Spotting balls - who's responsible?

[LunaticFringeIn]

If you read my post, I didn't notice the missing nine ball, otherwise I would have spotted it up. It wasn't until well into my run that my friend walked up and spotted it, knowing that I didn't know it was pocketed.

I did notice that part of your post and it wasnt over looked. Right, wrong or indifferent, you have a resposibility as a player to have your "situational awareness knob" turned up and pay attention to whats going on, on the table. You owe it to yourself if nothing else. That doesnt in any way excuse the lack of sportmanship (at least thats what I would call it) from your opponent.

IIRC, from you original post, this was a friendly game of pool and not a match where it really could have cost you big time, like it did me in a match when I started playing APA. While responsibility can easily be given, ultimately it has to be "taken". Chalk it up to a hard lesson learned and make sure the tables right before you start your run. Prevention is much easier than solving.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

That ruling changed in BCAPL play in 2007 and in WSR in 2008. Now, after the failure to call a foul upon the first occurrence of a shot at the wrong group, a second shot at the wrong group triggers a re-rack. BCAPL Rule 2.6.3 and WSR Regulation 10 apply.

Yeah, and I agree with you that these provisions wouldn't apply to this case anyway because these are addressing how to handle a situation where a player committed an actual foul by playing the wrong group and the foul went unnoticed. The situation being dealt with here is where the spotting of balls went unnoticed, which doesn't appear to be clearly defined as a foul by either player. This is more of a situation where neither player committed a foul (except of course the scratch on the break, but that would have been dealt with by the incoming player having the choice of BIH or the break).

Still, my money is on the BCAPL calling for a re-rack. I think Buddy's first instinct is right on. :thumbup:

 

[tatcat2000]

Still, my money is on the BCAPL calling for a re-rack. I think Buddy's first instinct is right on. :thumbup:

So do I...after thinking about it loooooooong and hard today - I had the time to finally break down the process and look at all the angles. Gonna have to keep you in suspense for the details though - its a long explanation and I gotta get to league.

Sometimes these situations require hours of thought and examination of various results/impacts/outcomes/support within the rules for a decision. (Hell - during conferences we sometimes spend several hours hammering out just two sentences.) Since that extended time is almost never available to a TD on the spot, all the more reason for providing detailed explanations of discrete situations in print, such as those offered by the BCAPL's Applied Rulings.

Anyway, I'll be back NLT tomorrow to present the real-world rationale for a re-rack, and I'm almost certain that the BCAPL will land that way. Still not my final decision, but studying the rationale and impact of decisions, and advising the BCAPL concerning those, is. I think anything other than a re-rack is hard to avoid here.

Buddy

 

[tatcat2000]

Official BCAPL response...

...is re-rack in BCAPL play. Confirmed with National Office today.

The general principle will be applied to BCAPL 9-Ball and 10-Ball play. A new Appplied Ruling will be writtien to cover the situation, and will be included in the next edition of the BCAPL book. Forgot to ask about 14.1...will get a confirmation about that ASAP...probably the same.

1P and Banks will not be affected, since they already have a specific and detailed process addressing spotting forgotten balls.

The discussion centered on intent, and that was considered to be the dominating rationale. Earlier I said I thought I had a good handle on it, and now have time to explain the other aspects I was talking about. Please note that while the following was also presented in the discussion, the lack of intent was the primary consideration, even though there are places where the same principle doesn't always appear to apply. No doubt it can be complicated.

Please note this discussion is BCAPL specific. See my disclaimers for more details.

There are several problems trying to justify a foul in the absence of specific guidance. The only possible justification is that a rule has been violated. The rule that has been violated is that the ball in question is required to be spotted, combined with BCAPL Rule 1.21.2 which states:

"Unless otherwise stated in the General Rules or specific game rules, if you commit a foul or otherwise violate the rules: your inning ends and your opponent receives ball in hand. [empasis added]

But in the absence of any guidance concerning responsibility for spotting, any assignment of a foul in the situation is almost completely arbitrary, and therefore very dfficult to justify with a clear conscience. Despite the provisions of 1.21.2, the entire rule set in general clearly contemplates the ability to determine either (a) intent, or (b), relation to the action of the balls on the table, in order to assign a foul.

