Question about APA rule and also a funny rule you might not know of.

[KMRUNOUT]

I'm afraid I'm not following your logic here. Regardless of whether a pro or anyone else shoots all of their shots with it, the BK2 break cue was not designed for shooting the majority of shots in a game of pool. Hence, it is not a regular playing cue, and you may not shoot a jump shot with it. But hey, if you want to shoot all of your OTHER shots with it, knock yourself out. And if you really want to shoot all of your shots with a phenolic tip on a regular cue just in case one of them is a jump shot, be my guest.

Ok. I'll give it another try. Suppose I take the cue I currently use now (Andy Gilbert with OB Classic shaft and Kamui black soft tip). I chop off the tip and install a phenolic tip. I go back to my old cue (Samsara) and shoot the majority of my shots with it. However, whenever a jump shot comes up, I grab my Andy Gilbert with the phenolic tip. This cue was clearly NOT designed for breaking or shooting jump shots. Hence it IS a regular playing cue. Likewise, suppose I build my own cue. I "design" the cue to have a purpleheart shaft, a G10 ferrule and tip, and weight 12 oz. Now I'm no cuemaker, so my "design" is probably not the best for making many shots. In fact, after I complete building my cue I decide that actually my design was pretty terrible for most shots, but damn it sure jumps well. Is THIS a regular playing cue? It certainly sounds like you are saying that a factory stock BK2 is not allowed for jump shots, but an exactly similar cue that is not a BK2 (such as say a simliar butt style with a 314-2 shaft and phenolic tip) would be ok. If this is true, then the rule as written is silly at best, as it really isn't accomplishing much of anything.

What was that term you used? Short-sighted? I can see the ad now - "Introducing the Yankee Doodle Jump Cue. Stick a feather in the butt and call it legal!"

No idea what you are getting at here.

As for designating a regular playing cue, is there going to be another rule prohibiting me from designating my Yankee Doodle Jump Cue as my regular playing cue? What does that rule look like?

Umm...again, not following here. As it stands now, I can't find a rule in the book saying I can't shoot all my shots with a jump cue.

That was never the goal. I stated APA's reasoning in a previous response, and that will have to suffice. I believe the current rules as written achieve the actual goals. As for the next revision, if you want to help, PM me with your suggestions. But you'll have to do better than "cues less than a certain length".

"That will have to suffice" sounds like the motto of the APA. I know I know...expecting any large corporation to aim high is idealistic...

However, I believe the current rules as written do NOT achieve the actual goals. This is because one of the goals is to avoid conflict. Grey area provides a potential basis for conflict. Thus the less grey area, the simpler it is to follow the rules in *every* situation. Likewise, I've offered a couple of scenarios that are simply not addressed by the rules as written. Finally, my offer for help was semi-serious. I say "semi" because I have yet to be convinced by my dealings with many APA people that they *truly* want to improve...I think maintenance of the status quo and defending the current way it is seems more important. (The status quo will have to suffice).

As for my "cues less than a certain length" comment, I'm frankly surprised that you didn't recognize that I was offering a generalization about what *sort* of rule might be required, not offering my specific version of that rule. How could you not have recognized yet that my version of the rule would be *extremely* detailed and specific? With all due respect, your comment about the standard I might need to measure up to in order to offer you assistance is a bit ridiculous. You either want help or you don't. You either see the need for improvement or you don't. That is on the people that wrote the book, not me. I already know that I could write a *significantly* better version of the APA rulebook (expressing the intention of the rules more clearly). I will wholeheartedly agree, however, that for the rule book to improve, *someone* will definitely need to do better.

atb,

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

What he is saying here is that the butt is designed for a break cue, but the shaft he is using is not designed for the sole purpose to break and/or jump. So does the fact that its a BK2 butt qualify it as a break cue even though the shaft is not designed for breaking?

I thought my intention was pretty obvious...looks like you did too. The rulebook can't answer this question.

KMRUNOUT

 

[BrokeStroke]

I thought my intention was pretty obvious...looks like you did too. The rulebook can't answer this question.

KMRUNOUT

I read you loud and clear there.

I'm curious to know the answer to that, because if Dechaines cue is considered illegal just because of the butt of the cue, that would make every cue in the APA illegal because I'm pretty sure any butt can be used in regards to breaking.

