Replacing touched balls

[WoodyJ]

More than once I've had opponents opt to not restore balls because they'd been moved to a place that created a tieup. That's chickenshit.

When I was growing up it was all balls were fouls and none of this chickenshit cue ball fouls only. IMO, people have gotten lax when approaching the table. For example, making no effort so that their shirt or hair doesn't touch a ball when they're leaning over to shoot.

You restore them to their original locations as best you are able and use your opponents help if needed.

Under cue ball fouls only, as I understand it, it's the opponent's choice to replace the ball or not, NOT the shooter. So, what's your beef about chickenshit pool. You accidentally knock your ball into a crappy position, don't expect your opponent to let you replace it and keep on playing as if nothing happened. In a friendly practice game probably O.K. -- in competition, nope -- stupid mistakes should hurt.

And, certainly don't accidentally touch/move a non-cue ball and then grab it reflexively and replace it without asking your opponent. That's a clear foul from what I understand. That is, not moving of the ball in the first place, but not asking your opponent before you replace the ball.

 

[fastone371]

When I was growing up it was all balls were fouls and none of this chickenshit cue ball fouls only. IMO, people have gotten lax when approaching the table. For example, making no effort so that their shirt or hair doesn't touch a ball when they're leaning over to shoot.



Under cue ball fouls only, as I understand it, it's the opponent's choice to replace the ball or not, NOT the shooter. So, what's your beef about chickenshit pool. You accidentally knock your ball into a crappy position, don't expect your opponent to let you replace it and keep on playing as if nothing happened. In a friendly practice game probably O.K. -- in competition, nope -- stupid mistakes should hurt.

And, certainly don't accidentally touch/move a non-cue ball and then grab it reflexively and replace it without asking your opponent. That's a clear foul from what I understand. That is, not moving of the ball in the first place, but not asking your opponent before you replace the ball.

I could not agree more. If you are going to be so lackadaisical as to move balls around the table you need to be punished, if that means leaving it where it lies because it impedes another ball so be it. Maybe people will quit moving balls around.

 

[WoodyJ]

I could not agree more. If you are going to be so lackadaisical as to move balls around the table you need to be punished, if that means leaving it where it lies because it impedes another ball so be it. Maybe people will quit moving balls around.

Generally speaking, I'm pretty loose about calling people on fouls. The purpose for being there is to have fun.

But, when someone inadvertently moves a non-cue ball in competition, I'll warn them once nicely to not move it back without consulting me first. They do it again, I'll call a foul. If they get all pi$$y faced and challenge the foul, they shouldn't be surprised if they're facing unsportsmanlike conduct.

Don't get me started on when they accidentally move multiple non-cue balls and want to reset them (without a foul) or they pick up the cue ball (because of a foul) before it stops rolling (and it would have contacted another ball before it stopped rolling).

 

[DynoDan]

When I was growing up it was all balls were fouls and none of this chickenshit cue ball fouls only. IMO, people have gotten lax when approaching the table. For example, making no effort so that their shirt or hair doesn't touch a ball when they're leaning over to shoot.



Under cue ball fouls only, as I understand it, it's the opponent's choice to replace the ball or not, NOT the shooter. So, what's your beef about chickenshit pool. You accidentally knock your ball into a crappy position, don't expect your opponent to let you replace it and keep on playing as if nothing happened. In a friendly practice game probably O.K. -- in competition, nope -- stupid mistakes should hurt.

And, certainly don't accidentally touch/move a non-cue ball and then grab it reflexively and replace it without asking your opponent. That's a clear foul from what I understand. That is, not moving of the ball in the first place, but not asking your opponent before you replace the ball.

As I understand, it was the advent of long hair & sloppy clothing that first inspired the ‘CB fouls only’ rule change (though I suspect it was more likely the supposed need of room/bar owners to make pool more ‘fun’, and discourage the inevitable arguments between beer-soaked ‘bangers’). Soon, likely the mere concept of a ‘foul’ (except maybe the scratch) will be eliminated. If the rules aren’t universally clear & enforced, at this rate, before long there probably won’t be any rules at all. People can drink, listen to loud music, and just have ‘fun’ knocking the balls around.

