Rules Question

John Biddle

John Biddle

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This situation came up the other day and my opponent and I disagreed (in a friendly way) about the legality of a shot I made. Neither of us have been able to substantiate our positions in the rules (WPA) so I thought I'd ask here.

We were playing straight pool, though I don't think that matters in this case. My opponent attempts a thin hit safe off the pack and misses the ball, putting him on one foul. The cue ball comes to rest deep inside the far corner pocket, with a view of all balls totally obstructed by the side of the pocket.

On my turn I play an intentional foul by hitting the cue ball into the side facing of the pocket. It was not touching the facing before I played my shot, just about 1/4" away. I attempt to hit the ball directly into the facing, intending to leave it there. I touch the ball with my tip and the cue ball hits the facing and then hits the tip of my cue for a double hit.

My opponent maintains that this shot is a "trap" and is unsportsmanlike conduct, though he agreed that I wasn't intending to do a "trap" but that the double hit made it one.

I maintain that I did nothing wrong. I took an intentional foul, by not hitting a ball, and inadvertantly made another foul with the double hit, but it's still just a foul and it's his turn, on one foul, stuck in the pocket with no view of the balls.

I did not jam the ball into the facing and hold it there by keeping my cue up against the ball, but the double hit foul caused a siilar effect, though the ball came to rest a tiny bit off the facing.

This seems to me very much like taking an intentional foul when your oppponent has left you buried in the pack up against multiple balls. You might take an intentional foul by hitting into the cue ball intending to move it a minimal amount, but not holding your tip on the ball. This would just be a normal foul. Is this different from the situation described above?

What do you experts think?
 
I think no matter the "details" of the foul you played (intentional or not) it was still a FOUL, putting you on 1. Def not unsportsmanlike conduct - which a referee must determine the proper penalty anyway - under WPA/BCA rules and the league we play in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Can't find anything that states a trap or a wedge is a ball in the kitchen foul. Not unsportsmanlike on your part though.
 
John Biddle said:
This situation came up the other day and my opponent and I disagreed (in a friendly way) about the legality of a shot I made. Neither of us have been able to substantiate our positions in the rules (WPA) so I thought I'd ask here.

We were playing straight pool, though I don't think that matters in this case. My opponent attempts a thin hit safe off the pack and misses the ball, putting him on one foul. The cue ball comes to rest deep inside the far corner pocket, with a view of all balls totally obstructed by the side of the pocket.

On my turn I play an intentional foul by hitting the cue ball into the side facing of the pocket. It was not touching the facing before I played my shot, just about 1/4" away. I attempt to hit the ball directly into the facing, intending to leave it there. I touch the ball with my tip and the cue ball hits the facing and then hits the tip of my cue for a double hit.

My opponent maintains that this shot is a "trap" and is unsportsmanlike conduct, though he agreed that I wasn't intending to do a "trap" but that the double hit made it one.

I maintain that I did nothing wrong. I took an intentional foul, by not hitting a ball, and inadvertantly made another foul with the double hit, but it's still just a foul and it's his turn, on one foul, stuck in the pocket with no view of the balls.

I did not jam the ball into the facing and hold it there by keeping my cue up against the ball, but the double hit foul caused a siilar effect, though the ball came to rest a tiny bit off the facing.

This seems to me very much like taking an intentional foul when your oppponent has left you buried in the pack up against multiple balls. You might take an intentional foul by hitting into the cue ball intending to move it a minimal amount, but not holding your tip on the ball. This would just be a normal foul. Is this different from the situation described above?

What do you experts think?
Click to expand...

I think there's a problem. It's always hard to judge intent. Maybe your opponent should have warned you before you shot that any trapping -- which is what you did -- will be considered intentional and give ball in hand behind the line. Why should you be rewarded for not being able to hit a shot properly (with a very short, light stroke)? I think this is an appropriate way to handle that particular case.

But the larger problem is to decide which strokes should be allowed at all in pool. An example in nine ball is when the cue ball is nearly stuck on the 4 ball and up in the kitchen while the 3-9 combo is down on the foot rail. Because the 4 blocks you, there is no way to hit the 3-9 or even knock it apart. You're doomed. So you play the double hit through the 4 to blast the 3-9. Should that shot be allowed? At one pocket the situation is quite common because your opponent is constantly trying to freeze you in awkward positions.
 
