av84fun said:
I think him being asked to rule on a shot that he didn't see, and him responding "I wasn't in position", connotates that if he WAS in a good position to see the shot, that he would in fact, rule IF he was asked to.
Russ
Ref Rulings in Vegas
- Thread starter DJKeys
- Start date
I think him being asked to rule on a shot that he didn't see, and him responding "I wasn't in position", connotates that if he WAS in a good position to see the shot, that he would in fact, rule IF he was asked to.
Russ
Russ Chewning said:I think him being asked to rule on a shot that he didn't see, and him responding "I wasn't in position", connotates that if he WAS in a good position to see the shot, that he would in fact, rule IF he was asked to.
Russ
Possibly, but as I pointed out, in another section of his post, he said:
"Your second question is No! I would never issue a ruling just because I was standing there in the area. Had I been in that situation I would have done nothing unless approached by either player. If I was asked, the correct answer is "My ruling is not binding since I wasn't at the table but this is the answer". "
That remark implied that he DID she the shot and would have issued an opinion...while cautioning that it was not binding. If he had not seen the shot at all, the implication is that he would have simply said so and not even offered a non-binding comment.
But my point was that under the WSRs refs are, in fact, permitted to issue a binding ruling (subject to appeal as are all rulings) even if they didn't personally see the shot. In such cases, they are permitted to consult a "trusted observer" or even consult any video that might have been taken.
Regards,
Jim
av84fun said:
I'll try and clear this up one more time.
If I was asked a rule whether at the table to watch a shot or the players come up to me and ask...I will answer to the best of my ability. Period.
If I am standing in the area and there is a disputed shot:
1. I was not in the proper position to make a call, I was just in the area. Chances are even if I was watching, it was only for a moment. Most referees (I do at least) spend their time scanning their area looking for raised cues or flailing arms that require our attention , not a shot in a match.
2. If I did make a call while not being in the proper position, the opposing player will state that to the head referee which I would have to admit to and thereby look unprofessional. So I refrain from making calls which I wasn't in position to see.
3. I could offer my opinion, such as "That was a bad hit or a foul" and sometimes that would be enough to make the offending player say "Ok" and that's it. On the other hand if he sticks to his guns and says it was good....what now? The head referee is going to get into a situation where a player is accusing me of making a bad call when I wasn't in proper position to make the call (We referees are graded on performance as well)
4. Many times players come up and present a situation that I advise them what the ruling is....most times that is enough. In any event the offending player can deny that's what happened or change some of the facts and in the abscence of a referee....call goes to the shooter. How many times has a referee said "Next time call me over before to watch, not explain what happened after the fact"
I'm not trying to say referees ignore things, but most do not go walking through the ailes calling out fouls as they see them. Players are supposed to know the rules themselves.
5. If I apply a rule incorrectly or use the wrong rule to make a ruling...THAT CAN be appealed. If I say something was a good or bad hit, that's it. Not even a tournament director is going to change that. If he did, he'd find less refs will to work his events.
Lastly to everyone that has replied about the 8 ball ruling that it should have been BIH....READ ALL OF THE RULES!
Under the loss of game in 8 ball it refers you to the general rules for unsportsmanlike conduct. Stopping a 8 ball from going into a pocket is by definition is unsportsmanlike...period. You get the UC warning. Then it says the rules of the specific game are also enforced. Under the 8 ball rules....loss of game.
Read the whole rules , not just far enough to get the answer you want to hear.
ne14tennis said:
Unsportsmanlike conduct is not necessarily penalized by loss of game. The penalty can be anything the ref thinks is appropriate.
Which specific 8 Ball rule provides for loss of game if the opponent catches a ball that has rolled off the shelf?
Remember, this was the incident described:
He breaks... cue ball goes directly in the side pocket... I stand up... approach the table and notice the 8 ball is rolling slowly towards the corner pocket.... it goes in... On instinct, I catch the 8 ball AFTER it is in the pocket, but not down into the table. I say to my opponent that I'll spot it and take the table as it lies. (I was such an easy out from there!)
