Rules question

hobokenapa

hobokenapa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This was a new one for me ... the incident happened in the 2008 Hoboken 8-ball Masters tournament this past weekend, and I was called over to make a ruling. The tournament was run under APA rules, but I'd be interested in how it is judged in other organisations too.

It was the first round, and many people, especially newcomers were nervous (this is a big tournament with over 100 people playing). A player mistakingly believes the 9-ball is the cue ball, and shoots in his low ball using the 9-ball. The 9-ball was in the rack, and the low ball near the corner pocket. No other ball moved during this shot. His opponent realised what had happened and called me over. Since it was a natural mistake, there was no cue ball foul, and his opponent was happy just to have the balls replaced, that was the obvious solution, but I'd be interested in the actual ruling. No other balls moved, and the cue ball didn't move. You can argue that since APA rules are cue ball fouls only that his shot would constitute moving two balls accidentally and having them replaced is the ruling. But is striking another ball with your tip considered a foul? What would happen in BCA rules?
 
hobokenapa said:
This was a new one for me ... the incident happened in the 2008 Hoboken 8-ball Masters tournament this past weekend, and I was called over to make a ruling. The tournament was run under APA rules, but I'd be interested in how it is judged in other organisations too.

It was the first round, and many people, especially newcomers were nervous (this is a big tournament with over 100 people playing). A player mistakingly believes the 9-ball is the cue ball, and shoots in his low ball using the 9-ball. The 9-ball was in the rack, and the low ball near the corner pocket. No other ball moved during this shot. His opponent realised what had happened and called me over. Since it was a natural mistake, there was no cue ball foul, and his opponent was happy just to have the balls replaced, that was the obvious solution, but I'd be interested in the actual ruling. No other balls moved, and the cue ball didn't move. You can argue that since APA rules are cue ball fouls only that his shot would constitute moving two balls accidentally and having them replaced is the ruling. But is striking another ball with your tip considered a foul? What would happen in BCA rules?
Click to expand...


Striking the cueball with an object ball is considered a foul. You can refer to either APA Fouls 9.b or 9.g on pages 49 and 50

http://www.poolplayers.com/tmanual.pdf
 
hobokenapa said:
No... the object ball was struck with another object ball. Cue ball never moved.
Click to expand...


Okay. B applies then. Failure to hit a correct ball first. They didn't hit the cueball first. Regardless, this has to be a foul.
 
This is an easy one. Since the cue ball was never touched, the balls get replaced. No foul.

Sounds weird, I know, but that's been discussed here quite thoroughly.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Okay. B applies then. Failure to hit a correct ball first. They didn't hit the cueball first. Regardless, this has to be a foul.
Click to expand...

Wanna bet? :D
 
Da Poet said:
This is an easy one. Since the cue ball was never touched, the balls get replaced. No foul.

Sounds weird, I know, but that's been discussed here quite thoroughly.
Click to expand...


If that is the case, it would simply be another fine example of APA loopholes. Seriously, how can you have someone use an object-ball as the cue-ball and NOT foul? What if they pocket the 8-ball?

I mean, the only reason why I would be forgiving as HobokenAPA was has to do with the average level of experience in the APA. It's oftentimes the introductory competitive organization for pool players so there's a live and learn policy. However, if I were playing a fellow 7, I'd be flabbergasted if he tried to argue that it wasn't a foul.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
If that is the case, it would simply be another fine example of APA loopholes. Seriously, how can you have someone use an object-ball as the cue-ball and NOT foul? What if they pocket the 8-ball?

I mean, the only reason why I would be forgiving as HobokenAPA was has to do with the average level of experience in the APA. It's oftentimes the introductory competitive organization for pool players so there's a live and learn policy. However, if I were playing a fellow 7, I'd be flabbergasted if he tried to argue that it wasn't a foul.
Click to expand...

I actually sent an email to the APA a couple years ago on this very situation. We called it a foul on my player, but I wanted clarification. APA Response was there is no foul if the cue ball was not hit, and all balls should be replaced in their original positions.

I have not asked about this in Valley or BCA to see if they would call it differently.
 
soulcatcher said:
I actually sent an email to the APA a couple years ago on this very situation. We called it a foul on my player, but I wanted clarification. APA Response was there is no foul if the cue ball was not hit, and all balls should be replaced in their original positions.

I have not asked about this in Valley or BCA to see if they would call it differently.
Click to expand...

BCA

GENERAL RULES OF POCKET BILLIARDS
3.3 STRIKING CUE BALL
Legal shots require that the cue ball be struck only with the cue tip. Failure to meet this requirement is a foul.

3.18 FAILURE TO CONTACT OBJECT BALL
It is a foul if on a stroke the cue ball fails to make contact with any legal object ball first. Playing away from a touching ball does not constitute having hit that ball.