Also, what if someone had a jump/break made to also be their shooter? It's possible. Would it make that cue legal to shoot with right up until the shooter would need to jump a ball?

 

[OneIron]

I read you loud and clear there.

I'm curious to know the answer to that, because if Dechaines cue is considered illegal just because of the butt of the cue, that would make every cue in the APA illegal because I'm pretty sure any butt can be used in regards to breaking.

Also, what if someone had a jump/break made to also be their shooter? It's possible. Would it make that cue legal to shoot with right up until the shooter would need to jump a ball?

First of all, I find it curious that the APA allows jump shots at all, especially since they don't allow push outs. But since they do, how about this:

"Jumps shots are allowed with either your shooting cue or break cue. If you break with a jump/break cue, you are not allowed to break it down to jump. Also, you are not allowed to jump with a cue under 57" in length".

Seems simple and reasonable.

 

[BrokeStroke]

First of all, I find it curious that the APA allows jump shots at all, especially since they don't allow push outs.

Their logic behind the reason they dont allow push outs is that a push out benefits the stronger player. So, going with APA logic....jumping with a regular cue also benefits the stronger player, so why allow it?

For the APA, you have to simplify rules by complicating them. For some reason, that goes real good with the bar crowd that is taken away from the comfort and safety of the most important and skillful pool game in the world.....'Straight 8'.

The rule should probably read something like: "You may not shoot a jump shot with a cue designed to aid in executing a jump shot - including jump cues and/or jump/break cues - together or apart. You may not jump with any shaft used alone, apart from the butt, to shoot a jump shot. Also, you may not use a cue shorter than 57 inches to shoot a jump shot."

And then if the 'cue' issue would somehow be solved there....there is still the argument, 'The tip is made for jumping/breaking.'

Or they could just go 1 of 2 ways - Allow jump cues - OR - No jumping.

Too easy though.

 

[droveto]

However, writing rules that clearly express that simple concept without any room for ambiguity is apparently not so simple.

Language has limitations and words won't ever be able to work for the infinite number of possible things that can happen in pool, in work, in life, etc... What people are supposed to do is use the context clues to understand what the point of those words are and act accordingly. I think you understand that the APA does not wish for jump cues to be used for jumping, so what that means is that, in a game among good sports, that there will be no jump cues used for jumping. Sure, someone could nit pick and bend the situation to their own benefit (although I would doubt that playing with a jump cue for most of your shots would help you in the game) but then that person gets labeled as being an annoying douche and mature people move on and try to not ever talk to that person and he/she ends up with no friends while APA operators have to do more annoying and tedious work of trying to keep players from doing things that are against the spirit of good sportsmanship...
I run into these players often in the APA, they try to talk to me and be friendly, but I just find them to be annoying people and they are always on the outside of the circle looking in, bothering everyone they come into contact with. This just makes them try harder to be your friend never realizing that it's their annoying nitty attitude that makes them unpleasant to be around. They exist in pool, at work and in your family too. Nobody likes them and that's their punishment.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

First of all, I find it curious that the APA allows jump shots at all, especially since they don't allow push outs. But since they do, how about this:

"Jumps shots are allowed with either your shooting cue or break cue. If you break with a jump/break cue, you are not allowed to break it down to jump. Also, you are not allowed to jump with a cue under 57" in length".

Seems simple and reasonable.

Yes, this is significantly better wording than the APA version. Except that I believe they don't want you to jump with your break cue. The whole point is that the APA wants to avoid people jumping with a 12 oz lightning bolt break cue or something like that.

KMRUNOUT

 

[justadub]

Yes, this is significantly better wording than the APA version. Except that I believe they don't want you to jump with your break cue. The whole point is that the APA wants to avoid people jumping with a 12 oz lightning bolt break cue or something like that.

KMRUNOUT

If you recall APAOperators explanation earlier, they would like to not allow jumping at all, but that would open up a different can of worms anytime a ball left the table under any circumstances.

That, and many rooms don't want inexperienced players stabbing away on their tables.