He says OK! , then a refs steps in who happened to be near by and doesn't really make any call, just says that I shouldn't be touching the ball.... a lot of arguing goes on and the ref doesn't know the correct call.... head ref is called over. He doesn't have a definitive answer either... then he thinks about it and says...
"Since the ball affected by your action was a game winning ball, then you get an unsportsmanlike warning and it is loss of game" (4-3 down, so this meant loss of match too)Thanks,
It was not a shooting foul...it was an non-shooter foul...therefore, I can't think of any rule that would apply OTHER than unsportsmanlike conduct.
Since the outcome of the shot could not possibly...under ANY rule have resulted in anything but BIH for the incoming player...in other words, by catching the EIGHT BALL, he did nothing to alter the outcome of the rack...it would have been spotted if it had dropped without interference or it would have come to rest somewhere on the table. In either case, the incoming player still gets BIH.
Even if the rule creating a foul of by moving an OB, the outcome of the game is changed, such a call would merely have awarded BIH to the original shooter...NOT loss of game to the incoming player.
As described...and we have to assume the incident is being described correctly for sake of this discussion...the ref didn't know how to rule and the head ref became involved. He then issued loss of game against the offender instead of merely issuing a warning or awarding BIH to the shooter.
Under the circumstances, I can find no rule that REQUIRED a loss of game penalty...absent which, I think the call was pretty outrageous.
Again, there may be a rule about which I am unaware and would appreciate your citing it for me.
Jim
PS: And you did correct yourself in # 5 above. Initially you stated..."When I say binding I mean that if I was called to watch the table, whatever I rule is law...period. "
In #5 you correctly modified that remark to say that some calls clearly are subject to being overruled if the ref was unclear on the rules (frozen ball rules for example) and others could be but are not likely to be...bad hits for example.
Last edited:
Agreed.
And even gestures are enough. I mean, if we're going to really beat this thing into the ground we should entertain the possibility of playing a deaf/mute person. Will they be penalized for not actually calling a shot? I mean c'mon, how much are we going to nit-pick here?
Sadly this is why the APA has the whole BS about marking the pocket that you intend to shoot the 8-ball in. You have to pull out your special super spiffy marking tool so that there is absolutely no debate what your intention is when you make your ball-in-hand, straight-in 8-ball. Ridiculous.
And even gestures are enough. I mean, if we're going to really beat this thing into the ground we should entertain the possibility of playing a deaf/mute person. Will they be penalized for not actually calling a shot? I mean c'mon, how much are we going to nit-pick here?
Sadly this is why the APA has the whole BS about marking the pocket that you intend to shoot the 8-ball in. You have to pull out your special super spiffy marking tool so that there is absolutely no debate what your intention is when you make your ball-in-hand, straight-in 8-ball. Ridiculous.
Russ Chewning said:To be completely honest, this sounds like stuff only mid-level league players would pull.
If I am playing an opponent, and he makes a bank shot THAT HE OBVIOUSLY INTENDED, then I don't CARE what the rules are.. I'm gonna sit there with my mouth shut. If I am playing in a league where the rule is to call every single shot, and any large percentage of people try to "steal" the game by calling a foul because you didn't call a an obvious cross side bank, then that is probably not the league for me.
There is a general rule espoused by the better players in most leagues.. "Let the game decide the winner, not the rules." That means if your opponent is better than you, and is beating you, don't be chickens**t and try to get him on a technicality.
And as far as a player putting his ball over the line...Frankly, YOU should have been the one to be a good sport and point out to him that he was over the line. You should not be trying to win on technicalities.
This sounds like a match between two APA 4's.... Not good enough to win convincingly on skill, so they try to beat each other to death with the rulebook.
Russ
StevenPWaldon said:
Steve...I feel ya...but the other sad fact is that in the private sector at least, behavioral rules are almost always promulgated because arguments have arisen over matters about which there was no way to arbitrate the dispute.
I don't know about APA leauges and don't care about them really, but somewhere, someone said to a ref/TD that the opponent didn't call the pocket with all parties swearing (honestly or otherwise) that the shot was and was not called. And in the absence of ref presence, the shooter is supposed to prevail.
Personally, I would imagine that across the league that sort of thing happens with some frequency and may well increase as the Finals are approached.
