Rule question - called shots

[inside_english]

The other night I was playing a match and my opponent called the two in the side pocket. The nine ball was close to the corner pocket and he called the nine in the corner as well "just-in-case".

I have seen this before, especially in 10-ball tourneys where a player will call their primary shot, and then call another ball "just-in-case".

Is this valid?

He missed the two in the side, it flew off the point and caromed off two other balls, one of which combo'ed the nine in the corner after a bank!

There was no way he could have predicted or even suspected this outcome, but he took the win.

So my question is this:

If you are playing 10-ball and the players must call their shots, can't they always call the 10-ball "just-in-case" and get the win?

Does seem to take away from having to call your "legitimate" shot.

Thoughts?

 

[inside_english]

Just read the BCA rules on this...

9.5 Call Shots & Pocketing Balls
Whenever the shooter is attempting to pocket a ball (except the break) he is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant.

9.8 Continuing Play
If the shooter legally pockets a called/nominated ball on a shot (except a push out, see 2.4 Second Shot of the Rack – Push Out), any additional balls pocketed remain pocketed (except the ten ball; see 9.9 Spotting Balls), and he continues at the table for the next shot. If he legally pockets the called ten ball on any shot (except a push out), he wins the rack. If the shooter fails to pocket the called ball or fouls, play passes to the other player, and if no foul was committed, the incoming player must play the cue ball from the position left by the other player.

Looks like it does count...

 

[nathandumoulin]

This situation arose at the US Open 10-ball this year. Vivian was playing Hunter and the match was hill-hill. Vivian called the 2-ball and then "the 10-ball just in case". She made the 2, but missed the 10.

Chaos ensued. The on-site ref called an end to Vivian's inning, while Vivian proceeded to put on one of the worst displays I've ever seen. She attempted to guilt Hunter into changing the call, suggesting that if the situation were reversed, she'd let Hunter keep shooting.

The TD came over eventually and changed the call. He said that since Vivian didn't know the rules, he'd cut an exception. The final verdict wrongfully cost Hunter the set, and quickly put an end to Hunter's participation at the US Open.

A few minutes after the set ended, the TD stated that it was one of the worst calls he's ever made. I spoke to him about it the following day, and he admitted that his poor call bothered him so much that it kept him up all night.

Moral of the story, if you call two balls, you have to pocket both or your inning is over. Well, unless you're Vivian...

 

[inside_english]

This situation arose at the US Open 10-ball this year. Vivian was playing Hunter and the match was hill-hill. Vivian called the 2-ball and then "the 10-ball just in case". She made the 2, but missed the 10.

Chaos ensued. The on-site ref called a foul, but Vivian proceeded to put on one of the worst displays I've ever seen. She attempted to guilt Hunter into changing the call, suggesting that if the situation were reversed, she'd let Hunter keep shooting.

The TD came over eventually and changed the call. The final verdict cost Hunter the set, but the TD later stated that it was one of the worst calls he's ever made (he even said the next day that it bothered him so much that it kept him up all night).

Moral of the story, if you call two balls, you have to pocket both or your inning is over.

"Moral of the story, if you call two balls, you have to pocket both or your inning is over."

I like that because technically a player can call balls all over the table "just in case" and have it count, which is basically reverting to the "lucky" aspect of the game.

 

[TX Poolnut]

"Moral of the story, if you call two balls, you have to pocket both or your inning is over."

I like that because technically a player can call balls all over the table "just in case" and have it count, which is basically reverting to the "lucky" aspect of the game.

I call every ball in every pocket everytime, just in case.

 

[GADawg]

Calling two balls is trying to call "either/or". You can't do that.

Suppose you had no obvious shot to make lowest numbered ball, but there balls hanging in four pockets. You can't call this one or this one or this one or this one and then blast away and if one of them goes it is a good shot.

You call one ball and one pocket. If you make that one anything else that goes is incidental and stays down and you keep shooting. If you miss it, inning over.

 

[mjantti]

You can call only one ball on each shot. If a player calls two balls, I'd say that the latter call is valid. If I'm a referee or the opponent, I'd ask the shooter for a clarification. I'm surprised that even pro players don't seem to know this rule.

 

[GADawg]

You can call only one ball on each shot. If a player calls two balls, I'd say that the latter call is valid. If I'm a referee or the opponent, I'd ask the shooter for a clarification. I'm surprised that even pro players don't seem to know this rule.