Let's look at the possibilities, with Player A pocketing the ball in question, and Player B incoming and executing a shot without the ball having been spotted:

Option 1 - assign responsibility for spotting, and therefore the foul, to Player A. It doesn't work for two reasons. First, you can't really wait to call the foul until Player B shoots, since it violates the well established principle that a foul cannot be enforced after another shot has been taken. Second, how are you going to call a foul on Player A before Player B shoots? What's Player B going to do? Wait around and see how long it takes Player A to realize there's a problem? Are you going to establish a time limit for Player A to realize what's happened while Player B stands around waiting for the time to run out? If no time limit, is Player B going to be rushing to the table to get a shot off before Player A realizes their mistake? None of it works.

Option 2 - assign responsibility for spotting, and therefore the foul, to Player B. Although it is easier to justify and enforce from a procedural standpoint, there are still, at least in the view of the BCAPL, serious problems in principle. The two biggest problems are (1) the act being penalized is one of omission vs. commission, and (2) the overwhelming probablility of a complete lack of intent, coupled with no basis for the foul in relation to the action of the balls on the table. Another problem, though one not unique to this situation, is Player A's possible knowledge of the situation. It's the age-old argument if you are Player A: do you stand by and let Player B foul, or prevent the foul by taking action? Show me 100 randomly selected players and I'll show you a 50/50 split.

Two things are always looked at by the office when discussing decisions when no clear guidance exists: situations that could be considered similar, and other rules that appear to have similar principles. Some that were discussed concerning this situation were:

* The similar situation of a player shooting at an illegal object ball because of a failure to realize either their group in 8-Ball or the lowest numbered ball in 9/10-Ball. This was discarded because the foul charged in this situation is definitive under Rule 1.19.1, and it is contact with the wrong ball that is being punished. In the OP situation, no such act occurs.

* Situations in which the correct OB is contacted yet a foul is still called for a reason other than the direct action of the balls on the table, such as no foot on the floor. However, in any such situation currently covered, the foul is assigned because of the comission of a physical act, not omission (even though the comission may not carry intent, such as unknowingly using an illegal cue.)

* The situation of a ball being rejected by a pocket full of balls because the shooter did not inspect the pocket before shooting. This was the only situation we could find that is: specifically addressed by the book; is directly related to the condition/lay of the table other than the balls in play; in which the consequences are applied to the shooter; in which tradition and customary practice assign responsibility to the shooter. Those four conditions would also apply in Option 2 above. But the principle of the full pocket situation was also rejected because, even though the shooter suffers the consequences of his inattention (loss of turn), no foul is assigned.

Finally the possibility of allowing the referee to restore the position if possible, spot the ball and allow the shooter to contninue was discussed. However it was quickly rejected as being not consistent with the current BCAPL 8-Ball application, to prone to unacceptable subjectivity, and arbitrarily timed (restore after one shot, two shots, etc.) The only allowable restorations of entire shots in BCAPL play are in the case of actions completely beyond the players control, which is not the case here.

In the end it was determined that (1) the overwhelming probabliltiy is that the situation is caused by a combined and unitentional omission and that no fault should be assigned, and (2) no procedure should be implemented assigning responsibility, since it would create a new situation in which players are faced with the ethical dilemma of whether or not to alert Player B of the situation (see above), and we have enough of that already.

Those are the bulk of the things that were discussed by the BCAPL. They are presented here by way of explanation. No one is saying they are perfect, or that other opinions might not be valid. But you can be assured of consistency in application and availability of the ruling to all players as soon as the decision is published.

As for WSR, they provide no guidance, so until they do the situation at hand remains a TD decision under WSR and unfortunately, as usual under WSR, players have no reasonable expectation of prior knowledge of criteria for decisions or consistency in rulings. However, if I'm the TD it's gonna be a re-rack.

