Questionable ruling

MikeM

MikeM

Pool Lover
Silver Member
Last night in league play (TAP 8Ball). Shooter attempts a shot with a wheeled attachment on their cue. (shooter plays in a wheelchair) The attachment is an extension/bridge that allows for a longer reach.

During the shot attempt, the shooter flubs the shot and misses the cue ball, however the attachment on the cue hits an opponents ball pushing it into the side pocket. The referee was called and ruled that the attachment was part of the cue and since we were playing cue ball fouls only and the cue ball was not hit that the shot was NOT a foul, but an accidental movement of an object ball. The opponent was given the option of replacing the ball that went in or leaving it down.

Upon further reflection the referee (me) thinks he may have blown this one.

What say you, jury of my peers?

Mike
 
I think you are fine

MikeM said:
Last night in league play (TAP 8Ball). Shooter attempts a shot with a wheeled attachment on their cue. (shooter plays in a wheelchair) The attachment is an extension/bridge that allows for a longer reach.

During the shot attempt, the shooter flubs the shot and misses the cue ball, however the attachment on the cue hits an opponents ball pushing it into the side pocket. The referee was called and ruled that the attachment was part of the cue and since we were playing cue ball fouls only and the cue ball was not hit that the shot was NOT a foul, but an accidental movement of an object ball. The opponent was given the option of replacing the ball that went in or leaving it down.

Upon further reflection the referee (me) thinks he may have blown this one.

What say you, jury of my peers?

Mike
Click to expand...



Mike,

Had the ball been hit with a cue or a standard bridge the rule would still apply. The wheeled device would have to be covered as cue or bridge so it seems like you made a good ruling based on what you said in your post. I don't know TAP rules but what you stated seems to cover the situation.

Hu
 
Bcapl

With the current rules, it would be a foul if that object ball contacted another object ball.
 
MikeM said:
Last night in league play (TAP 8Ball). Shooter attempts a shot with a wheeled attachment on their cue. (shooter plays in a wheelchair) The attachment is an extension/bridge that allows for a longer reach.

During the shot attempt, the shooter flubs the shot and misses the cue ball, however the attachment on the cue hits an opponents ball pushing it into the side pocket. The referee was called and ruled that the attachment was part of the cue and since we were playing cue ball fouls only and the cue ball was not hit that the shot was NOT a foul, but an accidental movement of an object ball. The opponent was given the option of replacing the ball that went in or leaving it down.

Upon further reflection the referee (me) thinks he may have blown this one.

What say you, jury of my peers?

Mike
Click to expand...


Hey Mike

I like that ruling.
 
Not TAP, but for what it's worth...

Correct call in BCAPL play. Per BCAPL Rule 1.33.6:

"If a single disturbed ball falls into a pocket with no effect on the outcome of the shot, your opponent has the restoration option. However, if the disturbed ball is designated by specific game rules as the game winning ball, it must be restored."

Although WSR does not address the issue of a disturbed ball falling into a pocket, in my personal experience the ruling has been the same at pre-BCAPL BCA Nationals since 1998, but I wouldn't bet my life on it holding up, depending on the ref/TD. More specifically, the "game-winning ball" provision of BCAPL 1.33.6 is not addressed by WSR Regulation 20, and is therefore open to interpretation.

:)
Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee
BCAPL Director of Referee Training
Technical Editor, BCAPL Rule Book
bcapl_referee@cox.net

Find the Official Rules of the BCA Pool League here:

