Re-rack all 15 balls?

Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
So, in the proposed new WPA pool rules, the referee at 14.1 is permitted to re-rack the balls if the break ball is pocketed on a safety or scratch and the rack has not been touched. Some currently play this way and some don't.

Should the rack be allowed back on the table after racking 14 balls for a new break?

If you don't think a re-rack should be permitted, then what should happen if the 14-ball rack is slightly forward or back from where it should have been and you need to spot the 15th ball?
 
I've played it both ways; though I was told that championship rules from the past were to NOT let the rack back on the table; and just put the 15th ball back as best you could. Our league though, has always allowed a "re-rack". I like the "re-rack" better as long as it is legal. No good reason not to allow it; other than breaking with tradition (and a little tradition-breaking is okay if the game is improved IMO).
 
Williebetmore said:
I've played it both ways; though I was told that championship rules from the past were to NOT let the rack back on the table; and just put the 15th ball back as best you could. Our league though, has always allowed a "re-rack". I like the "re-rack" better as long as it is legal. No good reason not to allow it; other than breaking with tradition (and a little tradition-breaking is okay if the game is improved IMO).
Click to expand...
For "put the 15th ball back as best you could" what were you supposed to do if the rack turned out to be a little forward or a little back? If the rules do specify no-re-rack, I think they have to cover those two cases. Was it always just, "put it in front"?
 
Re-Rack

Here at my room,
We have always played that the incoming shooter had the option to have them re-racked or put the ball as close as possible to where it should be.

Most players just automatically re-rack the balls anyway.

highrun55
 
I'd prefer to put the ball upfront on the apex without re-racking - it is the only ball that is being spotted, why change the original racking position of the other 14 balls? Seems kind of silly to me, but to each his own.
 
Blackjack said:
I'd prefer to put the ball upfront on the apex without re-racking - it is the only ball that is being spotted, why change the original racking position of the other 14 balls? ...
Click to expand...
What if the 14-ball rack is not in the right place?
 
Bob Jewett said:
For "put the 15th ball back as best you could" what were you supposed to do if the rack turned out to be a little forward or a little back? If the rules do specify no-re-rack, I think they have to cover those two cases. Was it always just, "put it in front"?
Click to expand...

My understanding was that the 15th ball belonged on the spot. If the pack was slightly back, then the 15th ball was placed as close as possible to the pack. Because there is often a divot on the spot, there was frequently a sizeable space between the 15th ball and the pack - which as far as I can recall has never in any way affected subsequent play.

If the pack was forward, then the 15th ball is placed in the apex position, even if it is forward of the spot.

P.S. - Though I haven't time to review the new rules (damn day job again interfering with my pool); I hope the new rules will clarify the intentional foul situation with BIH (it seems from another post that the new rule will specify that the ball must leave the kitchen or give the opponent BIH) - there were conflicting rules in the past; and I could never convince our league director that you had to shoot the ball out of the kitchen with BIH on an intentional foul (even though I saw Steve Mizerak do it, so I know it was a standard rule).
 
Last edited:
Williebetmore said:
... If the pack was forward, then the 15th ball is placed in the apex position, even if it is forward of the spot.
Click to expand...
That sounds not unreasonable, but it would be a violation of the normal spotting instructions.
 
if the 14 balls weren't disturbed, in my league, we rerack (at incoming players choice).
 
I suggest (and its good business for Aramith to boot) to create a special referee ball so that when the rack is reracked, the referee takes the special ball, and racks a full 15 with it. Then removes it and allows play.

If after that, the safety ball doesn't spot properly, it means vibration moved something and it has to go on the line behind the rack as it would otherwise.
 
3andstop said:
I suggest (and its good business for Aramith to boot) to create a special referee ball so that when the rack is reracked, the referee takes the special ball, and racks a full 15 with it. Then removes it and allows play.

