RULE: You're on TWO!

[Scott Lee]

Bob...If the third foul has occured, the player will not be returning to the table, as he will have lost the game. J/K here, as I know you meant the "second" foul!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

My preference is to warn the player when the third foul occurs and warn him again as he comes back to the table. The first prevents a later, delayed discussion, and the second is now required by the rules, even if the two warnings are only 20 seconds apart.

 

[Marop]

This came up twice at the world 14.1 championships this year. The first time was when Oliver Ortman was playing Alan Hopkins. Alan was on two fouls and when he approached the table Ortman did not warn him, Alan took an intentional foul which would have been his third but he was only considered to be on two because he was not warned while approaching the table.

The second time was a match between Schmidt and Dechaine. Dechaine told John he was on two fouls at the time John commited the second foul. Dechained proceded to run 20 or 30 balls, when John came back to the table about 15 minutes later he took an intentional foul, Dechained jumped up and said that was 3 and John said you didn't warn me, Dechained said he did after John commited the 2nd foul. The ref was called in and ruled in John's favor stating that he had to be warned as he approached the table. John was then considered on 2 fouls.

 

[dabarbr]

Bob...If the third foul has occured, the player will not be returning to the table, as he will have lost the game. J/K here, as I know you meant the "second" foul!

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Yes, he meant second foul.
I always tell them they are on two when I leave the table but I'm also prepared to remind them of what the previous fouls were. Some people have a short memory and will argue.

 

[JoeyA]

The Final Word.

It is unfortunate that people continue to quote obsolete rule sets and that some web sites have not purged those rules. The time of the warning was changed in January 2008. My preference is to warn the player when the second foul occurs and warn him again as he comes back to the table. The first prevents a later, delayed discussion, and the second is now required by the rules, even if the two warnings are only 20 seconds apart. Here is the current rule:

6.14 Three Consecutive Fouls
If a player fouls three times without making an intervening legal shot, it is a serious foul. In games scored by the rack, such as nine ball, the fouls must be in a single rack. Some games such as eight ball do not include this rule.
The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on two fouls. Otherwise a possible third foul will be considered to be only the second.​

I think that clears it up quite nicely.
The referee if he is present OR THE OTHER PLAYER (if no referee is present) must warn his opponent WHEN HE APPROACHES THE TABLE THAT HE IS ON TWO.

Thanks Bob.
JoeyA

 

[Bob Jewett]

This came up twice at the world 14.1 championships this year. ....

Of course in a 14.1 World Championship it is traditional to have a scorer and scoring display that is visible to both players (and the audience), in which case no reminder is required. A player might want to alert the scorer through the referee if a foul is not posted or removed promptly. In the case of no scorer, it might help to have yellow cards to set up by the players seats to indicate fouls and prevent "earnest discussions."

 

[tommy84]

I usually call "second foul" when it happens and warn my opponent with "you're on two fouls" when he returns to the table after my inning
Our translation of the WPA-rules says "must be warned before he takes the shot" which I read as you have to warn him after your inning when he's going to take the shot that might lead to the 3 foul rule

 

[Chris_Lynch]

I was right!

Turns out I got one right huh? Oh, and I was quoting from memory.

 

[Dave Nelson]

Suppose that you remind your opponent, as he approaches the table, that he is on 2 fouls and he does not agree?

Dave Nelson

 

[Bigtruck]

????????????????

Where is Worldison2 when we need him!! LOL

Ray

 

[shinobi]

Suppose that you remind your opponent, as he approaches the table, that he is on 2 fouls and he does not agree?

Dave Nelson

Excellent point. So probably a good reason to say it at the moment of the foul AND when they return.

 

[Cuebacca]

BCAPL Rules vs. WPA Rules

I added this rule to a new thread, which I will probably regret creating:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=1550210

 

[dabarbr]

Suppose that you remind your opponent, as he approaches the table, that he is on 2 fouls and he does not agree?

Dave Nelson

This was my point on post #23. Be ready to refresh their memory. Some will have memory loss and some will fake it.

 

[Dave Nelson]

dabarbr

I plead innocent by virtue of old age and encroaching senility.

Dave Nelson

 

[enzo]

ive always said ANY more communication between players than absolutely necessary is very bad. having said that, the "telling him" rule is a good one but it does have its problems.

 

[PoolBum]

It's three in a row, for sure.

I once told an opponent that he was on two fouls and he claimed he wasn't because I had shot in between his two fouls.

 

[JB Cases]

I was watching a video on another forum and an interview in which they were discussing the rule of THREE Fouls and loss of game which was in effect.

My question is: Is it correct that you must tell your opponent that he is on two when it his turn at the table ONLY?

If you tell him he is on two when it is YOUR TURN, it as if you did not tell him he was on two at all?

Hope this makes sense but I wanted to make sure of this rule before I get into trouble with another player.

JoeyA

I don't know what the rule is but I have ALWAYS made sure that the opponent acknowledged that they were on two before I allowed them to shoot the third shot. To me that made the most sense.