K2Kraze said:
I think no matter the "details" of the foul you played (intentional or not) it was still a FOUL, putting you on 1. Def not unsportsmanlike conduct - which a referee must determine the proper penalty anyway - under WPA/BCA rules and the league we play in. ...
Click to expand...
Intentionally hitting the cue ball twice is very definitely unsportsmanlike conduct. If not, I can get a corner hook from anywhere on the table with enough small hits -- just herd the cue ball up to a head pocket. Further, I can do that with only one tip-to-ball contact.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Intentionally hitting the cue ball twice is very definitely unsportsmanlike conduct. If not, I can get a corner hook from anywhere on the table with enough small hits -- just herd the cue ball up to a head pocket. Further, I can do that with only one tip-to-ball contact.
Click to expand...

That would be awesome to witness!
 
easy-e said:
That would be awesome to witness!
Click to expand...
Actually, it would be pretty tedious after the first minute or so. Elevate to 45 degrees, bring the tip down to touch the top of the cue ball and start rolling the cue stick. The cue ball will follow. It helps to have a very large tip. You can chalk during the shot if you want. I can get about a quarter-inch per second of cue ball movement.
 
I don't see the double hit foul/accidental or not as any more unsportsmanlike than tapping the cue ball with the tip and not moving it out of a trap. It's simply an intentional foul and part of 14.1. Mitch
 
nine o nine said:
I don't see the double hit foul/accidental or not as any more unsportsmanlike than tapping the cue ball with the tip and not moving it out of a trap. It's simply an intentional foul and part of 14.1. Mitch
Click to expand...

It's not natural though and wouldn't be the same thing, imo.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Intentionally hitting the cue ball twice is very definitely unsportsmanlike conduct. If not, I can get a corner hook from anywhere on the table with enough small hits -- just herd the cue ball up to a head pocket. Further, I can do that with only one tip-to-ball contact.
Click to expand...

I agree with Bob here. I think the shooter was definitely walking the line of unsportsmanlike conduct. In this particular instance, since they're friends who know each other, it's fair to say the shooter would answer honestly.

That said, if I were a referee presiding over this match and were called over to watch this hit, I would probably base my ruling on the effort made by the shooter to avoid the double hit. If he just left his tip there to trap the ball, I'd say it was a 15 point penalty.

The thing is, and this is the part that gets tough, it's not unusual for players to push the cueball while performing an intentional foul in the stack. You'll see players just shove the cueball forward into a cluster with no regard to how many times their tip hits the cueball. I don't care for this shot either but I think it's a far cry from the intentional trap.
 
The official rules for OnePocket.org take a somewhat different approach:

6.6 Intentional fouls are an accepted part of One Pocket tactics as long as they are played by use of a legal stroke, such as by lightly touching the cue ball with the cue tip; by rolling the cue ball to a new location without regard for legal contact with either an object ball or a cushion; by pocket scratching the cue ball; or by using a legal jump technique to force the cue ball off the table. However, if the acting official rules that a player has used an illegal technique to direct the cue ball or any object balls to a more desirable location, then the incoming player has the option of either playing the balls where they lie, or requesting the official to restore all such moved balls to their location prior to the illegal maneuver. The offending player is charged the standard one ball foul penalty, and in addition may be further penalized at the discretion of the acting official under the general rules of unsportsmanlike conduct.
 
Tennesseejoe said:
The official rules for OnePocket.org take a somewhat different approach:

6.6 Intentional fouls are an accepted part of One Pocket tactics as long as they are played by use of a legal stroke, such as by lightly touching the cue ball with the cue tip; by rolling the cue ball to a new location without regard for legal contact with either an object ball or a cushion; by pocket scratching the cue ball; or by using a legal jump technique to force the cue ball off the table. However, if the acting official rules that a player has used an illegal technique to direct the cue ball or any object balls to a more desirable location, then the incoming player has the option of either playing the balls where they lie, or requesting the official to restore all such moved balls to their location prior to the illegal maneuver. The offending player is charged the standard one ball foul penalty, and in addition may be further penalized at the discretion of the acting official under the general rules of unsportsmanlike conduct.
Click to expand...
The problem at one pocket is that often the exact position of the balls is critical. Along with that, your opponent is always trying to put you in the worst possible position.

