All very well and valid points discussed thusfar. However lets first analyze the rule according to the APA Handbook.
Here are some typical situations that are considered Defensive Shots:
¨ A player does not have what he feels is a makeable shot and decides to leave his
opponent in a difficult situation rather than attempt a bad shot.
¨ A player shoots one of his object balls softly up near a corner to block his opponent,
therefore not intending to make the ball.
¨ A player is well ahead in a game or match and decides to purposely miss a few shots.
This is unethical and is a form of cheating, called sandbagging, which could disqualify a
player or team. The way to prevent sandbagging is to mark these Defensive Shots. If
every member did so, no one would bother to sandbag. It would be pointless.
Here are some examples that are NOT Defensive Shots:
¨ A beginner/weak player misses shots while trying to make them.
¨ A player is left with a virtually impossible shot but does the best he can to try to make it
anyway.
¨ A player is left “hooked” (or “snookered”), hidden in such a manner that he is unable to
shoot directly at one of his object balls. He “kicks” as best he can, but doesn’t make
contact with one of his balls. The scorekeeper must then decide the player’s INTENT.
Did he shoot hard enough to make the ball if he had made contact, (which could NOT be
considered a Defensive Shot) or did he shoot just hard enough to get the ball to go to a
rail to avoid giving up ball-in-hand (which IS a Defensive Shot)? This is a judgment call.
The common theme is Intent. As the scorekeeper you have to make the judgement that a shooter intends to miss or make a shot. Historically, as the degree of difficulty goes up on a shot, the less likely the player is actually intending to make the particular shot.
Obvious signs of intent are:
1. Lining up to make a shot on an object ball.
2. Determining angles for bank/kick shots with the ultimate aim of sinking the object ball.
But what about player who purposefully misses shots??? This becomes harder to judge as a player can follow the obvious signs of intent and still miss a shot. At this point, you as the scorekeeper have to bear in mind the factors leading up to the shot. What is the score? How many innings are there? What is the layout of the table? What is the skill level of both players? How are both players shooting?
Couple these questions with your own knowledge of the game and your teammates knowledge of the game and you should be able to find a consensus of whether the shot was defensive or not.
With that in mind. Let's look at the objective of a standard APA game of 8-ball. The objective is to, legally, pocket (or sink) your balls and the 8-ball in order to win the game and ultimately the match. However, that is not how 8-ball is played. 8-ball is played so that while you are legally pocketing your balls, you are making it more difficult for your opponent to accomplish the same.
As to the points made with objectively choosing to shoot a lower percentage shot when a higher percentage shot is available, this just speaks to skill level and an understanding of the lay of the table. As a 2 or a 3 may take a "duck" simply because they know they can make the shot, a 6 or a 7 may leave the "duck" because at a point later in the run that "duck" prevents their opponent from running the rack (in case of a miss) or the "duck" presents an opportunity for better shape (in case of missed shape during the current run-out).
By the same token, a 2 or a 3 may shoot at a cluster of balls (breaking their opponents balls out) all for the sake of a good hit. While a 6 or a 7 may shoot at a cluster of balls (breaking their opponents balls out) all for the sake of setting up an impending run-out.
So the argument that shots on lower percentage shots when higher percentage shots represent a clear indicator of sand-bagging is shaky at best.
Either way, you have to determine the players "intent" as the scorekeeper and objectively score defensive shots based upon your knowledge of the game. And never, ever, change what you have marked as a defensive shot, simply because the player in question states that it wasn't a defensive shot. Just because I legally contacted an object ball that sent another ball around the table that caromed into an opponents ball and ended up close to a pocket does not mean that I actually intended to make the shot. Chances are, I just got lucky.
-saige-
)