It really seems reasonable to me, to try and avoid as many possible issues as can be managed. Perhaps the wording in this case could be a little better, but no matter how you word it, someone will try and twist it.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Language has limitations and words won't ever be able to work for the infinite number of possible things that can happen in pool, in work, in life, etc... What people are supposed to do is use the context clues to understand what the point of those words are and act accordingly. I think you understand that the APA does not wish for jump cues to be used for jumping, so what that means is that, in a game among good sports, that there will be no jump cues used for jumping. Sure, someone could nit pick and bend the situation to their own benefit (although I would doubt that playing with a jump cue for most of your shots would help you in the game) but then that person gets labeled as being an annoying douche and mature people move on and try to not ever talk to that person and he/she ends up with no friends while APA operators have to do more annoying and tedious work of trying to keep players from doing things that are against the spirit of good sportsmanship...
I run into these players often in the APA, they try to talk to me and be friendly, but I just find them to be annoying people and they are always on the outside of the circle looking in, bothering everyone they come into contact with. This just makes them try harder to be your friend never realizing that it's their annoying nitty attitude that makes them unpleasant to be around. They exist in pool, at work and in your family too. Nobody likes them and that's their punishment.

Sounds like you've had some bad experiences...

One of the big problems with the situation that you describe is that many honest people with good intentions can *interpret* the wording differently. If someone thinks it would benefit them to shoot every regular shot with a jump cue for that rare jump shot they may need, I say power to them! I would certainly never call them an annoying douche...to me it would be more of a curiosity. Who would ever do that? I think the only punishment for shooting all your shots with a jump cue is that you have to shoot all your shots with a jump cue.

Still, I think it might help to remember that one of the topics here is jumping with various full length cues. No one believes you can jump with a jump cue. I don't think anyone tries to get away with it, and I don't see that as a real issue. It is still odd, though, that the APA doesn't simply say that no cues under say, 50" will be allowed for ANY shot. Seems reasonable? BUT...there is a woman in my area who has had a stroke. (I mean the bad kind, not a pool stroke). She has very little ability to move her stroking arm freely. As such, she uses a very short cue because it is easier for her. I think it would be outrageous to tell her she couldn't use it. She is not likely to ever attempt a jump shot with any cue.

The APA used to allow you to switch to your break cue to do a jump shot, as long as it was full length. Then they changed this. I think that is where some peoples confusion comes from. In fact just this year, I had refs in Vegas tell me that I COULD use my break cue for a jump shot. So I think it is fair to say that there is room for confusion.

A simple rewording would help the situation. That's all. I don't think people who want to know what rules they are playing by are a problem. Although I agree that trying to get away with something that is against the spirit of the rules is annoying.

I see you're from Somerville, MA droveto. I wonder if we know each other?

KMRUNOUT

 

[TheNewSharkster]

Sounds like you've had some bad experiences...

One of the big problems with the situation that you describe is that many honest people with good intentions can *interpret* the wording differently. If someone thinks it would benefit them to shoot every regular shot with a jump cue for that rare jump shot they may need, I say power to them! I would certainly never call them an annoying douche...to me it would be more of a curiosity. Who would ever do that? I think the only punishment for shooting all your shots with a jump cue is that you have to shoot all your shots with a jump cue.

Still, I think it might help to remember that one of the topics here is jumping with various full length cues. No one believes you can jump with a jump cue. I don't think anyone tries to get away with it, and I don't see that as a real issue. It is still odd, though, that the APA doesn't simply say that no cues under say, 50" will be allowed for ANY shot. Seems reasonable? BUT...there is a woman in my area who has had a stroke. (I mean the bad kind, not a pool stroke). She has very little ability to move her stroking arm freely. As such, she uses a very short cue because it is easier for her. I think it would be outrageous to tell her she couldn't use it. She is not likely to ever attempt a jump shot with any cue.

The APA used to allow you to switch to your break cue to do a jump shot, as long as it was full length. Then they changed this. I think that is where some peoples confusion comes from. In fact just this year, I had refs in Vegas tell me that I COULD use my break cue for a jump shot. So I think it is fair to say that there is room for confusion.

A simple rewording would help the situation. That's all. I don't think people who want to know what rules they are playing by are a problem. Although I agree that trying to get away with something that is against the spirit of the rules is annoying.

I see you're from Somerville, MA droveto. I wonder if we know each other?

KMRUNOUT

One question:
Do you play in a APA league?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

If you recall APAOperators explanation earlier, they would like to not allow jumping at all, but that would open up a different can of worms anytime a ball left the table under any circumstances.

That, and many rooms don't want inexperienced players stabbing away on their tables.

