Proposed World Standardized Rules

[Bob Jewett]

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?

For the most part, decisions on how to penalize unsportsmanlike conduct are up to the referee. In matches that have no official, this is a problem. As for the rack problem, a solution that can work is rack-your-own. A better solution on new cloth is tapping the balls using a template.

The most effective penalty for cell phone users is evisceration, and not just at pool tournaments.

 

[Bob Jewett]

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

This is a little tricky. A shot is defined. Playing with the ferrule is not a shot. It is unsportsmanlike conduct to move the balls in play other than by a shot. Right now, the penalty is nominally 15 points and rebreak, but the referee may choose a different penalty. No warning is required for this kind of foul any longer. The players should know the rules.

 

[Bob Jewett]

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.

This would be under Regulations, since it is a detail of the application of the rules. I like the way they do it at carom. The referee must not use a device to measure, and if the lag is too close to decide by eye, lag again.

 

[Bob Jewett]

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

The assumption is that there is a referee. If so, the ref will be watching the break, and there is no need for a player to declare any intent.

As for the ball on the rail or getting to a rail, that part was greatly simplified. You either violate "6.3 No Rail after Contact" or you don't. "Driven to a Rail" is defined in 8.4. I think that covers it. You are probably right about the responsibility thing. The referee should call the frozen ball, and the seated player has the right to request a call.

 

[Bob Jewett]

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?

The option at 14.1 for three fouls was removed. The offender must rebreak.

Small safeties to the same cushion at 14.1 are now covered by the stalemate rule. Re-lag.

BIH behind the head string remains in-hand until the cue ball crosses the head string. If the shooter takes a foul entirely behind the head string, the cue ball remains in hand. See 6.11.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

No mention of the Lift Shot

Bob,

I thought the new rules were going to address the situation of lifting the cue and striking the ob with just the slight contact of the cue tip.

Maybe I was wrong, but this shot was not going to meet the requirements for a legal stoke (moving forward).

Also, has there ever been a rule that covers a disputed shot between players that determines, if a shot is questionable, and there wasn't a referee, the call goes to the shooter?

I keep hearing about this rule, but have never seen anything like it in print.

 

[Bob Jewett]

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 ...

"The player who wins the lag will determine who will shoot first." I think the wording in 4.1 doesn't change that.

I am looking for proofreading. Unfortunately, the hyperlinks were not all done in the same way, and I didn't just bite the bullet and re-insert them all. I guess I'll have to. MicroSoft Word is not yet perfection.

 

[Snapshot9]

Big Question ...

It does not address the calling of fouls when a referee is not present!!! This is a biggy because some guys commit a foul, and say it is not a foul because no referee watched the shot, and sometimes people commit fouls when it looks like there is no way to foul.

So this situation presents a problem that is sometimes unresolvable.

And what happens if both players disagree and no referee watched the shot?

And maybe I missed it, but what about split hits?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Bob,

I thought the new rules were going to address the situation of lifting the cue and striking the ob with just the slight contact of the cue tip.

Maybe I was wrong, but this shot was not going to meet the requirements for a legal stoke (moving forward).

Also, has there ever been a rule that covers a disputed shot between players that determines, if a shot is questionable, and there wasn't a referee, the call goes to the shooter?

I keep hearing about this rule, but have never seen anything like it in print.

I think the definition 8.2 Shot covers the funny use of the cue stick.

For the dispute thing, the process is described in the Regulations. It is worded a little differently. It says in part, "If ... there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred." My own preference would have been for the non-shooting player to have the authority for the call.

There is no section in the new rules for so-called "cue ball fouls only." That seems to be an American thing -- everyone else feels that all fouls should count at all times. I think it's good for your game to play all fouls.

 

[Bob Jewett]

It does not address the calling of fouls when a referee is not present!!! This is a biggy because some guys commit a foul, and say it is not a foul because no referee watched the shot, and sometimes people commit fouls when it looks like there is no way to foul.

So this situation presents a problem that is sometimes unresolvable.

And what happens if both players disagree and no referee watched the shot?

And maybe I missed it, but what about split hits?

These are covered in the regulations. A split hit goes to the shooter, but it is actually pretty rare that you can't tell which ball was struck first.

As mentioned just above, disputed calls will usually go the shooter, but most refs and TDs could do a lot more in determining after the fact what occurred. Sometimes you don't have to take the word of the shooter.

 

[Cuebacca]

There is no section in the new rules for so-called "cue ball fouls only." That seems to be an American thing -- everyone else feels that all fouls should count at all times. I think it's good for your game to play all fouls.