I am constantly amazed at the number of people, including professionals, who play games and have never read the rules to understand what they can or cannot do, . Many players depend on what someone has told them, which in many cases is wrong or out of date.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Here's the rule:

1.6 Standard Call Shot
In games in which the shooter is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant. Only one ball may be called on each shot. ... ​

As a referee, I'd say that there was no call.

Players should not get slack for being ignorant of the rules. It is sad that so few players bother to read them.

 

[acedotcom]

You call one ball and that's it. There's no such thing as a back-up ball or a contingency call - that's riduculous and if anyone tried crap like that on me I'd immediately call him a weasel and tell him to go F##k himself. Fact is I don't play rotation based games, including 9 and 10 ball, if you have to call balls. If you want to call balls play straight pool or 8-ball. Better players are always afraid that a lesser player will shit a money ball in against them. Well, tough. That's how those games should be played and the wild aspect sort of evens things out. jmo

 

[pt109]

Sorry Tate

I'm paraphrasing Tate here from a former post on this subject.

If you call two balls and three pockets on one shot.....
..you just might be a redneck

 

[sfleinen]

WPA "General Rules" plainly state only one ball / one pocket may be called

9.5 Call Shots & Pocketing Balls
Whenever the shooter is attempting to pocket a ball (except the break) he is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant.

9.8 Continuing Play
If the shooter legally pockets a called/nominated ball on a shot (except a push out, see 2.4 Second Shot of the Rack – Push Out), any additional balls pocketed remain pocketed (except the ten ball; see 9.9 Spotting Balls), and he continues at the table for the next shot. If he legally pockets the called ten ball on any shot (except a push out), he wins the rack. If the shooter fails to pocket the called ball or fouls, play passes to the other player, and if no foul was committed, the incoming player must play the cue ball from the position left by the other player.

Looks like it does count...

inside_english:

No, actually you're not quoting the correct rule excerpt. You can only nominate (call) one ball, and one pocket. There's no such thing as "calling a contingency or 'backup' ball/pocket." See WPA "General Rules" that apply to all games -- these General Rules are the "umbrella" over each game-specific ruleset. (In other words, if a certain situation is not addressed in the game-specific rules [e.g. in the "Rules for 10-ball"], but is addressed in the General Rules, the General Rules apply.)

http://wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_tournament#1.6
1.6 Standard Call Shot
In games in which the shooter is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant. Only one ball may be called on each shot.
For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.
In call shot games, the shooter may choose to call “safety” instead of a ball and pocket, and then play passes to the opponent at the end of the shot. Whether balls are being spotted after safeties depends on the rules of the particular game.​

Methinks your player is confusing the rules he/she sees on ESPN during the "Challenge of Champions" -- 9-ball where the 9-ball has to be called. In the ESPN "Challenge of Champions" if the 9-ball is pocketed but not called, it gets spotted. So you will often see players calling the 9-ball "just in case" if there's even a remote chance to pocket it. This is an aberration of normal 9-ball rules, specific to the Challenge of Champions. This aberration is NOT to be applied to 10-ball, a very old call-shot game resurrected from the ashes of time to address the deficiencies of 9-ball.

I agree with others that've noted that it's sad players are either ignorant of proper call shot rules, or else are willing to intentionally blur/cause confusion for opportunistic selfish reasons.

-Sean

 

[jay helfert]

In the old days (pre 2000) Ten Ball was played just like 9-Ball, with no call shot. All that has changed dramatically in the last few years with the advent of call shot and safety play. It is a far more complicated game today due to these new rule changes, all designed to remove whatever luck there is from the game. There are no more "two way" shots that used to be quite common in earlier versions of Ten Ball.

I think what all this has done is make the game somewhat more confusing for the fans who are watching. Often I see them shaking their heads wondering what just happened, when balls are re-spotted and players either lose their turn or pass the shot back to their opponent if they don't like the leave. Even the players often get confused. I would prefer to see the game of Ten Ball go back to more 9-Ball like rules just for clarity's sake and ease of play.

One thing for sure, the best players will still be winning! Winning at pool has little to do with the rules, but more about who has the heart to make the key shots at critical times in the match. The best players pull these shots off and the lesser players don't. Pretty much as simple as that. But what do I know, I've only been watching this game for fifty years. I have yet to be asked to be on a rules committee, even when I've volunteered my services.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Who was the TD? Was that Bobby Hunter?

