's there, but I didn't notice it.

In 14.1 if the shooter with ball in hand behind the head string shoots the ball backwards to the head rail, what is the result?

Has the double hit rule changed?
 
SKUNKBOY said:
Also in rule 8.4, it is mentioned that it is the "shooters responsibility" to get a frozen ball declared before a shot on that frozen ball. Is that a change? I seem to recall it was the opponents responsibility to declare the ball frozen. What happens if the shooter simply shoots the frozen ball softly (for a safety) and the opponent then calls a foul declaring the ball was frozen...after the shot. Would it be a foul on the shooter for not asking if the ball was frozen? I can see some heated arguments arising from this rule.
Click to expand...

Every rule book I have seen puts this responsibility on the opponent (non-shooter). If it is not declared PRIOR to the shot, the ball is not considered frozen, period.

-s
 
steev,

I agree completely. However, in the proposed version, the responsibility is on the shooter, not the opponent, to get the ball declared frozen. Just seems kind of backward from the way I have seen it before. I know of quite a few people who would not ask if a ball was frozen to a rail as that would limit their options. I just saw this situation in leagues last week. However, in that game, it was the opponents responibility to make that declaration and since he didn't, the safety shot was allowed.

L8R...Ken
 
Looks good, and thanks for posting this out. One question about the lag definition of 1.12. It says the person who wins the lag shoots first. Under straight pool 4.1, it follows 1.12 but says lag determines who shoots first. Shouldn't the person who wins the lag get to choose who breaks?

I noticed a few formatting errors at the bottom of the SP section (no spaces, extended hyperlinks), not sure if you were looking for proofreading :)

dmgwalsh

I believe you are talking about the foul situation in this thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top