I think this could cause problems when there is no referee present. As much as I'd like to take ball in hand when my opponent brushes a ball with his shirt, I don't think he'll necessarily believe me when I call him on it. Nor do I trust 100% of my opponents if they should claim that I did the same. IMO, cue-ball fouls only when no ref is present in America is more practical than all-ball fouls.

 

[Cuebacca]

In rule 5.4, I think there is a typo. I've never played Blackball, but I assume the lead ball is placed on the spot, as shown in the illustration. (The rule says to rack the black ball on the spot.)

In rule 5.14, there is a typo in the last sentence (misspelling of "penalized").

 

[Cuebacca]

What is the rationale behind the following part of rule 1.2?:

The players will lag again if:
(a) a player?s ball is struck after the other ball has touched the foot cushion;​

I suppose I could come up with a scenario where waiting to watch the other player lag could create an unfair advantage for the second lagger.

However, I think it's more likely that the rule could be used for gamesmanship by either lagger, with the assumption that the other player doesn't know or won't use the rule.

 

[Craig Fales]

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

I think they should add that the incoming player can make the person who fouled on the break to rebreak the rack...

 

[Bob Jewett]

What is the rationale behind the following part of rule 1.2?:

The players will lag again if:
(a) a player's ball is struck after the other ball has touched the foot cushion;​

...

There are some obnoxious twits who will wait for the opponent's ball to come most of the way back before lagging. There was even one instructor teaching this. I suppose it's both a shark and a way to get an advantage. The previous version said that a late lag loses, but then you have the problem of someone who shoots hard and quickly.

The regulations will also say something about late laggers.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I think they should add that the incoming player can make the person who fouled on the break to rebreak the rack...(at nine ball)

Changing the rule (BIH anywhere for an unbroken rack) was discussed at the rules conference, but we decided to leave the rule the way it was. I think it adds an interesting wrinkle to the game. Changing it to something else would add more verbiage since it presently does not require any extra text.

 

[Cuebacca]

There are some obnoxious twits who will wait for the opponent's ball to come most of the way back before lagging. There was even one instructor teaching this. I suppose it's both a shark and a way to get an advantage.

I guess I don't see how it gives the lagging lagger an advantage. It seems to me, that no matter how good of a lag your opponent makes, the best strategy is to try for a perfect lag for yourself.

The only time I can imagine where waiting would produce an advantage (without this rule) would be with a complete novice player. If the novice had absolutely no clue how hard to hit the cue ball to make a good lag, he could wait to see how well his opponent's lag does, and then estimate the power based on that. Are there any other examples where the rule helps to prevent an unfair advantage gained by an obnoxious twit?

For an obnoxious twit who happens to be an intermediate player, I think the rule actually helps him. Here are two examples:

Fast twit: If the fast twit knows the rule, he can make his fast lag. If he doesn't like his lag and is fast enough, he can call off the lag based on the rule and get a second chance at a good lag. If he likes his first lag he can keep his mouth shut and hope his opponent doesn't know, or doesn't call, the rule.

Slow twit: If a slow twit knows the rule, he can wait to see how his opponent's lag turns out. If his opponent's lag is good, he can call for a re-lag. If his opponent's lag is bad, he can proceed with his own lag, and hope that his opponent doesn't know, or doesn't call, the rule.

I don't think it would be easy to know that either of these twits are trying to game the rules, unless they did this too often.

Just my opinion. Maybe I'm overlooking something.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Loss of game on all fouls when shooting at the eight ball? ...
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?
...

I think the rule at eight ball says you lose if you pocket the eight on a foul, not if you foul when on the eight.

As for soft breaks, if the tournament wants to go beyond the rule, it can do so. In the Eurotour, I think they require three balls to cross the head string. Personally, I think that if the player pockets a ball on the break, the shot should be legal even if no other ball hits a rail. The basic problem is that nine ball is disfunctional with regards to the break. Requiring a minimum speed of break is not a good solution.

 

[Bob Jewett]

...

Just my opinion. Maybe I'm overlooking something.

The missing part of the equation is the Regulations which will instruct the ref to look out for unsportsmanlike conduct during the lag, and to warn players who are not being cooperative. This is a judgement call.

 

[Cuebacca]

The missing part of the equation is the Regulations which will instruct the ref to look out for unsportsmanlike conduct during the lag, and to warn players who are not being cooperative. This is a judgement call.

That's true, but if the twits are at all sneaky, it doesn't need to be obvious. For example, the slow twit would be obvious if he were standing there watching the other guy, but non-obvious if he were down on the ball taking practice strokes.