This situation arose at the US Open 10-ball this year. Vivian was playing Hunter and the match was hill-hill. Vivian called the 2-ball and then "the 10-ball just in case". She made the 2, but missed the 10.

Chaos ensued. The on-site ref called a foul, but Vivian proceeded to put on one of the worst displays I've ever seen. She attempted to guilt Hunter into changing the call, suggesting that if the situation were reversed, she'd let Hunter keep shooting.

The TD came over eventually and changed the call. He said that since Vivian didn't know the rules, he'd cut an exception. The final verdict wrongfully cost Hunter the set, and quickly put an end to Hunter's participation at the US Open.

A few minutes after the set ended, the TD stated that it was one of the worst calls he's ever made. I spoke to him about it the following day, and he admitted that his poor call bothered him so much that it kept him up all night.

Moral of the story, if you call two balls, you have to pocket both or your inning is over. Well, unless you're Vivian...

 

[AtLarge]

... Ten Ball ... is a far more complicated game today due to these new rule changes, all designed to remove whatever luck there is from the game. There are no more "two way" shots that used to be quite common in earlier versions of Ten Ball. ...

The new rules are not designed to "remove whatever luck there is from the game." We can't take all the luck out of pool. But it is possible to play the game under a set of rules that levels the playing field in terms of luck and raises the probability that the player who is actually playing the better pool will win the match. It is so easy to eliminate some of the more obnoxious results of luck in pool. And we witnessed a couple of major 10-ball events earlier this year that did that pretty well.

The 10-ball rules used at the Super Billiards Expo this year eliminated 2-way shots by giving Player B the option of passing the inning back to Player A after Player A missed a called shot. Although some people don't feel it's worth giving up 2-way shots to reduce the element of luck, many others -- including players -- praised those rules.

The WPA 10-ball rules used at the US Open 10-Ball Championship in May, however, did not eliminate all 2-way shots. The type of shot where you just take a whack at making one of two balls was out the window. But calling a shot while simultaneously playing the cue ball safe in case of a miss was still fine, because Player B did not have the option mentioned in the previous paragraph.

 

[tatcat2000]

Who was the TD? Was that Bobby Hunter?

Ken Shuman. Hunter Lombardo.

This situation arose at the US Open 10-ball this year. Vivian was playing Hunter and the match was hill-hill. Vivian called the 2-ball and then "the 10-ball just in case". She made the 2, but missed the 10.

Chaos ensued. The on-site ref called a foul, but Vivian proceeded to put on one of the worst displays I've ever seen. She attempted to guilt Hunter into changing the call, suggesting that if the situation were reversed, she'd let Hunter keep shooting.

The TD came over eventually and changed the call. He said that since Vivian didn't know the rules, he'd cut an exception. The final verdict wrongfully cost Hunter the set, and quickly put an end to Hunter's participation at the US Open.

A few minutes after the set ended, the TD stated that it was one of the worst calls he's ever made. I spoke to him about it the following day, and he admitted that his poor call bothered him so much that it kept him up all night.

A few very minor details aside, that is essentially what happened.

Corrections: The on-site ref (Ed Smith) did not call a foul, but ruled properly that Vivian's inning was over. Also, it was a first round match and did not end Hunter's run, although I'm sure it certainly did not help his cause. While it is certainly possible, and maybe even likely, that Hunter would have won the match had the call gone his way, no outcome can be predicted with 100% certainty. Vivian went on to lose the next two matches to Manny Chau and Gabe Owen, finishing 65-96. Hunter finished 49-64.

On a side note, Hunter started a later match (during which I was working) down 1-0 per tourney regulations because he was not present for the lag. He went on to win that match.

Now for the rules aspects.

Fact not in contention: Vivian used language at the table that clearly could have been construed to have the effect of calling two balls. By all first-hand accounts, the words "just in case" were used referring to the 10-ball.

Fact not in contention: WSR were not in effect.

Although the proper outcome under BCAPL rules would probably be similar if enforced under WSR, you have to do some tap dancing to get there under WSR. Calling more than one ball is not listed as a foul. And interestingly enough, WSR has no "otherwise violates the rules" provision specifying penalties for actions which may violate a rule but are not listed as a foul under WSR. Nor is there any other reference to a penalty for calling more than one ball under WSR 1.6, and the rest of 1.6 is fuzzy at best. The only stretch - and I think it is a stretch - that would get you there under WSR as written is to claim that calling two balls falls under 6.16, UC. Other than that, as so often happens under WSR, it's just the ref/TD making stuff up as they go along, at least with respect to the problem at hand. Anyway...