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/Default.aspx

* The contents of this post refer to BCA Pool League (BCAPL) Rules only. The BCAPL National Office has authorized me to act in an official capacity regarding questions about BCAPL Rules matters in public forums.
* Neither I nor any BCAPL referee make any policy decisions regarding BCAPL Rules. Any and all decisions, interpretations, or Applied Rulings are made by the BCAPL National Office and are solely their responsibility. BCAPL referees are enforcers of rules, not legislators. BCAPL Rules 9.5.3 and 9.5.4 apply.
* No reference to, inference concerning, or comment on any other set of rules (WPA, APA, VNEA, TAP, or any other set of rules, public or private) is intended or should be derived from this post unless specifically stated.
* For General Rules, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, and 14.1 Continuous: there is no such thing as "BCA Rules" other than in the sense that the Billiard Congress of America (BCA) publishes various rules, including the World Pool-Billiard Association's "World Standardized Rules" for those games. The BCA does not edit, nor is responsible for the content of, the World Standardized Rules. The Official Rules of the BCAPL is a separate and independent set of rules and, to avoid confusion, should not be referred to as "BCA Rules".
* Since 2004, there is no such thing as a "BCA Referee". The BCA no longer has any program to train, certify or sanction billiards referees or officials.
* The BCAPL has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA.
* The BCAPL has not addressed every imaginable rules issue, nor will it ever likely be able to, as evidenced by the seemingly endless situations that people dream up or that (more frequently) actually happen. If I do not have the answer to a question I will tell you so, then I will get a ruling from the BCAPL National Office and get back to you as soon as I can. If deemed necessary, the BCAPL will then add the ruling to the "Applied Rulings" section of The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League.
 
That ruling sounds fine to me.

The key is whether it affects the outcome of the shot. If yes, the victim can argue it helped the shooter and could even be a dirty trick disguised as an accident. And then the ref has no choice but to accept the game is irrevocably changed.

If it had no affect on the game (except to help his opponent) I can't see calling it a foul.
 
Thanks for all the responses. I feel better now. The shooter went on to run out the table and win his match and his team won the playoff round. I know one shot in one game doesn't swing the match, but it did bother me thinking I might have gotten it wrong.

I'm new to this reffing thing and want to get better as time goes by.

Thanks again,

Mike
 
I know a person who is in a wheel chair and plays with the same arrangement. I'd say whoever complained about it is pretty anal.
 
We need to find a way to get our American rules up to speed with the rest of the world. Just about everywhere else they play foul on all balls during or after the shot. You touch a ball when shooting and you have fouled. Prior to the shot if you touch a ball, it can still be restored. This rule makes calling shots like this much easier. And it also makes it a little tougher for American players to adjust when they go overseas, since our rules are so lenient.

Of course, I still don't like some of the WPA rules either, like the fact that everything is "call shot." You no longer can play a two way shot in their version of Ten Ball. You must call one ball or the other, not both! And if you call the object ball and also make the ten ball, it spots back up. Weird! Not bad, weird. Who thought of that strange rule, I'd like to know?

And after watching countless Ten Ball matches the last few years, I'm convinced that with a good rack, the ten ball is harder to make on the break than the nine ball ever was. I'd like to see players be able to win on the break again.
 
alstl said:
I know a person who is in a wheel chair and plays with the same arrangement. I'd say whoever complained about it is pretty anal.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a complaint. The players asked for a ruling. Perfectly acceptable in league play.

Nice call Mike!

Brian in VA
 
Brian in VA said:
It wasn't a complaint. The players asked for a ruling. Perfectly acceptable in league play.

Nice call Mike!

Brian in VA
Click to expand...

I guess I read it wrong, I thought the opponent was arguing it should have been a foul.

I agree, he made the right call.
 
jay helfert said:
And after watching countless Ten Ball matches the last few years, I'm convinced that with a good rack, the ten ball is harder to make on the break than the nine ball ever was. I'd like to see players be able to win on the break again.
Click to expand...

Jay, I am usually in your camp on opinions regarding the rules of pool, and I certainly agree that we ought to have a REAL set of "World Standardized Rules", but I just can't agree with you on this opinion you have of winning a game on the break shot. Since by your own admission you say that making a ball is hard using the ten-ball rack, then to make one is certainly a feat of nothing more than pure luck. And, IMHO, I do not believe a game of pool should EVER be won on a single, one-stroke-and-it's-over, break shot. The game is too intricate, too complicated, and too hard to become proficient in to allow a single, lucky (you can imagine the odds of ever calling one and in which pocket) shot to possibly decide the outcome of a grueling, hard fought hill-hill match. I've seen it happen and I felt like not only did the losing player get ripped-off, I myself, as a fan of the game, had the pleasure of watching the case game being won by pure shooting ability or saavy safety play taken away from me.

But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions and you have all the right to feel as you do. I just feel differently about it, that's all.

Maniac
 
Last edited:
I don't know TAP but I agree with the call. It wasn't hit by the cue tip so it is not a foul. Option to put it back or leave where it is.

My 0.02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top