Ruling

Okay, this is extremely situational. The ref I'm speaking to is hypothesizing scenarios now where a replay should not occur. If the only ball affected is the object ball that should now be in a pocket, the correct thing to do is continue play as though the ball were pocketed. The shooter should not get two shots at the table.

He decided this based on the the assumption that perhaps, there was tricky position and the shooter had to draw the length of the table. What if he gets it the first time but not the second? What if he messes up the first time but not the second? The shooter should only get one chance assuming that you can easily correct the scenario just by removing the ball that returned to the table.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Regarding what you state Cuebacca, there are many instances where a referee will call foul the moment you lay a cue or bridge on the table and you are no longer in physical contact with it. If it is obvious that you are not using it for measuring purposes (ie., tying your shoe), it's different. I'm not sure using the pocket as a cue-holder is quite the same thing.
Click to expand...

Rereading what he said, I think I jumped to conclusions. He gave tying a shoe as an example and there could be other examples as well. I misread it to mean that untied shoes and breaks are the valid reasons for letting go of a cue on the table. My mistake; sorry about that.
 
Cuebacca said:
Rereading what he said, I think I jumped to conclusions. He gave tying a shoe as an example and there could be other examples as well. I misread it to mean that untied shoes and breaks are the valid reasons for letting go of a cue on the table. My mistake; sorry about that.
Click to expand...


Hey, I never thought he was going to have a cookie-cut answer for us. It's a fascinating situation. Fact is, it'd be a lot easier if the ref is at the table and could see what was involved. A lot of what-ifs come into play here.

He's citing rules that might somehow refer to this but there isn't going to be a specific rule that addresses this outright.
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
Hey, I never thought he was going to have a cookie-cut answer for us. It's a fascinating situation. Fact is, it'd be a lot easier if the ref is at the table and could see what was involved. A lot of what-ifs come into play here.

He's citing rules that might somehow refer to this but there isn't going to be a specific rule that addresses this outright.
Click to expand...

This scenario may warrant an addition to the rules. IMO, there should be something in the rules that discourages a player from storing their cue in the pocket in the first place.
 
Neil said:
I didn't even know it was a contest, but Hey GREAT! It's been a long time since I won anything. By the way What did I win???
Click to expand...


Well, not quite. In fact, he states there are scenarios where a replay wouldn't happen (if you look above).

I think, if there is one thing that is abolutely certain here is this - A BCA referee is going to keep Player B at the table.

Whether the shot is replayed or not is going to be situational but on the whole, if the only ball affected is the ball that should be in the pocket, play will continue and the ball will be removed from the bed of the table.
 
Cuebacca said:
This scenario may warrant an addition to the rules. IMO, there should be something in the rules that discourages a player from storing their cue in the pocket in the first place.
Click to expand...


My ref friend agrees with you. I propose, if it ever were to actually happen, on azb, we should refer to it as The Cuebacca Rule. We can even decide on how it can be turned into a verb like, "So my opponent cuebaccaed his jump cue and I didn't realize it when it was my turn to shoot"
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
My ref friend agrees with you. I propose, if it ever were to actually happen, on azb, we should refer to it as The Cuebacca Rule. We can even decide on how it can be turned into a verb like, "So my opponent cuebaccaed his jump cue and I didn't realize it when it was my turn to shoot"
Click to expand...

LOL. Well since I am against leaving the cue in the pocket, I think that that a "cuebacca" should be when the shot is intentionally played at warp speed towards the cue butt.

For example, "I left my cue in the pocket and then my jeffin' opponent cuebaccaed it. Now it has a huge dent and the finish is all kesslered." :D
 
rule

Jude Rosenstock said:
How about this one:

3.41 Interference
If the non-shooting player distracts his opponent or interferes with his play, he has fouled. If a player shoots out of turn, or moves any ball except during his inning, it is considered to be interference.
Click to expand...
THIS ONE HAS MY VOTE, INCOMING PLAYER SHOULD NOT BE PENILIZED FOR ANOTHERS MASTAKE!!!!:D :D :D :D :D
 
Neil said:
O.K., now I'm TRYING to win! :D Re-read post #32. I said that too. :D
Click to expand...


LOLOL, you did. I think that's the best way to go. The BCA Ref I know went over this quite a bit which I think we should all be thankful for. Fact is, it's important to step outside the written rule for a second and think about what would be the proper result or the spirit of the rules. Player B should remain at the table. The only question is how to make sure the game isn't further compromised. In this case, you just take the object ball off the table.
 
Cuebacca said:
LOL. Well since I am against leaving the cue in the pocket, I think that that a "cuebacca" should be when the shot is intentionally played at warp speed towards the cue butt.

For example, "I left my cue in the pocket and then my jeffin' opponent cuebaccaed it. Now it has a huge dent and the finish is all kesslered." :D
Click to expand...


Wow, that was really funny. :D :D :D
 
Smorgass Bored said:
I'm reserving judgement until I've heard from Bob Jewett's briefcase.
D.
Click to expand...
Those of you who have seen "Repo Man" know what sort of things are inside my briefcase, besides the wads of thousand-dollar-bills, which are getting increasingly difficult to spend.

I think Rule 1.9 applies, "Outside Interference." It's not perfect, but it fits well enough. Restore the position and play the shot again. In addition, I'd warn the butt guy under unsportsmanlike conduct that he is not to store loose parts of his cue on the table any more, and that if the problem comes up again, he'll forfeit either the game or the match. That should keep him on his toes.

Suppose we have a match between Felix and Oscar -- Felix uses a pocket chalker and Oscar leaves loose chalks all over the rails usually face-side down. Felix plays an elevated shot near the rail, the cue ball bounces along the top of the rail and as it is falling back onto the bed of the table it touches one of Oscar's chalks. What's your call?
 
Hey, I Can't hit Them ALL Out Of The Park

Bob Jewett said:
Suppose we have a match between Felix and Oscar -- Felix uses a pocket chalker and Oscar leaves loose chalks all over the rails usually face-side down. Felix plays an elevated shot near the rail, the cue ball bounces along the top of the rail and as it is falling back onto the bed of the table it touches one of Oscar's chalks. What's your call?
Click to expand...


Wow, that's a tough one, give me some time to think on it.
I just figured out that if Barry Bonds hit the ball to center field and before the fielder could retrieve it, a pig came under the fence and ATE the baseball and ran back under the fence, it would be ruled.......














wait for it
















an "in the pork homerun".
Doug
 
Bob Jewett said:
... In addition, I'd warn the butt guy under unsportsmanlike conduct...
Click to expand...

As if the possibility of being permanently referred to as the "butt guy" isn't enough? :eek:


Edit - Hold on a second, JoeyA, don't you have a Predator jump cue? :D
 
Last edited:
player "A" forfeited

Player "A" forfeited when he broke down a cue at the table.

How y'all like them apples? :D :D :D

One thing for sure, claim that and player "A" won't be taking his jump cue apart at the table anymore and leaving pieces parts behind.

Hu

PS Common sense should come into play here, player "A" interfered with the playing field. Either give player "B" the shot or spot the ball and give him ball in hand. Of course if you are big enough and bad enough you might try my first option!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top