Fact not in contention: BCAPL rules were in effect. There is absolutely no doubt as to the proper outcome under BCAPL Rule 1.17.1:

"...You may only call one ball on a shot..."

and BCAPL Applied Ruling 1.17, Situation 4:

"Player A, despite the prohibition of Rule 1.17.1, calls two balls on a shot. The result of the shot is: (a) both balls are pocketed as called; (b) the first ball called is pocketed but the second ball is not; (c) the first ball called is not pocketed but the second ball is pocketed; (d) neither ball is pocketed.

Ruling: (a) – (d): Player A’s inning is ended. Player B accepts the table in position."

That ruling should have been the outcome in the Vivian/Hunter match.

I have known Ken Shuman for over 10 years and worked closely with him on an ongoing basis for more than 5 years. Others on this forum, including Mr. Helfert notably, have sung him praises and observed on multiple occasions that he is an outstanding referee and TD and, most importantly at least for me, a person of unimpeachable character. It is no accident that he is an integral part of the BCAPL referee training program.

While it is unfortunate that the events in question took place, I dare say there is not a single referee/TD on this forum or anywhere else, if they have been actively pursuing work as a referee at the BCAPL quantity of activity for more than a two years, or as a TD of tournaments with 128+ players for five or more years that can truthfully say, without failing a behavioral analysis interview, that they have not had at least one HUGE mistake. If I were hiring a TD and an interviewee claimed to be Big-Mistake free, I would send them packing. And then I would call Mr. Shuman to see if his schedule was free.

Sorry - I may be going off a little bit in the next few paragraphs here, since no one yet has bashed Ken. But occasionally a post pops up here bashing this referee or that organization or the next call that someone didn't agree with. Sometimes they might be justified, sometimes not. But when it comes to the simple fact that humans, including TD's and refs, make mistakes, they are often pointless.

Anyone posting as such is certainly entitled to their opinon, and I will always carefully consider it. And then, sometimes, I will suggest that they attend BCAPL Referee training, if for no other reason than to gain a better understanding of the BCAPL rules and how BCAPL referees operate under various circumstances. It is no exaggeration to say that several people have accepted that suggestion, and then come to Ken, Bill Stock or me after the class and say words to the effect of "Ohhhh...now I get it."

Those that stand their ground and continue to persist that this ref is bad or that TD is bad or whatever other complaint they may have are still entitled to their opinion, of course! And I will not waste my time trying to change their minds if they are not willing to accept the frailties of humans, to which the vast majority of errors can be traced. But I suggest they take note of a not often related offshoot of a recent situation from Major League Baseball. The following is quoted from ESPN.com. I have added B/I emphasis in a few places.

Jim Joyce, the umpire whose missed call deprived Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga of a perfect game on June 2, is baseball's best umpire nonetheless, according to an exclusive ESPN The Magazine Baseball Confidential poll of 100 major league players.

Players also were decidedly opposed to replay and overwhelmingly applauded commissioner Bud Selig for not overturning Joyce's call that kept Galarraga from being the 21st pitcher in history to throw a perfect game.

Joyce was named in 53 percent of the surveys, which asked players for the three best and three worst umpires in the game, as well as questions about instant replay and whether Galarraga's perfect game should stand. That beat runner-up Tim McClelland, who ironically was panned for his performance in Game 4 of last year's American League Championship Series. McClelland was named on 34 percent of the ballots.

"The sad thing about the Galarraga game is, Jim Joyce is seriously one of the best umpires around," one player said. "He always calls it fair, so players love him. Everyone makes mistakes, and it's terrible that this happened to him."

Many, both in this forum and in the pool world in general, spend a great deal of time bemoaning the fate of various aspects of pool industry, most notably financial aspects. But just as frequently heard are complaints about pool's "image". I respectfully suggest that if there are those who want to clean up pool's image, they would do well to note the treatment of Jim Joyce by baseball players, and by the behavior of the most important player at issue, Mr Galarraga, immediately after the event and in the days following. He was the very definition of a perfect gentleman. Pool should be so lucky.