 

[maha]

all fouls in the past was only for straight pool in tournaments.
no gamblers played that way as too many arguments would happen if you did.
you would have to have a ref. to play that way.

 

[maha]

real gamblers in all sports rarely argue over rules and nitty things. thats reserved for the small stakes players that think they are betting their life on the games.
you just work out any differences. and if you are one that seems to be in those arguments then soon you dont get played with often.

i am in action of some sort every day where no bets are less than 100 bucks and thousands are changing hands, and i cant even remember a time where there wasnt a quick determination of a rule or action that was not satisfactory to all.

 

[Bob Jewett]

As I understand, it was the advent of long hair & sloppy clothing that first inspired the ‘CB fouls only’ rule change (though I suspect it was more likely the supposed need of room/bar owners to make pool more ‘fun’, and discourage the inevitable arguments between beer-soaked ‘bangers’). ...

For the official rules, it was largely a matter of the players unwilling to trust their opponents in unrefereed games. Too many "sharp practitioners" out there who would gladly imagine fouls as needed.

 

[Coos Cues]

I was playing a game of 8 ball at the Western BCA event a few weeks ago. There were two balls of my opponents right at the pocket I was bridging over. One hanging and one out just a bit. They were sort of next to each other probably 1/8" apart. Prior to shooting I hit the hanger with my bridge hand finger and pocketed it. My opponent called a ref over and claimed I had hit the hanger into the other ball prior to it dropping so it was a foul. I didn't think I did but I was focused on the cue ball and my object ball which I had no chance of making or getting safe from those two balls. I conceded the hitting of the other ball because I wasn't sure and my opponent although standing quite a ways away said I did. I knew this was going to cost me the game but I didn't want a hassle.

But guess what happened next? The ref gave him the option of taking the ball I pocketed out and repositioning it hanging. The other player declined and the ref left. Suddenly he realized that even with ball in hand getting shape on his only other ball up table was going to be tricky because the 8 ball was down there crowding his hanger. Had he put the other ball back up it would have been cake. He could have shot one of them and moved the 8 ball then shot the other for easy shape on his other ball. He failed to get shape and I won the game on my next turn. I felt bad because I had virtually no chance of making the ball I was aiming at or getting safe prior to fouling. My foul ended up winning me the game.

This tells me though that I probably did not foul as he insisted after all because karma is always a b!tch.

 

[bbb]

real gamblers in all sports rarely argue over rules and nitty things. thats reserved for the small stakes players that think they are betting their life on the games.
you just work out any differences. and if you are one that seems to be in those arguments then soon you dont get played with often.

i am in action of some sort every day where no bets are less than 100 bucks and thousands are changing hands, and i cant even remember a time where there wasnt a quick determination of a rule or action that was not satisfactory to all.

if you have the best of it let your opponent decide the call
jmho

 

[RT Ford]

I have a question that I feel pretty embarrassed that I don’t know the definitive answer to! I’ve looked for it as many versions of rules I could find, but couldn’t find the answer.

In 8, 9 and 10-ball, if you’re playing cueball fouls only and a player touches more than one object ball, it’s an instant foul. After the foul has been called, does the incoming player have the option to have those balls replaced (the same way they you can if only one ball is disturbed)?

I would think not, because the foul has now been committed and the table has to be played the way it is, with ball in hand.

Hopefully someone has the answer

Also, the rule may be different depending on the discipline being played, if so, what are the differences?

If you're playing 'cue-ball fouls only', touching an object ball shouldn't be a foul.

 

[DynoDan]

real gamblers in all sports rarely argue over rules and nitty things. thats reserved for the small stakes players that think they are betting their life on the games.
you just work out any differences. and if you are one that seems to be in those arguments then soon you dont get played with often.

i am in action of some sort every day where no bets are less than 100 bucks and thousands are changing hands, and i cant even remember a time where there wasnt a quick determination of a rule or action that was not satisfactory to all.

“Quick determination”? (let’s see , if I let this sucker have his way, I’ll still be way ahead at the end of the day, and the size of the stake wouldn’t begin to cover my hospital bill anyway).