3.19 LEGAL SHOT
Unless otherwise stated in a specific game rule, a player must cause the cue ball to contact a legal object ball and then:
(a) Pocket a numbered ball, or;
(b) Cause the cue ball or any numbered ball to contact a cushion or any part of the rail. Failure to meet these requirements is a foul.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
If that is the case, it would simply be another fine example of APA loopholes. Seriously, how can you have someone use an object-ball as the cue-ball and NOT foul? What if they pocket the 8-ball?

I mean, the only reason why I would be forgiving as HobokenAPA was has to do with the average level of experience in the APA. It's oftentimes the introductory competitive organization for pool players so there's a live and learn policy. However, if I were playing a fellow 7, I'd be flabbergasted if he tried to argue that it wasn't a foul.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you about the loophole thing.

The only way I have been able to come to terms with the APA rules are to accept that they are over simplified in order to keep disagreements to a minimum, no matter what effect is has on the game. Silly things like this are bound to happen.

Hitting in the eight ball with an object ball without moving the cue ball is the same thing, no foul.

I know, I know. :rolleyes:
 
Dang, that's too bad it's not a foul. It's only a matter of time before someone does that shot and breaks open a giant cluster in the rack area without ever moving the cue ball. :eek: :(
 
Cuebacca said:
Dang, that's too bad it's not a foul. It's only a matter of time before someone does that shot and breaks open a giant cluster in the rack area without ever moving the cue ball. :eek: :(
Click to expand...

Well, they're supposed to be replaced in their original position, but yeah, that would be a pain. :mad:
 
Da Poet said:
Well, they're supposed to be replaced in their original position, but yeah, that would be a pain. :mad:
Click to expand...

If it was a coin-op table, at least we can take solace in the fact that it'd cost the offending party some quarters to get the ball back. Mwahahaha! :D
 
hobokenapa said:
... What would happen in BCA rules?
Click to expand...
That would be the WPA rules, which the BCA as a member of the WPA uses.

It is always a foul to intentionally touch an object ball, even under the so-called "cue ball fouls only" rule. It should be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. How it is penalized is up to the TD. I think you made a reasonable decision, given the situation, but I would have called a standard foul.

I guess there is some question as to whether the player intentionally cued the object ball. It was not an act of clumsiness, like touching a ball with your sleeve. It was an act of inattention.
 
It really is the biggest problem with the APA. They do what they can to make the rulebook easy to understand and it compromises the integrity of the sport. Seriously, there are times fouls are called when they shouldn't be and PLENTY of times people get away with fouls. I really wish the APA took the extra step and agreed to adhere to the WPA rules and use their own as a quick-reference version.
 
I would have to agree with Bob Jewett as far as WPA rules go. I was always told that if a ball was accidently touched, it was not a foul...only when a ball is touched 'on purpose' would it be considered a foul. The fact that the player mistakenly identified the 9 ball for the cue ball doesn't matter, the fact is, he hit the 9 ball 'on purpose' thus fouling. The TD should decide what the penalty should be.

In this case, since it was prettry obvious that the shooter simply made a misake in identifying the cue ball, it should be considered a BIH foul and the choice to move the object balls back or leave them as they are would be up to the incoming player. (I personally don't like that second part of the ruling...I think there sould be no choice but to replace the object balls as near as possible to thier original location...no one should benefit from a new ball position).

JMHO....Ken
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
It really is the biggest problem with the APA. They do what they can to make the rulebook easy to understand and it compromises the integrity of the sport. Seriously, there are times fouls are called when they shouldn't be and PLENTY of times people get away with fouls. I really wish the APA took the extra step and agreed to adhere to the WPA rules and use their own as a quick-reference version.
Click to expand...

How exactly does this compromise the integrity of the sport? Are you suggesting that anytime someone accidentally moves an object ball it should be a foul? That's exactly what this is. An accidental ball movement. The integrity is not compromised if the opponent simply puts the balls back where they were and the shooter doesn't lose his turn.

Or do we really want ball in hand off the legally blind guy, who mistakenly shot the 1 ball instead of the cue ball, to win a pool game?

And yes, I have at the very least 1 legally blind poolplayer in my league. Keep in mind that "legally blind" is not the same thing as not being able to see at all.

Rule simplification is what makes APA rules some of the best rules out there. That we don't have to open the team manual on every shot to make sure some sort of infraction isn't happening is actually a good thing.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think those are no longer the BCA rules, as of January 1st. For the current BCA/WPA rules, see the WPA website www.wpa-pool.com
Click to expand...


I think it would be fair to say that the WPA and BCA are both going to rule this a foul. If the APA doesn't, it's simply to protect its predominant beginner following.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
I think it would be fair to say that the WPA and BCA are both going to rule this a foul. If the APA doesn't, it's simply to protect its predominant beginner following.
Click to expand...

How many times have you actually seen this happen on a league night? Once, twice, ever? I think it's a stretch to say that this would compromise the integrity of the sport considering how rare it is to use an object ball as a cue ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top