It really seems reasonable to me, to try and avoid as many possible issues as can be managed. Perhaps the wording in this case could be a little better, but no matter how you word it, someone will try and twist it.

You may be right. I suppose that is the very concept that keeps lawyers in business. You ever try reading one of those terms that you quickly click on to agree? MANY pages long trying to cover every conceivable detail.

Couldn't they make it this simple:

"For jump shots, no cue under 57" will be allowed. Also, no cue with a non-leather tip will be allowed. No cue weighing less than 17 oz. will be allowed. Otherwise, any standard length cue will be allowed. If a player wishes to change cues, the new cue must be present in the immediate area of the table. A maximum of 1 minute will be allowed to change cues. It is permissible to change shafts on your standard playing cue, but the shaft you use for a jump shot must have a leather tip, and not bring the length of your cue under 57", or the weight under 17 oz."

I'm sure there could be a few more tweaks, but doesn't this get to the point of the issue? That way it makes no difference who "designed" the cue, for what purpose, whether its labelled a jump cue or not. There are the specs, and everyone can follow them. Would people try and get away with a 12 oz cue? Probably. I'm sure there are lots of scenarios they would try to get away with. But at least now there would be an objective standard. They would no longer be taking advantage of the wording of the rules, they would be BREAKING them, plain and simple.

Thoughts?

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

One question:
Do you play in a APA league?

Yes sir, I do. I have for almost 17 years. I started out as a 3 and worked my way up. Overall, I like it.

What about you? Do you play APA?

KMRUNOUT

 

[droveto]

Sounds like you've had some bad experiences...

One of the big problems with the situation that you describe is that many honest people with good intentions can *interpret* the wording differently. If someone thinks it would benefit them to shoot every regular shot with a jump cue for that rare jump shot they may need, I say power to them! I would certainly never call them an annoying douche...to me it would be more of a curiosity. Who would ever do that? I think the only punishment for shooting all your shots with a jump cue is that you have to shoot all your shots with a jump cue.

Still, I think it might help to remember that one of the topics here is jumping with various full length cues. No one believes you can jump with a jump cue. I don't think anyone tries to get away with it, and I don't see that as a real issue. It is still odd, though, that the APA doesn't simply say that no cues under say, 50" will be allowed for ANY shot. Seems reasonable? BUT...there is a woman in my area who has had a stroke. (I mean the bad kind, not a pool stroke). She has very little ability to move her stroking arm freely. As such, she uses a very short cue because it is easier for her. I think it would be outrageous to tell her she couldn't use it. She is not likely to ever attempt a jump shot with any cue.

The APA used to allow you to switch to your break cue to do a jump shot, as long as it was full length. Then they changed this. I think that is where some peoples confusion comes from. In fact just this year, I had refs in Vegas tell me that I COULD use my break cue for a jump shot. So I think it is fair to say that there is room for confusion.

A simple rewording would help the situation. That's all. I don't think people who want to know what rules they are playing by are a problem. Although I agree that trying to get away with something that is against the spirit of the rules is annoying.

I see you're from Somerville, MA droveto. I wonder if we know each other?

KMRUNOUT

I haven't really had any specifically bad experiences in relation to what I said, I laugh at people a lot so it really just is a situation where I laugh it off when someone is being an ultra-nit...

The rules do seem to change a lot, and that is a problem but I can't imagine the rules ever change without some reason, like a disagreement in a match that causes a lot of frustration which then triggers the APA to readdress the wording...
I'm guessing that they don't state the rule about not being able to use a short cue because an ultra-nitty player might not let someone use a short cue when they are dealing with an obstruction (a random beam, or wall blocking a shot which happens a lot on bar tables)... There's always some way to stretch a rule to an advantage... Then you could say for obstructed shots, a short cue is allowed, but what if the player happens to stumble upon that obstructed shot when a jump shot is the right answer? Can he use the short cue to jump then if they allow short cues for obstructed shots??? I actually am okay with them banning jump shots altogether. It sucks for the skilled players that have that shot in their bag of tricks, but the APA is mostly hack players that shouldn't be jumping or masse'ing anyway. Not trying to knock the APA or bad players, but I'd say there's a pretty low percentage of people that should attempt to execute a shot like that.