The marker you mention at least has the attribute that it would end all such debates entirely. And big deal...it would take no more time to place the marker than to chalk a cue, so from a cost/benefit standpoint it makes sense to me.
Many would rebel because they just, in general, don't like rules and I understand that. But when I lose my cool is when rules are issued that are literally POINTLESS or UNENFORCEABLE
Like the 65 mph speed limit on an 8 lane STATE Expressway near me that bisects FARM land for about 20 miles!
Or like one league's rule that jump shots can only be executed with a 45 deg. cue angle...like 46 is a foul...and like refs walk around with protractors?
Anyway, I hear ya but we have to pick our battles.
Regards,
Jim
Just For You av84fun
I am going to try and highlight the parts of this that you are not getting and then I am done with this BIH vs loss of game aspect.
The rules are what they are and I didn't write them I just enforce them.
Here are the rules for 1.40 take your pick of c,d or e any one of them could apply. It doesn't matter if the ball fell into the pocket since 1.40 d clearly states "falling". Someone of course is going to say that it had already fallen...bla..bla.bla
1.40 Intentional Foul Penalty
It is an intentional foul if you do any of the following during a game:
a. intentionally strike the cue ball with anything other than your cue tip;
b. pick up the cue ball in order to end your inning;
c. stop or deflect any ball that is in motion;
d. catch any ball that is falling into a pocket;
e. place your hand into a pocket while any ball is in motion;
f. cause a ball to move by contacting or moving the cloth, bed, or table in any way.
In addition to any penalty required by specific game rules, the mandatory penalty for these fouls is an unsportsmanlike conduct warning. A second violation results in loss of game; a third violation results in loss of match.
NOw read the first paragraph. So we can see they get the UC warning, not maybe or sometimes....always! That's what mandatory means.
Oh wait there is more "In addition to any penalty required by specific game rules" So the game was 8 ball, let's look at what it says.
2.9 Loss of Game
You lose the game if:
a. you illegally pocket the 8-ball;
b. you jump the 8-ball off the table on any shot other than the break;
c. you pocket the 8-ball on the same shot as the last ball of your group;
d. you violate Rule 1.40 (c) through (f) when the 8-ball is either your legal object ball or involved in the violation in any way.e. you pocket the 8-ball on a bank shot that you do not call.
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"
There ya go....
av84fun said:
I am going to try and highlight the parts of this that you are not getting and then I am done with this BIH vs loss of game aspect.
The rules are what they are and I didn't write them I just enforce them.
Here are the rules for 1.40 take your pick of c,d or e any one of them could apply. It doesn't matter if the ball fell into the pocket since 1.40 d clearly states "falling". Someone of course is going to say that it had already fallen...bla..bla.bla
1.40 Intentional Foul Penalty
It is an intentional foul if you do any of the following during a game:
a. intentionally strike the cue ball with anything other than your cue tip;
b. pick up the cue ball in order to end your inning;
c. stop or deflect any ball that is in motion;
d. catch any ball that is falling into a pocket;
e. place your hand into a pocket while any ball is in motion;
f. cause a ball to move by contacting or moving the cloth, bed, or table in any way.
In addition to any penalty required by specific game rules, the mandatory penalty for these fouls is an unsportsmanlike conduct warning. A second violation results in loss of game; a third violation results in loss of match.
NOw read the first paragraph. So we can see they get the UC warning, not maybe or sometimes....always! That's what mandatory means.
Oh wait there is more "In addition to any penalty required by specific game rules" So the game was 8 ball, let's look at what it says.
2.9 Loss of Game
You lose the game if:
a. you illegally pocket the 8-ball;
b. you jump the 8-ball off the table on any shot other than the break;
c. you pocket the 8-ball on the same shot as the last ball of your group;
d. you violate Rule 1.40 (c) through (f) when the 8-ball is either your legal object ball or involved in the violation in any way.e. you pocket the 8-ball on a bank shot that you do not call.
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"
There ya go....
Last edited:
ne14tennis said:
Seems awful harsh for such a simplistic act.
If I remember right, they didn't indicate this harsh of a penalty on the bulletins and posters reflecting this new rule change. It was more indicating the UC warning.