Note to Mr. Stock: Sorry for not clearing this ahead of time, boss. If you want to fire me I understand...



Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee
BCAPL Director of Referee Training
Technical Editor, BCAPL Rule Book
bcapl_referee@cox.net

Find the Official Rules of the BCA Pool League here:

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/Default.aspx

* The contents of this post refer to BCA Pool League (BCAPL) Rules only. The BCAPL National Office has authorized me to act in an official capacity regarding questions about BCAPL Rules matters in public forums.
* Neither I nor any BCAPL referee make any policy decisions regarding BCAPL Rules. Any and all decisions, interpretations, or Applied Rulings are made by the BCAPL National Office and are solely their responsibility. BCAPL referees are enforcers of rules, not legislators. BCAPL Rules 9.5.3 and 9.5.4 and the BCAPL Rules "Statement of Principles" apply.
* No reference to, inference concerning, or comment on any other set of rules (WPA, APA, VNEA, TAP, or any other set of rules, public or private) is intended or should be derived from this post unless specifically stated.
* For General Rules, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, and 14.1 Continuous: there is no such thing as "BCA Rules" other than in the sense that the Billiard Congress of America (BCA) publishes various rules, including the World Pool-Billiard Association's "World Standardized Rules" for those games. The BCA does not edit, nor is responsible for the content of, the World Standardized Rules. The Official Rules of the BCAPL is a separate and independent set of rules and, to avoid confusion, should not be referred to as "BCA Rules".
* Since 2004, there is no such thing as a "BCA Referee". The BCA no longer has any program to train, certify or sanction billiards referees or officials.
* The BCAPL has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA. The letters "BCA" in BCAPL do not stand for "Billiard Congress of America, nor for anything at all.
* The BCAPL has not addressed every imaginable rules issue, nor will it ever likely be able to, as evidenced by the seemingly endless situations that people dream up or that (more frequently) actually happen. If I do not have the answer to a question I will tell you so, then I will get a ruling from the BCAPL National Office and get back to you as soon as I can. If deemed necessary, the BCAPL will then add the ruling to the "Applied Rulings" section of The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

The WPA 10-ball rules used at the US Open 10-Ball Championship in May, however, did not eliminate all 2-way shots. The type of shot where you just take a whack at making one of two balls was out the window. But calling a shot while simultaneously playing the cue ball safe in case of a miss was still fine, because Player B did not have the option mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Well, that's partly correct the way I understand the WPA (WSR) rules. When playing a 2-way shot of the call shot/safety variety and missing, the incoming player only must take the balls in position IF no ball is pocketed. If a ball is made illegally (called ball in a wrong pocket or an uncalled ball falls) then the incoming player still has the option to give the table back.

 

[8Ball48043]

Here's the rule:

1.6 Standard Call Shot
In games in which the shooter is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant. Only one ball may be called on each shot. ... ​

As a referee, I'd say that there was no call.

Players should not get slack for being ignorant of the rules. It is sad that so few players bother to read them.

So, in the first case sited in this thread; The 10-ball should have been called? Correct?

 

[AtLarge]

Well, that's partly correct the way I understand the WPA (WSR) rules. When playing a 2-way shot of the call shot/safety variety and missing, the incoming player only must take the balls in position IF no ball is pocketed. If a ball is made illegally (called ball in a wrong pocket or an uncalled ball falls) then the incoming player still has the option to give the table back.

You are correct. What you point out is the Wrongfully Pocketed Balls rule:

9.7 Wrongfully Pocketed Balls
If a player misses his intended ball and pocket, and either makes the nominated ball in the wrong pocket or pockets another ball, his inning has finished and the incoming player has the option to take the shot as is, or hand it back to his opponent.​

But the more common situation is just missing the called ball. And the WPA rules do not eliminate 2-way shots of that type (as you correctly said).

 

[Bob Jewett]

So, in the first case sited in this thread; The 10-ball should have been called? Correct?

In the first post in this thread, the shooter called the 2 and the 9, missed the 2 and seriously slopped in the 9. The OP did not state, but they seem to have been playing call-shot 9 ball, as the implication is that making the 9 was a win.

That's the way I read it. If that's right, the only way the shooter should have gotten credit for the shot would be if he had called the 9 instead of the 2.

You can only call one ball when playing call shot. A call that specifies two balls is an invalid call.