Ref Rulings in Vegas

av84fun said:
Sure! Don't you have that many balls??

The point, of course, being that the number on the ball shouldn't have made any difference and the fact that it did merely points out the need for yet another rule revision.

(-:
Click to expand...

I agree. I liked the reference to the 88 ball too and it reminded me of that clip. Figured I'd post in case you hadn't seen it. Hope you enjoyed it too! :)
 
ne14tennis said:
1. When I said I laugh at it. I think everybody here understood that I laugh about all posts that come up about rules AFTER the event is over. Not that many rule questions throughout the year, but after players become a victim of a rule then the posts start.

Well, that is when it is appropriate to seek to understand the rules more thoroughly....AFTER you are presented with a situation that you don't understand.

2. I do try to educate people with my answers, and if somebody doesn't want to accept the rule as written or what I tell them in different words to make the rule more understandable.....not my fault or problem.

3. You are correct in that the rules of 2.9 a-e normally involve the shooter. However they don't state that specifically and even more bizarre....why would the non-shooter touch any balls on the table.

It happens ALL THE TIME...when the cb returns back toward where the shooter is standing and he concedes an obvious scratch by stopping the ball with his hand or cue.

The inning is over when the shot is complete and all balls stop moving..not hen the cue ball has scratched and other balls are still rolling .

It's a loss of game, that's it and no amount of reasoning is going to change your mind because you don't like the rule.

That isn't correct. I understand clearly why the foul was called in the way it was. But nothing you can say can change the FACT that the rule is A) ambiguous and B) inappropriate under the conditions cited. A UC WARNING is all that should be imposed since the conduct had NO POSSIBLE INFLUENCE on the outcome of the shooter's shot and is a practice that is NO routine throughout the pool playing community that it certainly does not bring shame to the game.

As I stated, I AGREE it's a bad idea to catch balls but the punishment ought to fit the crime and if that did not take place in this instance...and it did not...then the rule should be changed.

Since he was not the shooter the following rule could have been used:

1.42 Non-Shooting Player Responsibility
When it is not your turn, you must not intentionally do anything which distracts your opponent or interferes with their play. Any such intentional distraction or interference is unsportsmanlike conduct.

Any act deemed as unsportsmanlike does not need to receive a warning, based on the referees discretion, it could be BIH, loss of game, loss of match or even disqualification.

Sorry, but NOTHING in that portion of the rule has anything to do with the incident at hand! Catching a ball does NOT "distract" the shooter nor "interfere" with his PLAY...which was OVER...the SHOT was not over but his PLAY was over.

But you continue to cite the UC rule in support of your view when that rule DOES NOT...REPEAT DOES NOT REQUIRE a loss of game sanction. The sanction is left to the discretion of the ref who...if he has a clue...would realize that the conduct had NO INFLUENCE on the outcome of the shot and should issue a warning or AT WORST, BIH to the shooter.

I don't like all the rules the way they are written, but I am not going to refuse to enforce them. It's my job

PS....I am not on the rules committee and I did have the chance to critique the rulebook before it was sent out. There is another change do in June. Maybe this rule will be one of them? The BCAPL does listen to it's membership.

Write Bill Stock with a good suggestion and maybe it will get adopted
Click to expand...

Thanks, I may do that. I have no dog in this hunt except for a basic distaste for rules that are either ambiguous or unfair in relationship to the punishment fitting the crime.

Regards,
Jim

PS: I know that as a ref you have a tough and often thankless job and I mean no disrespect.
 
Last edited:
Cuebacca said:
I agree. I liked the reference to the 88 ball too and it reminded me of that clip. Figured I'd post in case you hadn't seen it. Hope you enjoyed it too! :)
Click to expand...

Truth be told, I didn't even notice the link!

HYSTERICAL. It would be a B1tch if the game was 1 hole or rotation!

(-:
 
av84fun said:
Excuse me, but I do not need your assistance in explaining what "mandatory" means. You seem to have your shorts in a bunch when, in fact, you are confused on at least one aspect of this discussion.

You keep harping about the UC rule but as your own text shows the ONLY THING THAT IS MANDATORY IS A WARNING sir, so there is NOTHING about rule 1.4 that would make loss of game MANDATORY. Zero. Zip. Nada....and of course....Period.