I play in the Allston/Brighton league now but did play one season in Somerville/Medford on a team called Pocket Pool playing out of the Dilboy VFW just over a year ago... Ring any bells?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I haven't really had any specifically bad experiences in relation to what I said, I laugh at people a lot so it really just is a situation where I laugh it off when someone is being an ultra-nit...

The rules do seem to change a lot, and that is a problem but I can't imagine the rules ever change without some reason, like a disagreement in a match that causes a lot of frustration which then triggers the APA to readdress the wording...
I'm guessing that they don't state the rule about not being able to use a short cue because an ultra-nitty player might not let someone use a short cue when they are dealing with an obstruction (a random beam, or wall blocking a shot which happens a lot on bar tables)... There's always some way to stretch a rule to an advantage... Then you could say for obstructed shots, a short cue is allowed, but what if the player happens to stumble upon that obstructed shot when a jump shot is the right answer? Can he use the short cue to jump then if they allow short cues for obstructed shots??? I actually am okay with them banning jump shots altogether. It sucks for the skilled players that have that shot in their bag of tricks, but the APA is mostly hack players that shouldn't be jumping or masse'ing anyway. Not trying to knock the APA or bad players, but I'd say there's a pretty low percentage of people that should attempt to execute a shot like that.

I play in the Allston/Brighton league now but did play one season in Somerville/Medford on a team called Pocket Pool playing out of the Dilboy VFW just over a year ago... Ring any bells?

I agree with everything you say here. You raise some good points about the short cue and obstructions. My teammates have discussed this very issue. Still, I think they could cover this as well. For example:

"In the event of an obstruction in the host location to the shooters stroke, a short cue of any length may be used, including a shaft alone with no butt. For this particular situation, no jump shots will be allowed."

I wouldn't be against banning jump shots, except then a new problem comes up: suppose an unskilled player attempts a masse shot to hit their ball. It is very possible to do it badly enough that you end up jumping the object ball instead. This could cause some difficulty.

As for knowing you, I've never played in the Boston area league. I play in the "Northeast MA" league, which is pretty much, well, north and east of Boston, like inside the 128 loop. It is possible we crossed paths when you played out of Medford. My name is Kerry McAuliffe if that helps.

I agree with you that the "laugh it off" approach is probably best. There are all sorts of people in the league. Most I think are pretty good people, good sports, and fine to play with. I've known many over the years who are very nit-picky, and in the past have been guilty of that myself on occassion. I try my best to hear what they are saying. Often it is a valid concern. Sometimes they are just trying to stir up crap. I try to always start out giving the benefit of the doubt though. These days I focus on the game. I LIKE watching people do well. Thankfully, many of the people I run in to ask questions about things now, rather than condemning them. For example, I got tired of getting horrible racks in 9 ball when I'm already giving up a huge spot. So I learned all about Joe Tucker's racking secrets and almost never ask for a re-rack now. I never spend more then a second or two looking at the rack. What is so awesome, is that several people have asked me what I'm looking for. I really enjoy showing pool things to people. Once I've explained to them about the spaces and stuff, they actually find it pretty cool. Sometimes we practice afterward and I let them try breaking racks with different gaps. Everyone learns something, and people have fun. There will always be those types that don't understand what you are doing, and want to condemn you for it. There is no pleasing them. I just hope I don't run into them...that's all I can do.

Anyway, good post!

KMRUNOUT

 

[justadub]

You may be right. I suppose that is the very concept that keeps lawyers in business. You ever try reading one of those terms that you quickly click on to agree? MANY pages long trying to cover every conceivable detail.

Couldn't they make it this simple:

"For jump shots, no cue under 57" will be allowed. Also, no cue with a non-leather tip will be allowed. No cue weighing less than 17 oz. will be allowed. Otherwise, any standard length cue will be allowed. If a player wishes to change cues, the new cue must be present in the immediate area of the table. A maximum of 1 minute will be allowed to change cues. It is permissible to change shafts on your standard playing cue, but the shaft you use for a jump shot must have a leather tip, and not bring the length of your cue under 57", or the weight under 17 oz."

I'm sure there could be a few more tweaks, but doesn't this get to the point of the issue? That way it makes no difference who "designed" the cue, for what purpose, whether its labelled a jump cue or not. There are the specs, and everyone can follow them. Would people try and get away with a 12 oz cue? Probably. I'm sure there are lots of scenarios they would try to get away with. But at least now there would be an objective standard. They would no longer be taking advantage of the wording of the rules, they would be BREAKING them, plain and simple.