I once saw the most awful thing happen to Santos Sambojon at the US Open. Hill/Hill Sambojon was getting ready to shoot a standard safety and he did it and got a rail and Medina complained that Santos had not waited to have a ref watch the hit.

But Medina did NOT ask Santos to wait. I was in the front row because I wanted to watch Danny and cheer him on. Scott Smith came over and then asked the CROWD what happened. Half the crowd was betting on Santos and the other half on Medina.

Scott rules that Santos didn't wait for a ref and that's ball in hand for Medina and Medina wins.

That pissed me off to no end. I saw Santos at the Airport later and he was pretty dejected.

For one thing I can't understand why the US Open can't have refs at every table. Plenty of people would volunteer for the privilege I think. But failing that there should be a flag set up on the light that either player can raise to indicate that there is a situation which requires a referee. Then there would be NO QUESTION as the player requesting the ref would have to make a clear physical action to indicate what they want. And then if a shot is take while the flag is up and no ref is present then it's an automatic foul.

I once had a situation where a guy got a game off of me by CLAIMING that he didn't foul when he did because he knew that no ref meant that the call goes to the shooter. I still beat him and was so pumped up that I won the tournament.

I hate controversy like this and do my best to make sure that everyone confirms the situation before the next shot is taken.

 

[JoeyA]

I don't know what the rule is but I have ALWAYS made sure that the opponent acknowledged that they were on two before I allowed them to shoot the third shot. To me that made the most sense.

I once saw the most awful thing happen to Santos Sambojon at the US Open. Hill/Hill Sambojon was getting ready to shoot a standard safety and he did it and got a rail and Medina complained that Santos had not waited to have a ref watch the hit.

But Medina did NOT ask Santos to wait. I was in the front row because I wanted to watch Danny and cheer him on. Scott Smith came over and then asked the CROWD what happened. Half the crowd was betting on Santos and the other half on Medina.

Scott rules that Santos didn't wait for a ref and that's ball in hand for Medina and Medina wins.

That pissed me off to no end. I saw Santos at the Airport later and he was pretty dejected.

For one thing I can't understand why the US Open can't have refs at every table. Plenty of people would volunteer for the privilege I think. But failing that there should be a flag set up on the light that either player can raise to indicate that there is a situation which requires a referee. Then there would be NO QUESTION as the player requesting the ref would have to make a clear physical action to indicate what they want. And then if a shot is take while the flag is up and no ref is present then it's an automatic foul.

I once had a situation where a guy got a game off of me by CLAIMING that he didn't foul when he did because he knew that no ref meant that the call goes to the shooter. I still beat him and was so pumped up that I won the tournament.

I hate controversy like this and do my best to make sure that everyone confirms the situation before the next shot is taken.

The Santos story "sucks deep pond scum".

JoeyA (licensed to steal from George Fels)

 

[dabarbr]

I don't know what the rule is but I have ALWAYS made sure that the opponent acknowledged that they were on two before I allowed them to shoot the third shot. To me that made the most sense.

I once saw the most awful thing happen to Santos Sambojon at the US Open. Hill/Hill Sambojon was getting ready to shoot a standard safety and he did it and got a rail and Medina complained that Santos had not waited to have a ref watch the hit.

But Medina did NOT ask Santos to wait. I was in the front row because I wanted to watch Danny and cheer him on. Scott Smith came over and then asked the CROWD what happened. Half the crowd was betting on Santos and the other half on Medina.

Scott rules that Santos didn't wait for a ref and that's ball in hand for Medina and Medina wins.

That pissed me off to no end. I saw Santos at the Airport later and he was pretty dejected.

For one thing I can't understand why the US Open can't have refs at every table. Plenty of people would volunteer for the privilege I think. But failing that there should be a flag set up on the light that either player can raise to indicate that there is a situation which requires a referee. Then there would be NO QUESTION as the player requesting the ref would have to make a clear physical action to indicate what they want. And then if a shot is take while the flag is up and no ref is present then it's an automatic foul.

I once had a situation where a guy got a game off of me by CLAIMING that he didn't foul when he did because he knew that no ref meant that the call goes to the shooter. I still beat him and was so pumped up that I won the tournament.

I hate controversy like this and do my best to make sure that everyone confirms the situation before the next shot is taken.

I'm not surprised by that move by that particular opponent.

 

[Black-Balled]

I always thought it was 3 fouls in a game, not 3 consecutive shots???

FAIL!

THe full rule is '3 consecutive fouls by the same player'.

And I kid you not!:thumbup:

 

[Black-Balled]

Of course in a 14.1 World Championship it is traditional to have a scorer and scoring display that is visible to both players (and the audience), in which case no reminder is required. A player might want to alert the scorer through the referee if a foul is not posted or removed promptly. In the case of no scorer, it might help to have yellow cards to set up by the players seats to indicate fouls and prevent "earnest discussions."

You're good, Jewett. Damn good!