Now, turning to 2.9 you wrote "This could not be written more clearly unless you stated "Any player catching the 8 ball as it falls into the pocket gets a UC warning and loss of game"

I agree. That WOULD be clear but as written, 2.9 is NOT clear. If it WAS clear, then how come the ref, who had passed all the tests that you did, was unable to rule.

a, b and c of that rule ONLY apply to the SHOOTER and the d refers back to 1.4 which, I agree, covers the action the opponent took when he caught the 8 ball.

BUT the rules goes on to restrict the loss of game penalty..."when the 8-ball is either your legal object ball"....GAIN restricting the rule to the SHOOTER...

"...or involved in the violation in any way"

I am certain the above portion of the rule is what you are relying upon to declare a loss of game because it is the ONLY language that could make such a ruling MANDATORY.

But wait....there's more....The shooter SCRATCHED and when he SCRATCHED his inning was OVER.

Under 2.9 if the opponent had caught ANY OTHER BALL than the 8 Ball, it would NOT be loss of game and because the shooter SCRATCHED it made a total of ZERO difference WHAT ball he caught.

Therefore, the act of catching ANY ball...which is clearly covered under the UC rules...and which I agree the opponent should not have done...triggered the mandatory UC WARNING...but given what happened and the fact that what he did would not have changed the outcome of the rack, a warning was the worst penalty that should have been imposed.



Finally, this whole thread sought to enlighten the readers on the rules which is EDUCATIONAL and people like you should use your knowledge and expertise to assist players in their pursuit of understanding and NOT...as you did from the beginning..."laugh" at such requests for understanding. Furthermore, such discussions point tend to point out deficiencies in the rules (or lack thereof) which is useful to the rulemakers when they address the matter of rules revisions from time to time.

Jim
Click to expand...

I'm going to put a scenario out there. Breaker breaks, scratches, and the 8 ball is travelling towards the corner pocket. He looks around real quick and sees that the entire table is open, but there is a ball near the spot.

Eight ball is travelling towards the point of the pocket, looks like it might A. Go back and forth, hanging up, and leaving the opponent an easy run out..or B. Might fall, and tie up the ball near the spot.

Breaker grabs the 8 ball as soon as it touches the tit of the pocket, and says, "I'll spot it up."

NOW, you see the potential for a person to have done it on purpose to gave an advantage. In this case, to ME, it does not matter what the intention was, one should not be catching balls. And if you do, be prepared to get a bad call put on you.

There I go again.. Making my life simpler by using "common sense", rather than being a "rule Nazi".

I would never be one here arguing a bad call when I did something stupid in a match like grab a ball before/as it fell into a pocket. :D

I still luv ya like a brother, Jim. I just don't see what the big deal is..

Russ
 
Last edited:
av84fun said:
Truth be told, I didn't even notice the link!

HYSTERICAL. It would be a B1tch if the game was 1 hole or rotation!

(-:
Click to expand...

Haha! and I can only imagine the arguments over the rack. :eek:
 
Russ Chewning said:
I'm going to put a scenario out there. Breaker breaks, scratches, and the 8 ball is travelling towards the corner pocket. He looks around real quick and sees that the entire table is open, but there is a ball near the spot.

Eight ball is travelling towards the point of the pocket, looks like it might A. Go back and forth, hanging up, and leaving the opponent an easy run out..or B. Might fall, and tie up the ball near the spot.

Breaker grabs the 8 ball as soon as it touches the tit of the pocket, and says, "I'll spot it up."

NOW, you see the potential for a person to have done it on purpose to gave an advantage. In this case, to ME, it does not matter what the intention was, one should not be catching balls. And if you do, be prepared to get a bad call put on you.

There I go again.. Making my life simpler by using "common sense", rather than being a "rule Nazi".

I would never be one here arguing a bad call when I did something stupid in a match like grab a ball before/as it fell into a pocket. :D

I still luv ya like a brother, Jim. I just don't see what the big deal is..
Russ
Click to expand...