I chose to play by pro/all-foul rules as soon as I learned what they actually were, and seldom had arguments either, since I try to limit opponents to only those known to be honorable. If both such opponents are sure they are right (but holding opposing points of view), there is seldom a problem if they indeed, both know the rules:
If your opponent (acting as referee) is known to you as honorable, then you automatically respect/accept his ruling, since you understand he knows that when any play is too close to be sure of, the shooter always gets the ‘benefit of the doubt’. And inversely, I would readily reverse my ruling of any contested foul I might call on a shot where the shooter is better situated (double hit) to know, though that would likely never come up, since I would expect him to call the foul on himself first.

 

[SBC]

When I was growing up it was all balls were fouls and none of this chickenshit cue ball fouls only. IMO, people have gotten lax when approaching the table. For example, making no effort so that their shirt or hair doesn't touch a ball when they're leaning over to shoot.



Under cue ball fouls only, as I understand it, it's the opponent's choice to replace the ball or not, NOT the shooter. So, what's your beef about chickenshit pool. You accidentally knock your ball into a crappy position, don't expect your opponent to let you replace it and keep on playing as if nothing happened. In a friendly practice game probably O.K. -- in competition, nope -- stupid mistakes should hurt.

And, certainly don't accidentally touch/move a non-cue ball and then grab it reflexively and replace it without asking your opponent. That's a clear foul from what I understand. That is, not moving of the ball in the first place, but not asking your opponent before you replace the ball.

Somebody does what you describe gambling....I might not be paying.

 

[SBC]

real gamblers in all sports rarely argue over rules and nitty things. thats reserved for the small stakes players that think they are betting their life on the games.
you just work out any differences. and if you are one that seems to be in those arguments then soon you dont get played with often.

i am in action of some sort every day where no bets are less than 100 bucks and thousands are changing hands, and i cant even remember a time where there wasnt a quick determination of a rule or action that was not satisfactory to all.

Exactly if you aren't good to thr customers....you will find yourself playing alone.

 

[Ken_4fun]

In one pocket I was taught moving 1 ball, the ball was replaced. Moving 2 or more was loss of game.

I think that is just and fair.

Ken

 

[BC21]

In general the WSR do not cover the so-called "cue ball fouls only" option. There is only a very brief discussion in the Regulations for situations where there is no referee at the table.

The CSI rules are much more complete for this. Under CSI cue-ball-fouls-only rules, disturbing more than one ball is a foul and there is no option of restoration. I think the CSI rule is the same for all disciplines.

This is a good rule, and should be the standard.

 

[bbb]

there is a story about a well known hustler from the old days (his name escapes me now)
playing onepocket for big money
he is shooting over a ball around the stack and slighly moves 2 balls
his opponent calls foul !!
he says
you are going to call that a foul?
well if thats a foul
here is my foul
with that he pushes the whole stack towards his pocket....

 

[Ken_4fun]

there is a story about a well known hustler from the old days (his name escapes me now)
playing onepocket for big money
he is shooting over a ball around the stack and slighly moves 2 balls
his opponent calls foul !!
he says
you are going to call that a foul?
well if thats a foul
here is my foul
with that he pushes the whole stack towards his pocket....

I think that was Jersey Red

 

[DynoDan]

there is a story about a well known hustler from the old days (his name escapes me now)
playing onepocket for big money
he is shooting over a ball around the stack and slighly moves 2 balls
his opponent calls foul !!
he says
you are going to call that a foul?
well if thats a foul
here is my foul
with that he pushes the whole stack towards his pocket....

Unsportsmanlike conduct. Loss of game.

 

[DynoDan]

If you're playing 'cue-ball fouls only', touching an object ball shouldn't be a foul.

I agree. Regardless of the rules, you would have a hard time convincing the average banger that moving more than one OB is.

 

[DynoDan]

I could not agree more. If you are going to be so lackadaisical as to move balls around the table you need to be punished, if that means leaving it where it lies because it impedes another ball so be it. Maybe people will quit moving balls around.

Ditto. Carelessness becomes a habit that’s very hard to reverse.
When I watched the DVD of Shaw running over 700, every time he was jacked up over a ball, I looked for him to foul. It’s obvious HE likely plays very little ‘CB ONLY’!