May need to be addressed at your next meeting.
Thanks for your input.
klockdoc said:
I guess the BCAPL wants the game decided on the table without the aid of any hands.
I've seen numerous times where someone put their hand in the pocket to stop a ball and then the ball rattled and didn't fall. Who's to say it didn't touch a finger or hand.
Best practice: Don't do it.
Personally, I don't like the 3 foul rule in 9 ball, but I have to play with it
Russ Chewning said:Holy Moly.. I think my reply on this thread has garnered more positive rep points than anything I ever posted in NPR, EVER..Lol..
Either way, I do not look down on Jim, satman, or others wishing to protect themselves in a match. I would do the same.
It's just that from the other side of the token, I enjoy playing the game as a gentleman, and expecting that my opponent will do so as well, until they prove otherwise.
For me personally, beating a person trying to cheat me is one of the sweetest things in life. It's kind of an ego thing, I guess. (I have no shortage of ego, if you all had not noticed..
Keep in mind, even with all that, I would probably take extra measures to make sure i am calling all my banks, combos, and whatnot, being as I started out many years as a bar player, and just saw more shot possibilities than your average banger could envision. I called one or two "time shots" in my days playing wide-open, run out at all costs bar table 8 ball.
Russ
Russ, I think this is the first time I agreed with 100% of your post.
Vegas is a weird place to play pool. Pretty intense, to say the least. The one and only time I went out there for league play, I was lucky enough to be with a bunch of veterans, so they coached me on what to expect for all the nits who would look for any opportunity to get back to the table. Knowing that, I just tried to adjust to the way my opponent played. I started out making sure I made eye contact with my opponent and calling the shot, but as the match progessed, if he didn't call every shot, then neither did I. But obviously, if there was a bank or combo, I made sure to call it.
ne14tennis said:
I am not trying to beat a seemingly dead horse here, but, I agree with your thought process. But, this should only constitute a BIH foul. That should be reason enough to keep your hand out of the pocket.
I know in higher level play, BIH would be loss of game anyway after your opponent gets through with the table. JMO
ne14tennis said:
I hope my post isn't going to seem like blah blah blah, but IMO, that's actually a good argument. If the table had drop pockets, what the player did would have received no penalty at all (assuming that the 8 was the last ball moving). But because the table has ball returns it's loss of game.
It's honestly not clear to me, based on the wording of the rules, that "falling into the pocket" should include "trickling into the ball return after falling into the pocket". If that's what it means, I think it would be useful to edit the rules to make it crystal clear.
Also, regarding "a ball in motion", I don't think this necessarily includes the 8-ball trickling into the ball return after it had hit the bottom of the pocket. If we take "in motion" in the most literal sense, then had the 8-ball flew off the table, and hit the seated player in the head, then the seated player would have lost the game for that because he deflected the 8-ball while in motion.
ne14tennis said:
makes sense to me now, thanks for your time in this
ne14tennis 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
Last edited:
Cuebacca said:
I agree with you that the rule is anything but crystal clear for the reasons I've cited, but I don't agree with you about the drop pocket issue.
The rule prohibits catching balls as they are falling into the pocket. Whether the ball would stop falling when it hit the bottom of a drop pocket or when it hit the return ramp is, it seems to me, beside the point.
Any insertion of the hand below the shelf and into the pocket area risks preventing the ball from actually falling into the pocket which is why the rule was promulgated.
But my point is that whether the ball fell or didn't fall would not have changed the fact that the opponent was entitled to BIH because of the SCRATCH regardless of whether the ball that fell was the 8 ball or the 88 ball.
Regards,
Jim
ScottW said:Yebbut, this was the eight-ball we're talking about. It's not going to be treated the same as any other ball.
And yes, everyone should keep their hands out of those pockets. And cookie jars.
I hear ya but because of the scratch, the number on the ball caught was irrelevent. BIH was going to the opponent and the 8 dropping or not dropping would not have changed that fact.
I agree that catching a ball is inappropriate in tournament play and a UC warning is entirely appropriate.
Regards,
Jim
Read into it what you want, just don't do it
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
av84fun 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Last edited:
Cuebacca 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.
(-: