Reracking

[rottenrod]

I guess that's the rule but I don't see why. I could see not specifying the rack could be used, but forbidding it?

My buddy's opinion was that since a shot has already been taken, the rack has been accepted as-is and should not be touched in a subsequent inning.

My thought is that it may be a matter of consistency. In the case where the 15th ball needs to be spotted, but the cue ball interferes with the rack, you would not be able to use the rack so they prohibit its use in all cases. I have never seen this come up in play, and in practice we do use the rack when spotting the 15th ball where the 14 ball rack has not been touched.

 

[Bob Jewett]

This question came up tonight when playing our regular Saturday evening 14.1 match with a friend. It seems the CSI rules for 14.1 do not allow the use of a rack when spotting the 15th ball.
...

The WPA rules take the approach that if the rack is screwed up by bad placement, it is OK to fix it if it hasn't been contacted.

In theory there is an outline and the rack has been placed exactly according to the outline. In practice that doesn't happen for several reasons.

Example: The cloth is worn and has craters from the nine ball players so to get a tight rack the racker moved the 14-ball rack forward a little. Now the rack interferes with a 15th ball being spotted so that ball must be placed behind the rack according to one interpretation of the CSI rules.

It is reasonable to say as in the CSI rules that the rack has been accepted and will not be touched again. That is one way to write the rules. It is not the way the WSR are written.

So far as I know, most (all?) 14.1 tournaments are now governed by the WPA/WSR rule set. The last event governed by the CSI rules was the post-2006 US Open 14.1 tournaments but those are no longer being held.

 

[Dan White]

Since contacting the wing ball is pretty much universal on an opening break (or after 3 fouls) that proscribed order is justified.

Not to be a nit, but I think you mean "prescribed." Ironically, using "proscribed" would have the opposite effect.

 

[DynoDan]

Not to be a nit, but I think you mean "prescribed." Ironically, using "proscribed" would have the opposite effect.

Blame ‘spellcheck’ (I should likely be more attentive to editing before I post). While it CAN be advantageous to not have to type out every word, still, I hate it when computer programs try to read your mind.
Just like how calculators have turned us all into basic-math idiots, and email/texting have made everyone‘s script handwriting illegible, soon no one will remember how to spell either.

 

[Dan White]

Blame ‘spellcheck’ (I should likely be more attentive to editing before I post). While it CAN be advantageous to not have to type out every word, still, I hate it when computer programs try to read your mind.
Just like how calculators have turned us all into basic-math idiots, and email/texting have made everyone‘s script handwriting illegible, soon no one will remember how to spell either.

GPS is making us idiots, too.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Just like how calculators have turned us all into basic-math idiots, and email/texting have made everyone‘s script handwriting illegible, soon no one will remember how to spell either.

I bought a coffee in a campus café. The student clerk couldn't deal with my $5 bill for a $3.15 cost and called the supervisor over to work the register. After a little attitude -- why do you bother us with real money? -- I got a receipt and change from the supervisor. It said I had given them $20 and I got back $3.85 in change. At that point I didn't want to bother them further.

As for handwriting, mine has always been illegible.

 

[Dan White]

I bought a coffee in a campus café. The student clerk couldn't deal with my $5 bill for a $3.15 cost and called the supervisor over to work the register. After a little attitude -- why do you bother us with real money? -- I got a receipt and change from the supervisor. It said I had given them $20 and I got back $3.85 in change. At that point I didn't want to bother them further.

As for handwriting, mine has always been illegible.

You should have asked him to break a $5 with two $10's.

 

[Bob Jewett]

You should have asked him to break a $5 with two $10's.

Which reminds me of a cab ride in Las Vegas. It was a while ago and the total came to $7.50. I paid with a 20 figuring to give him a $1.50 tip. The cabbie put my 20 in his roll, got out a 10 and put it on the seat and then started fumbling for the coins and ones. Then he said, "$7.50 out of 10," sort of pointing at the 10 on the seat. I corrected him, figured this was an interesting technique, and didn't give him a tip.

I was more recently short-changed by a coffee clerk at an airport but I was sleepy and not completely certain so I failed to press the issue.

You win some, you lose some and sometimes you break even.

 

[Dan White]

Which reminds me of a cab ride in Las Vegas. It was a while ago and the total came to $7.50. I paid with a 20 figuring to give him a $1.50 tip. The cabbie put my 20 in his roll, got out a 10 and put it on the seat and then started fumbling for the coins and ones. Then he said, "$7.50 out of 10," sort of pointing at the 10 on the seat. I corrected him, figured this was an interesting technique, and didn't give him a tip.

I was more recently short-changed by a coffee clerk at an airport but I was sleepy and not completely certain so I failed to press the issue.

You win some, you lose some and sometimes you break even.

How true that is. Nice guy...

My change story is this: A teen comes into a business I had around 1999 and asks if I can give him a $20 bill for two rolls of quarters. I said sure and we made the exchange. Two minutes later I realize that was pretty stupid and I better open the paper rolls to be sure there are really quarters there. I open them up and find they are all SILVER quarters! Spot price for 16 oz of silver right now is $384.

I definitely won on that day!

 

[Bob Jewett]

How true that is. Nice guy...

My change story is this: A teen comes into a business I had around 1999 and asks if I can give him a $20 bill for two rolls of quarters. I said sure and we made the exchange. Two minutes later I realize that was pretty stupid and I better open the paper rolls to be sure there are really quarters there. I open them up and find they are all SILVER quarters! Spot price for 16 oz of silver right now is $384.

I definitely won on that day!

And his dad lost.

 

[Dan White]

And his dad lost.

That's what I figured. if somebody had come back and explained the situation I gladly would have returned it.

 

[DynoDan]

How true that is. Nice guy...

My change story is this: A teen comes into a business I had around 1999 and asks if I can give him a $20 bill for two rolls of quarters. I said sure and we made the exchange. Two minutes later I realize that was pretty stupid and I better open the paper rolls to be sure there are really quarters there. I open them up and find they are all SILVER quarters! Spot price for 16 oz of silver right now is $384.

I definitely won on that day!

Flip Side: When I was a pre-teen pinball addict, I raided my father’s coin collection and took a matching pair of mint 1853 quarters to school for ‘show & tell’. Later that day, while playing a poolhall PB machine, I reached in my pocket and accidentally deposited one. I was so enraged/blinded by my stupidity, I then shoved the mate in behind it! (go figure).
I definitely lost on that day. I was so young/dumb, it never occurred that the room owner might have a key and maybe consent to retrieving them.

 

[DynoDan]

GPS is making us idiots, too.

It hasn’t sent me over a cliff yet, but lucky I can still read a map when my NAV system directs me to the wrong place.
Also, while ‘google’ is certainly convenient when you need to know something, the younger gen. who have never been to the library are SOL when there’s no cell service (anyone remember the ‘Dewey Decimal System’?).

 

[fiftyyardline]

After the orignal break to start the game, any single ball driven to the rail or the cue ball itself driven to the rail after striking one or more object ball(s) is legal. At least that's the way we've always played.

“At least that’s the way we’ve always played” is not a very good idea when there are usually rules written for the situation. But in this case you are correct.

 

[DynoDan]

“At least that’s the way we’ve always played” is not a very good idea when there are usually rules written for the situation. But in this case you are correct.

‘Originally incorrect’ traditional rules/procedures SHOULD be exposed.
BUT, I carry an older BCA rulebook printout and tell those who I’m teaching 14.1, they should refer to them if a fine point needs clarification, but though officially, rules sometimes DO get changed/updated. I also make them play ‘all fouls’.

 

[zencues.com]

here is how I rule it in the 14.1 league I run:

I tell the players that once the 15th ball has been played the rack cannot be adjusted as the table is now "in play"...

unless BOTH players agree that a rack (undisturbed) adjustment is needed, then it's ok.

but after the shot, if one player disagrees then the other player must accept the rack "as is", and without complaint.

moral of the story: check the rack before the shot...

 

[DynoDan]

here is how I rule it in the 14.1 league I run:

I tell the players that once the 15th ball has been played the rack cannot be adjusted as the table is now "in play"...

unless BOTH players agree that a rack (undisturbed) adjustment is needed, then it's ok.

Makes me wonder what advantages the disagreeing player might imagine, in leaving the head ball unfrozen (or spotted behind even)?

 

[zencues.com]

The 15th would never be spotted "behind" the rack, unless the rack has been disturbed and a ball interferes with the foot spot.

If the 15th ball is called and made or missed, on a legal shot, without the rack being disturbed, then if both players
agree that the 14 balls in the rack needs to be adjusted... OK. Again, check the rack before the shot

If the 15th ball is "made in the wrong pocket", "made on a called safety" or "made in called pocket with cue ball scratch"
or just a "cue ball scratch" then a "different" rule comes into play in that the full 15 ball rack is allowed to be "tightened up"
by re-racking all 15 balls if the 15th ball will not freeze to the rack. This can be "done" by either player without approval
or complaint from opponent. In fact, the players in our 14.1 league generally rerack all 15 balls in this scenario without thinking
about it or trying to freeze the 15th ball to the rack.

 

[Bob Jewett]

The 15th would never be spotted "behind" the rack, unless the rack has been disturbed and a ball interferes with the foot spot. ...

There is an exception to this. I've never seen it and maybe it has never happened. The cue ball might be obstructing the foot spot without having touched the 14-ball rack.

 

[zencues.com]

Bob, you are correct. And now that you made me think of it I am going
to try and make it a safety shot next time I play 14.1 (which is tomorrow) LOL!