Back atcha bro...but your analogy is "stuffed" like a Brit friend of mine might say. (-:

In your example it is the SHOOTER doing the "bad boy"...and he PREVENTS the ball from going in the hole...AND he has SOME penalty coming against him anyway because he scratched!

What REALLY surprises me is that you are the KING of "anti-chickens**t rules and rulings and in this case, loss of game and MATCH is just that when...as I stated, if any other ball than the one with the #8 on it was involved, then the foul should have been nothing more than a warning or BIH at WORST under the UC rule.

I thought you didn't WANT to beat some guy on a meaningless technicality!! (-:

But then again, the best debaters are those who can argue both sides of the same arugment! (-:

Jim
 
Russ Chewning said:
I'm going to put a scenario out there. Breaker breaks, scratches, and the 8 ball is travelling towards the corner pocket. He looks around real quick and sees that the entire table is open, but there is a ball near the spot.

Eight ball is travelling towards the point of the pocket, looks like it might A. Go back and forth, hanging up, and leaving the opponent an easy run out..or B. Might fall, and tie up the ball near the spot.

Breaker grabs the 8 ball as soon as it touches the tit of the pocket, and says, "I'll spot it up."

NOW, you see the potential for a person to have done it on purpose to gave an advantage. In this case, to ME, it does not matter what the intention was, one should not be catching balls. And if you do, be prepared to get a bad call put on you.

There I go again.. Making my life simpler by using "common sense", rather than being a "rule Nazi".

I would never be one here arguing a bad call when I did something stupid in a match like grab a ball before/as it fell into a pocket. :D

I still luv ya like a brother, Jim. I just don't see what the big deal is..

Russ
Click to expand...
If the breaker breaks and scratches and makes the 8 on the break -he automatically loses anyways.

BVal
 
What is the ruling if the breaker breaks, scratches and then smashes his cue stick into 3 pieces on the side of the table?
 
BVal said:
If the breaker breaks and scratches and makes the 8 on the break -he automatically loses anyways.
Click to expand...

Russ's point there was that by grabbing the eight, there is no 100% scratch - thereby muddying the waters on what would have happened. Such a move could be an attempt to weasel out of a loss (if indeed, by the rules being played under, a scratch/8-in-the-pocket combo is a loss).
 
ScottW said:
Russ's point there was that by grabbing the eight, there is no 100% scratch - thereby muddying the waters on what would have happened. Such a move could be an attempt to weasel out of a loss (if indeed, by the rules being played under, a scratch/8-in-the-pocket combo is a loss).
Click to expand...
So there is a 100% cue ball scratch but not a 100% eight ball going in the pocket.

In that situation the guy picked up the 8-ball assuming the 8 was going to fall so I would call it a loss of game.

The rules in my league (BCA) state that if the 8 is made on the break and you scratch it is loss of game. I also think in Vegas if you grab a ball before it rolls in to the pocket it is loss of game as well. Not sure but I think that was the rules. I never do that so I didn't have to worry about it but some people have that habit.

BVal
 
BVal said:
So there is a 100% cue ball scratch but not a 100% eight ball going in the pocket.

In that situation the guy picked up the 8-ball assuming the 8 was going to fall so I would call it a loss of game.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you seem to keep bouncing between two different scenarios - the event that prompted this thread in the first place, and the hypothetical situation Russ laid out.

And the trick with the event that prompted this thread - it was NOT the shooter who scooped up the eight-ball as it was dropping into the pocket, it was his opponent - and HE was handed the loss of the game.
 
I actually like this one

watchez said:
What is the ruling if the breaker breaks, scratches and then smashes his cue stick into 3 pieces on the side of the table?
Click to expand...

Once again...it's the dreaded UC warning and you are not allowed to repair the cue. So if all you got left is your break or Jump cue....good luck :D
 
ScottW said:
Russ's point there was that by grabbing the eight, there is no 100% scratch - thereby muddying the waters on what would have happened. Such a move could be an attempt to weasel out of a loss (if indeed, by the rules being played under, a scratch/8-in-the-pocket combo is a loss).
Click to expand...

Scott, there is only a 100% scratch...no other percentage. And scratching when the 8 is pocketed on the break is not loss of game so there would be nothing to weasel out of.

Regards,
Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top