If after that, the safety ball doesn't spot properly, it means vibration moved something and it has to go on the line behind the rack as it would otherwise.
Click to expand...

normally, we get away with taking the middle ball in the row of 5 to find the correct spot, then replace it in the back row. it gives good accuracy in finding the foot spot
 
OneArmed said:
normally, we get away with taking the middle ball in the row of 5 to find the correct spot, then replace it in the back row. it gives good accuracy in finding the foot spot
Click to expand...

Oh my, I'd never consider disturbing the rack to use one of the balls like that in any game of consequence. :(
 
If player A is racking 14 balls, player B then pockets the 15th ball and calls safety. It is now player A's turn to shoot at a full rack.

So the question is, if player A does a "shoddy" job racking the first time, can this be used to player A's advantage? If so, then it should be up to player B to spot the ball and decide on a rerack.

It would seem to me that if the initial rack is too far forward, then it doesn't seem like it would make much difference because the head ball can still be frozen. Maybe there is a rare case on a certain table where this makes some ball in the rack dead to a pocket?

On the other hand, if the initial rack is too far back, then there will be a gap between the head ball and the rest of the rack. That could be exploited to player A's advantage in certain circumstances. It could also make it much harder for player A to play a safety from many positions.

My analysis of the possibilities says that it should always be player B's choice whether to rerack or not. This would also allow player B to force player A into playing a safety into a rack with a headball gap. Of course if player B does choose to rerack, player A should be able to object to a "slug" rack.

Jon
 
Bob Jewett said:
What if the 14-ball rack is not in the right place?
Click to expand...

The rack should have been inspected and determined to be the proper place PRIOR to the initial break shot - If it wasn't, tuffsky-shitzky. Why realign the rest of the balls because of a one shot foul? I've never agreed with that.
 
I fully agree that the rack itself shouldn't be re-adjusted once its set, but I do believe that it deserves a fair shot at being set correctly to begin with.

All equipment isn't necessarily new 860 cloth with new spots and pencil lines. Heck, most tables unless set correctly won't even allow the rack to be removed without balls rolling off on the footspot. Thats why I think a good standardized rule would be to rack a full 15 correctly, roll the head ball off and play.

The only reasonable way to do that without disturbing the original rack job is with an additional ball. To me it seems a logical and practical and fair solution.
 
My vote goes to re-racking. I think the benefits of having the rack tight outweigh the other arguments. I don't play much 14.1, but that's how we do it.

-s
 
steev said:
My vote goes to re-racking. I think the benefits of having the rack tight outweigh the other arguments. I don't play much 14.1, but that's how we do it.

-s
Click to expand...

I hear ya steev, but who's benefits are we talking about? :) I'm sure the incoming player would like that much more than the guy who just played the safe. This is where the compromise seems fairest to everyone.
 
3andstop said:
Oh my, I'd never consider disturbing the rack to use one of the balls like that in any game of consequence. :(
Click to expand...

why not? i'm talking about the inital rack at the start of a frame here. If you use a ball on the apex of the rack from the back, you can find where precisely the stack will sit. making sure you don't move the triangle, you can replace the apex ball to the back row, and the position of the rack should be very close if not exactly correct, making sure that you won't need to re-rack if the ball gets spotted.

you are already disturbing the rack because you are racking anyways :)
 
OneArmed said:
why not? i'm talking about the inital rack at the start of a frame here. If you use a ball on the apex of the rack from the back, you can find where precisely the stack will sit. making sure you don't move the triangle, you can replace the apex ball to the back row, and the position of the rack should be very close if not exactly correct, making sure that you won't need to re-rack if the ball gets spotted.

you are already disturbing the rack because you are racking anyways :)
Click to expand...

In a pinch and for fun, sure that works ok but its pretty hard not to move things, even if just a tad when you place that ball back in the rack and give it a squeeze. It just seems to me, so simple to roll the top ball away and be done. :)
 
jondrums said:
If player A is racking 14 balls, ...
Click to expand...
I failed to mention it, but for the purposes of the WSR, you should assume that the referee is racking. This is not supposed to be viewed from the point of one player screwing up the rack and then having to live with it, or taking some advantage from racking. The latter would be unsportsmanlike conduct, if detected.

The real question is which rule is fairest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top