Official BCAPL response
Tatcat, are you reading this? :grin:
Yes...**SIGH** (lol)
No question in BCAPL play - BCAPL Applied Ruling 1.33 Situation 6 and Figure 10-10 apply. Page 90-92 at
http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/Default.aspx
Unless the referee judges that the disturbed ball was moved intentionally, it is not a foul. If you want the referee to watch such a critical shot, you are going to have to call them before the shot.
However, for any referee to judge moving the ball as an intentional act, there is going to have to be a substantial delay between the backstroke (which moves the ball) and the forward motion of the cue for the shot.
There was some discussion about this situation while the Applied Ruling was being drafted. It was the consensus at the BCAPL National Office that it would be
extremely difficult to
intentionally execute a shot that both moved the ball back and still (especially in the OP's layout) provided any measure of control and accuracy on the forward stroke
and maintain a normal rhythym of the stroke, even with a slight pause. It is also not something that people are going to practice enough to make effective. Absent of a very significant pause to realign the cue, it will most likely be deemed a accident.
A player that does it intentionally, and gains a relevant advantage by doing so, is going to have to put a very substantial pause into the stroke. It is that pause that will give the referee the basis to call a foul for intentionally, instead of accidentally, moving the ball. At that point, it will be penalized as UC under BCAPL rules.
As noted by Cuebaca - there are several references to obsolete rules in the thread. Rule 1.16.1 as quoted no longer exists.
Find the current World Standardized Rules of the WPA at:
http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_tournament
Despite the highlighted section of WSR Regulation #20 as provided by Cuebaca, the wording of the regulation (not rule) does not always provide clear guidance for officials. A little history lesson...
Please to note the pre-2008 version, the old rule 1.16.1, as quoted by Mr. Biddle. And please note that the rule specifically restricts accidental movement to
"stationary balls located between the cue ball and the shooter while in the act of shooting."
Now - do you think for one second that the resriction was routinely enforced? Not on your life. In practice, the accidental movement provision was applied to any ball on the table, and it is just as frequently a ball
in front of the cue ball that is disturbed on the follow through, as it is one between the shooter and the cue ball. Or one hit by the butt of the stick, or any other number of places outside of the apparent restriction. Certainly no way to offer the player in the chair a restoration before the shot in many of those cases. And that is the way it still is - note that the restriction no longer exists in the current Regulation #20.
And, of course, the real kicker, concerning the opponen't option to replace the disturbed ball: If you are always going to give the opponent an option to restore before the shot,
then why is there a provision about balls passing through the area of the disturbed ball?! It makes no sense whatsoever. If the shooter moves a ball and does stop before the shot and offer restoration, and the opponent chooses to leave the ball in its disturbed position, that position now becomes the lay of the table. The shooter now plays the shot without fear of passing a ball through the "original" position of the moved ball, which is now irrelevant.
No - the only time a ball passing through the original position of a disturbed ball is a peril to the shooter is when a ball has been disturbed
and there was not a chance for restoration before the shot because everything happened too fast. There is not a person on this forum that it has not happened to at some point - the accidentally disturbed ball in the process of a shot - impossible to stop in time and check with the opponent for restoration. That is the nature of the game in "cue-ball fouls only" rules.
And that is the most likely scenario of the OP. Absent of a determination that the movement of the 1-ball was intentional, if the shooter simply pulled the 1-ball back accidentally and then could not stop the stroke, it is not a foul. Game over (or if it were not the game-winning ball that was pocketed, Opponent has the option to restore the 1-ball and the shooter continues). If, for some reason, it can be determined that the action was intentional, then it is a foul. But, as a referee, you had better be damned sure of your evidence before you pull out UC.
Now, of course, if a player disturbs a ball and then completely stops, obviously being in control and having time to offer the opponent restoration, and then does not offer restoration and proceeds to shoot anyway, then that is a foul as referred to by WSR Regulation #20.
Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee
BCAPL Director of Referee Training
Technical Editor, BCAPL Rule Book
bcapl_referee@cox.net
Find the Official Rules of the BCA Pool League here:
http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/Default.aspx
* The contents of this post refer to BCA Pool League (BCAPL) Rules only. The BCAPL National Office has authorized me to act in an official capacity regarding questions about BCAPL Rules matters in public forums.
* Neither I nor any BCAPL referee make any policy decisions regarding BCAPL Rules. Any and all decisions, interpretations, or Applied Rulings are made by the BCAPL National Office and are solely their responsibility. BCAPL referees are enforcers of rules, not legislators. BCAPL Rules 9.5.3 and 9.5.4 apply.
* No reference to, inference concerning, or comment on any other set of rules (WPA, APA, VNEA, TAP, or any other set of rules, public or private) is intended or should be derived from this post unless specifically stated.
* There is no such thing as "BCA Rules" other than in the sense that the Billiard Congress of America (BCA) publishes various rules, including the World Pool-Billiard Association's "World Standardized Rules". The BCA does not edit nor is responsible for the content of the World Standardized Rules. The Official Rules of the BCAPL is a separate and independent set of rules and, to avoid confusion, should not be referred to as "BCA Rules".
* Since 2004, there is no such thing as a "BCA Referee". The BCA no longer has any program to train, certify or sanction billiards referees or officials.
* The BCAPL has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA.
* The BCAPL has not addressed every imaginable rules issue, nor will it ever likely be able to, as evidenced by the seemingly endless situations that people dream up or that (more frequently) actually happen. If I do not have the answer to a question I will tell you so, then I will get a ruling from the BCAPL National Office and get back to you as soon as I can. If deemed necessary, the BCAPL will then add the ruling to the "Applied Rulings" section of The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League.