Thoughts?

KMRUNOUT

While I understand what you are saying, and I probably agree with you in principle, you do realize that your proposed rules open up yet another issue that the average APA player won't be equipped to handle. Actually, the refs at nationals probably won't be equipped to handle, either.

How does one tell the difference between a leather tip and a non-leather tip? Do you recall the thread recently discussing why the BCApl dropped it's ban on phenolic break cues? In part because it's too damned difficult to be able to tell the difference. And if those guys can't easily tell, imagine the arguments that would occur in bars all over the country during APA night regarding what is a legal tip and what is not....

Again, I agree with you. I just envision the big picture that St. Louis has to try and anticipate.

Personally, I can't imagine the average APA player jumping much at all, regardless of the equipment being used. I think that if you eliminated the short cue, and let people use their break cues, it shouldn't be that big a deal. Full-size cue jumping isn't gonna be easy, at least for most APA players. Regardless of the tip. I think the scoop would be harder to adjudicate and explain, at least in my APA experience.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

While I understand what you are saying, and I probably agree with you in principle, you do realize that your proposed rules open up yet another issue that the average APA player won't be equipped to handle. Actually, the refs at nationals probably won't be equipped to handle, either.

How does one tell the difference between a leather tip and a non-leather tip? Do you recall the thread recently discussing why the BCApl dropped it's ban on phenolic break cues? In part because it's too damned difficult to be able to tell the difference. And if those guys can't easily tell, imagine the arguments that would occur in bars all over the country during APA night regarding what is a legal tip and what is not....

Again, I agree with you. I just envision the big picture that St. Louis has to try and anticipate.

Personally, I can't imagine the average APA player jumping much at all, regardless of the equipment being used. I think that if you eliminated the short cue, and let people use their break cues, it shouldn't be that big a deal. Full-size cue jumping isn't gonna be easy, at least for most APA players. Regardless of the tip. I think the scoop would be harder to adjudicate and explain, at least in my APA experience.

Very good point. I agree with you completely. Yeah...jumping with any full length cue seems reasonable to me too. Again, that silly lightning bolt cue keeps coming up in my mind...Many people learned to break with them so that they could use them to jump. (I'm talking about the full length cue that weighs 12 oz. and has I think a G10 tip). It is VERY easy to jump with that thing. I wonder if the APA could enforce the weight requirement. I say they could. It would be no major deal for higher level tournament sites to have a little $20 digital scale on hand.

Anyway, thanks for the input,

KMRUNOUT

 

[APA Operator]

Ok. I'll give it another try. Suppose I take the cue I currently use now (Andy Gilbert with OB Classic shaft and Kamui black soft tip). I chop off the tip and install a phenolic tip. I go back to my old cue (Samsara) and shoot the majority of my shots with it. However, whenever a jump shot comes up, I grab my Andy Gilbert with the phenolic tip. This cue was clearly NOT designed for breaking or shooting jump shots. Hence it IS a regular playing cue. Likewise, suppose I build my own cue. I "design" the cue to have a purpleheart shaft, a G10 ferrule and tip, and weight 12 oz. Now I'm no cuemaker, so my "design" is probably not the best for making many shots. In fact, after I complete building my cue I decide that actually my design was pretty terrible for most shots, but damn it sure jumps well. Is THIS a regular playing cue? It certainly sounds like you are saying that a factory stock BK2 is not allowed for jump shots, but an exactly similar cue that is not a BK2 (such as say a simliar butt style with a 314-2 shaft and phenolic tip) would be ok. If this is true, then the rule as written is silly at best, as it really isn't accomplishing much of anything.

I guess I'll try again too. Yes, it's possible to trick out a cue to skirt the rules. Put a phenolic tip on something and claim you didn't do it for the purpose of breaking or jumping. Bring that cue to my tournament and I'll tell you that you can't shoot a jump shot with it.

What you seem to be missing is that there's nothing in your (or anyone else's) suggested wording that prohibits a tricked-out jump cue, either. Take a stock BK2, modify the bumper to include a feather long enough to make the cue as long as it needs to be, and designate it as your shooting cue. Doesn't that meet the length requirement? That cue is legal for jump shots when your approach is to specify minimum length and weight, but illegal for jump shots under the current rules.