Restoring the balls can be tricky. At snooker there is a situation ("foul and a miss") in which the balls have to be put back after a bad hit for a shoot-again. Even with video capture and frame overlay, it's really hard to get a complicated position right.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
...
The thing is, and this is the part that gets tough, it's not unusual for players to push the cueball while performing an intentional foul in the stack. You'll see players just shove the cueball forward into a cluster with no regard to how many times their tip hits the cueball. I don't care for this shot either but I think it's a far cry from the intentional trap.
Click to expand...
Probably the shot should be removed from 14.1. It used to be very common -- like once every game or two -- for the "ease the cue ball into the cluster" shot. A step further is to push the cue ball in three inches, take a left turn and push it another inch. Now the cue ball is frozen to four balls with no way to get to a cushion. Where do you draw the line?
 
The OP made reference to the fact - and his opponent agreed - that what happened wasn't intentional. The trap that is. The foul was. No way can this situation be twisted any way that infers the OP even came close to unsportsmanlike conduct. This isn't 1P. And Bob made reference to "IF" it were indeed ruled unsportsmanlike conduct IF a referee were officiating this match, it would be BIH from behind the head string. That particular ruling is purely from an official - again, not covered in the rules. Not that I can find. Anyone else? IMHO that is.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bob Jewett said:
Intentionally hitting the cue ball twice is very definitely unsportsmanlike conduct. If not, I can get a corner hook from anywhere on the table with enough small hits -- just herd the cue ball up to a head pocket. Further, I can do that with only one tip-to-ball contact.
Click to expand...

Two things. First, I didn't intentionally double hit the cue ball. If I had that in mind I could have just jammed the cue ball into the facing and not taken the stick off immediately, guaranteeing it stuck to the facing.

Second, I don't doubt your superior knowledge of the rules, you are one of the experts I was hoping would comment on this post. I don't understand, though, where this comes from, since I didn't see it in the rules. There's no reference to "trap" either, so while I get that you're probably right, I don't get why.

Is what I did dirty pool? I thought it was just playing strategically. The object of a safe, and of most intentional fouls, is to leave the player in the most difficult situation one can.

As far as your example of leaving the cue tip on the ball for many minutes while you walk the ball to the corner, it seems silly. You would clearly not be using the equipment in the way it was intended.

Using this extreme example does help make it clear that there is a line somewhere that can't be crossed, and I don't want to cross it, I just don't know where it is in the original issue, or in the tapping the ball into the stack situation for that matter.
 
John Biddle said:
Two things. First, I didn't intentionally double hit the cue ball. If I had that in mind I could have just jammed the cue ball into the facing and not taken the stick off immediately, guaranteeing it stuck to the facing.

Second, I don't doubt your superior knowledge of the rules, you are one of the experts I was hoping would comment on this post. I don't understand, though, where this comes from, since I didn't see it in the rules. There's no reference to "trap" either, so while I get that you're probably right, I don't get why.

Is what I did dirty pool? I thought it was just playing strategically. The object of a safe, and of most intentional fouls, is to leave the player in the most difficult situation one can.

As far as your example of leaving the cue tip on the ball for many minutes while you walk the ball to the corner, it seems silly. You would clearly not be using the equipment in the way it was intended.

Using this extreme example does help make it clear that there is a line somewhere that can't be crossed, and I don't want to cross it, I just don't know where it is in the original issue, or in the tapping the ball into the stack situation for that matter.
Click to expand...

The shot you tried is the best play from that position. If done with one hit, is is great.

The problem is to figure out which kinds of stroke techniques are allowed in pool. Many, many years ago "trailing" was a technique that prolonged contact with the cue ball over several inches (or maybe feet). At one time it was legal. That is an extreme that we can surely agree is not part of the game. It is simply not allowed for the player to play like that.

I think we can agree that jamming the cue ball into a corner hook should not be allowed if it is intentional. Does anyone here feel it should be allowed?

You are right about this kind of foul not being explicit in the rules. It is sort of implied under the general heading of fair play. The rule needs to be fixed.

One solution to this problem that has been proposed is to allow one stroke regardless of the number of times the cue ball is struck. I think that goes too far in the other direction.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
...it's not unusual for players to push the cueball while performing an intentional foul in the stack. You'll see players just shove the cueball forward into a cluster with no regard to how many times their tip hits the cueball. I don't care for this shot either but I think it's a far cry from the intentional trap.
Click to expand...

I don't see the difference. To me, one is an intentional trap against the cushion and the other is an intentional trap against the stack. Now one could say that the stack will move while the cushion will not, but I think that just makes it more difficult to accomplish the safe and it still requires the same kind of intentional foul.

So why would one be unsportsmanlike and not the other?

I've seen it done many times too, but I don't know why it isn't more than a foul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top