When someone comes out saying something stupid, I will point it out.
You are the negative one and I am the positive one... which do you think is a bigger shit disturber?
Rule Question?
- Thread starter TwinkleToes
- Start date
When someone comes out saying something stupid, I will point it out.
You are the negative one and I am the positive one... which do you think is a bigger shit disturber?
I tot simultaneous hit is 101 rule, no foul to shooter. One of first rules I learnt when first played
I think you are, and fairly regularly.
and what's truly stupid is the way you address someone that you don't agree with
A video on deciding which ball was hit first is at: http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/fouls.html#first
The full rules quiz, including a lot of "which was first" calls is at:
http://billiards.colostate.edu/pool_rules_quiz.html
Pool has already been covered. In snooker and carom billiards, simultaneous hits are judged against the shooter. At carom the problem comes up not between two balls but whether a cushion was struck just before or just after a ball was struck in games where cushion-contact is required.
FYI in snooker a split hit between a 'ball on' and a 'ball not on' is a foull.
I know how I would rule it, but if you call a referee over to watch the hit, you simply ask "was it good or bad"?
I honestly don't even watch any more if the referee is called over. I've seen too many calls go bad or good that should have been good or bad, so I look the other way and wait for the ref to make the call. This keeps me from boiling over, JMHO
Good/bad
While achieving a simultaneous hit is very hard indeed, I'm trying to be polite here, but if there is no evidence either ball was hit first, then it's a good hit. There has to be evidence of a foul for one to be called. I don't understand the reasoning of calling it a foul, unless a foul was observed. Seems strange to call a foul, you don't have someone watch a hit you have to go on the shooters opinion. You have someone watch a hit he sees no foul but calls one any way, yeah that works! whaaat?
While achieving a simultaneous hit is very hard indeed, I'm trying to be polite here, but if there is no evidence either ball was hit first, then it's a good hit. There has to be evidence of a foul for one to be called. I don't understand the reasoning of calling it a foul, unless a foul was observed. Seems strange to call a foul, you don't have someone watch a hit you have to go on the shooters opinion. You have someone watch a hit he sees no foul but calls one any way, yeah that works! whaaat?
Wow. I did not know that.
I stand corrected. Thanks for keeping me straight. But I think my reasoning is still valid.
This is the sort of rule that could have been decided either way back when they were originally making the rules. It makes sense both ways. An argument against the "shooter gets the call" rule is that the shooter has control of the table and the shot. He could choose to play a shot that is not subject to being an undecidable hit.
In any case, it is very rare that a shot's legality cannot be figured out from the action of the balls. Except for the fact that many players seem not to understand the action of the balls.
This is where I default to the first point of my statement, that it is only for an "obvious" foul. If the shooter decides that he'll play a shot that is not split, then there's no need for a referee, Since he is electing to play a shot that might result in a bad hit, the non-shooter is simply asking for the referee to point out if a bad shot was made under his judgement. The shooter and non-shooter can argue the split hit all day. To settle the matter, you ask for an unbiased outside party (referee) to make that call. If the referee, cant decide that the shot was an obvious foul, then things should continue as if no foul occurred. Why should there be any change to current shooting situation if there was no "obvious" foul? As a loose analogy, imagine car insurance. If two cars supposedly bumped but there is no evidence, would you like it if the insurance company raised your rates because... "the foul goes in favor of the non-shooter?" You as the shooter would like them prove that an incident occurred for them to justify raising your rates, wouldn't you? I laugh at and apologize for my lengthy explanation, an I hope I've expressed it properly.
Popular misconception...
The whole "tie goes to the runner" rule does not exist... At least not in MLB and most organized sports entities... Backyard, sand lot games it was incorporated and accepted to give the players in a non officiated game an easier way to make the call...
But in reality there are no ties in baseball etc... The umpire must make the call based on the ruling that the player must beat the ball to the bag... If the player and ball arrive at the bag at the same time... The player did not beat the ball to the bag therefore the player is out...
Now we are playing pool not baseball and must use the rules as written in our rule books... So be it... It just seems to be a shame that our rule books seem to have been written on misinformation...
Just food for thought at 2:00 am... Have a great night and an even better tomorrow...
The whole "tie goes to the runner" rule does not exist... At least not in MLB and most organized sports entities... Backyard, sand lot games it was incorporated and accepted to give the players in a non officiated game an easier way to make the call...
But in reality there are no ties in baseball etc... The umpire must make the call based on the ruling that the player must beat the ball to the bag... If the player and ball arrive at the bag at the same time... The player did not beat the ball to the bag therefore the player is out...
Now we are playing pool not baseball and must use the rules as written in our rule books... So be it... It just seems to be a shame that our rule books seem to have been written on misinformation...
Just food for thought at 2:00 am... Have a great night and an even better tomorrow...