The problem with trying to specify minimum lengths or weights is that a manufacturer will create a jump cue that meets the minimum specifications. If I were a manufacturer, I would jump (pun intended) at the chance to be first-to-market with a jump cue meeting APA minimum specifications. Then we're right back where we started. People who have no business trying to use jump cues will be trying to use jump cues and damaging the equipment in host locations. No, minimum specifications won't achieve the desired result.

Unfortunately, you also can't legislate who should be allowed to use a jump cue and who should not. It's not a skill level thing, I know plenty of 5's and 6's who can do quite a bit of damage to a pool table with one of those things.

Outlaw the jump shot? Great, all of the equipment issues go away. But they are replaced by a whole slew of other issues. At least the equipment issues usually aren't accelerated by alcohol.

I'm trying to demonstrate to you that it's not always as black-and-white as you would like it to be, and sometimes you have to just choose the approach that you think will get you closest to the desired result. I believe APA has done that in this instance and you have said nothing to convince me otherwise.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I guess I'll try again too. Yes, it's possible to trick out a cue to skirt the rules. Put a phenolic tip on something and claim you didn't do it for the purpose of breaking or jumping. Bring that cue to my tournament and I'll tell you that you can't shoot a jump shot with it.

You can jump just fine with a Samsara break tip. Shoots ok too. Any hard tip will do the trick. Before I got a Predator shaft, I could jump ok with my regular shooting cue. I'm happy if I can just have a second shooting cue that ISN'T with a Predator shaft to jump with...the cue case gets crowded fast though. Using my break cue is a simple matter of practicality, not skirting any rules.

What you seem to be missing is that there's nothing in your (or anyone else's) suggested wording that prohibits a tricked-out jump cue, either. Take a stock BK2, modify the bumper to include a feather long enough to make the cue as long as it needs to be, and designate it as your shooting cue. Doesn't that meet the length requirement? That cue is legal for jump shots when your approach is to specify minimum length and weight, but illegal for jump shots under the current rules.

Let's see...hard to follow this. Are you saying you will take a standard BK2 cue (already 58" long), and make it *longer* with a feather? Bottom line is that no one is going to shoot with a cue that doesn't work well. That issue polices itself in obvious ways.

The problem with trying to specify minimum lengths or weights is that a manufacturer will create a jump cue that meets the minimum specifications. If I were a manufacturer, I would jump (pun intended) at the chance to be first-to-market with a jump cue meeting APA minimum specifications. Then we're right back where we started. People who have no business trying to use jump cues will be trying to use jump cues and damaging the equipment in host locations. No, minimum specifications won't achieve the desired result.

I fail to see the relevance of any of this. If a cue meets the spec of minimum length and weight, (and I also mentioned a leather tip), then who cares? That pretty much describes every break cue out there now. If doing a jump shot with a full length cue is ok, then what is your point here? Another thing to consider: any cue with a phenolic tip, and even better a one piece tip and ferrule, is MUCH less likely to do any damage to a table. A standard leather tip is far more likely to chunk, rip apart, fall off, etc., and expose a sharp edge of ferrule, which is really the only likely way to damage cloth. Hence the CURRENT APA rule supports damaging the cloth more than my version.

Unfortunately, you also can't legislate who should be allowed to use a jump cue and who should not. It's not a skill level thing, I know plenty of 5's and 6's who can do quite a bit of damage to a pool table with one of those things.

I think this entire thread makes it quite obvious that you can legislate just about anything. More important is whether you *should*, and whether you do a good job of it. I really want to see how you damage a pool table with a jump cue. Specifically a dedicated jump cue, with a one piece tip and ferrule made of phenolic. Seriously, I just can't see how that would happen. The tip falling off my regular cue on a power draw shot or a break shot is WAY more likely to rip the cloth. It happened to me on MY table.

I'm trying to demonstrate to you that it's not always as black-and-white as you would like it to be, and sometimes you have to just choose the approach that you think will get you closest to the desired result. I believe APA has done that in this instance and you have said nothing to convince me otherwise.

Ironic for one to claim things are not black and white, yet you hold so tight to the correctness of your view and the APA's stance. I would think the very point you claim to be trying to make would make you more open to input from others and perhaps an opportunity to improve things.

The very problem with your position is this: WHAT is the APA's position? What I mean is, exactly what IS the desired result? It is absolutely not clear from the rules. Is the goal to have NO jump shots? Is the goal to have jumps shots available, but especially difficult to perform? Do you want only TALL people to be able to execute jump shots? Is the motivation really to protect the equipment? My impression is that the APA is not even clear itself on what its goals are in these regards and other issues like it. The rules, their wording, and in many cases their intent come across as reactionary, like band aids for cuts they didn't foresee happening. I'm not criticizing that. The idea is that all the criticisms and explanations you have offered do not really help to clarify what the GOAL is in this situation. Earlier you implied that jump shots were only allowed at all because other difficult to clarify issues result from outlawing them. Well to me, intelligent people would not create one ambiguous issue to avoid the ambiguity of another issue. Why not just figure out what you want the rules to be, ideally from a POOL player's perspective, and then hold them up to the criticism of other perspectives (profitability, simplicity, ease of enforcement, etc.) At that point the matter of articulately expressing those rules is a simple thing for MANY MANY people. As it stands right now, it is not clear whether the APA "likes" jump shots or not. I would clarify the goals internally first. Then the expression of the rules becomes much simpler, without all the nonsense and need for absurd situations like you describe in your posts.

If you can tell me what the "desired result" is, I will reserve my own judgement as to whether the rules get close to that. Convincing you is not important to me. However, if you *want* any assistance, just ask, and I will be enthusiastically happy to provide it

KMRUNOUT

 

[BrokeStroke]

Since we already have a feather floating around in this thread, I might as well ask a question or two without regards to down-stuffed cue butts.

If I had a cue that was weight forward (heavier toward the joint), hard leather tip, and broke with it as well as shot with it.....would that be legal to jump with according to current rules?

How about 2 cues that are exactly the same? I break with one and shoot with the other. Could I switch to execute a jump shot? (I know this is a dumb question, but under the former rule, this was not allowed.)

Keep in mind that these cues meet length and weight requirements.

Also still waiting to hear whether a predator BK2 butt with a 314-2 shaft is considered a break cue or not.

I understand that you can't make a rule for every cue in a situation regarding a jump shot, but there has to be a way to word it that would take the ambiguity out of the current rule(s).

Some of the rules in the book open the door for more arguments than solutions, especially among the few 'Win at all costs' APA teams that I have encountered.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Since we already have a feather floating around in this thread, I might as well ask a question or two without regards to down-stuffed cue butts.

If I had a cue that was weight forward (heavier toward the joint), hard leather tip, and broke with it as well as shot with it.....would that be legal to jump with according to current rules?

How about 2 cues that are exactly the same? I break with one and shoot with the other. Could I switch to execute a jump shot? (I know this is a dumb question, but under the former rule, this was not allowed.)

Keep in mind that these cues meet length and weight requirements.

Also still waiting to hear whether a predator BK2 butt with a 314-2 shaft is considered a break cue or not.

I understand that you can't make a rule for every cue in a situation regarding a jump shot, but there has to be a way to word it that would take the ambiguity out of the current rule(s).

Some of the rules in the book open the door for more arguments than solutions, especially among the few 'Win at all costs' APA teams that I have encountered.

The fact that you can so easily come up with these totally reasonable and plausible situations which are not at all attempts to "skirt" the rules pretty much entirely validates my point in my previous post.

Seems to me:

If I had a cue that was weight forward (heavier toward the joint), hard leather tip, and broke with it as well as shot with it.....would that be legal to jump with according to current rules?

Sure...that certainly satisfies the rules as written both in letter and spirit.

How about 2 cues that are exactly the same? I break with one and shoot with the other. Could I switch to execute a jump shot? (I know this is a dumb question, but under the former rule, this was not allowed.)

Again, sure. This totally satisfies the rules in every conceivable way.

Also still waiting to hear whether a predator BK2 butt with a 314-2 shaft is considered a break cue or not.

If I were making the ruling, I would certainly say that this is NOT a break cue, assuming that it has a regular leather tip. Right now it seems to be the "design" of the cue that is the determining factor. The butt is essentially irrelevant when connected to a 314-2 shaft, which is clearly designed for regular shooting.


I think you ask great questions...too bad the APA doesn't seem to think so.

KMRUNOUT