One final note: this entire discussion presupposes lack of intent. However, a careful reading of the OP's actual situation clearly describes an intentional act by Player A. It also is apparent that it was fortunate that nothing critical was at stake. If the same situation arose when something critical was at stake, and it could be clearly determined by an official that Player A's act was intentional and that any embarassment/humiliation was suffered by Player B, Player A would clearly be at risk of being penalized for UC. Referee/TD discretion applies.
:smile:

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 and the BCAPL Rules "Statement of Principles" 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.
* For General Rules, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, and 14.1 Continuous: 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" for those games. The BCA has no rules committee. 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 maintains what we consider to be the most structured, complete and intensive referee training program available.
* The BCAPL has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA. The letters "BCA" in BCAPL do not stand for "Billiard Congress of America, nor for anything at all.
* 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.
* All BCAPL members are, as always, encouraged to e-mail Bill Stock at the BCAPL National Office, bill@playcsi.com, with any comments, concerns or suggestions about the BCAPL rules.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Buddy, thanks for getting back to us with the decision. I know you guys didn't just flip a coin but put a lot of thought into it and it's appreciated. I assume then that this will be the rule in effect at the US Open 10 Ball Championship as well as the US BT Championships. Given that, it probably won't be too long before the WPA follows your lead.



I'd like to make a comment as this may apply to straight pool. Aside for the opening break, a re-rack would cause the problem/issue of restoring the balls to recreate the break shot that opened that rack. So I wonder if the easier option is to either do it in a somewhat similar to One Pocket or simply not spot a ball, or perhaps spot the first ball made in the next rack.

An un-spotted ball that has gone unnoticed will likely be discovered at the end of a rack (if the player in question did not score himself for that ball) because the combined rack scores of both players will not add up to 14. But I'm not sure spotting it at the end of the rack is fair since the shooter played shape on a break shot (or got stuck through his own fault without one) and would now have to either contend with an unplanned additional ball or have the unfair second chance to create a decent break shot by using the spotted ball as a "do-over" key ball. Spotting it immediately after the first ball is made in the next rack might be a solution, though this then throws off the rack score of that next rack. So maybe the proper solution is to forget it and just make sure the score is correct (i.e. the player in question did not score himself for the illegally pocketed ball).

I'd be interested to hear how this gets applied to 14.1 by the BCAPL.

Thanks again.

 

[The Chinchilla]

...is re-rack in BCAPL play. Confirmed with National Office today.

The general principle will be applied to BCAPL 9-Ball and 10-Ball play. A new Appplied Ruling will be writtien to cover the situation, and will be included in the next edition of the BCAPL book. Forgot to ask about 14.1...will get a confirmation about that ASAP...probably the same.

1P and Banks will not be affected, since they already have a specific and detailed process addressing spotting forgotten balls.

The discussion centered on intent, and that was considered to be the dominating rationale. Earlier I said I thought I had a good handle on it, and now have time to explain the other aspects I was talking about. Please note that while the following was also presented in the discussion, the lack of intent was the primary consideration, even though there are places where the same principle doesn't always appear to apply. No doubt it can be complicated.

Please note this discussion is BCAPL specific. See my disclaimers for more details.

There are several problems trying to justify a foul in the absence of specific guidance. The only possible justification is that a rule has been violated. The rule that has been violated is that the ball in question is required to be spotted, combined with BCAPL Rule 1.21.2 which states:

"Unless otherwise stated in the General Rules or specific game rules, if you commit a foul or otherwise violate the rules: your inning ends and your opponent receives ball in hand. [empasis added]

But in the absence of any guidance concerning responsibility for spotting, any assignment of a foul in the situation is almost completely arbitrary, and therefore very dfficult to justify with a clear conscience. Despite the provisions of 1.21.2, the entire rule set in general clearly contemplates the ability to determine either (a) intent, or (b), relation to the action of the balls on the table, in order to assign a foul.

Let's look at the possibilities, with Player A pocketing the ball in question, and Player B incoming and executing a shot without the ball having been spotted:

Option 1 - assign responsibility for spotting, and therefore the foul, to Player A. It doesn't work for two reasons. First, you can't really wait to call the foul until Player B shoots, since it violates the well established principle that a foul cannot be enforced after another shot has been taken. Second, how are you going to call a foul on Player A before Player B shoots? What's Player B going to do? Wait around and see how long it takes Player A to realize there's a problem? Are you going to establish a time limit for Player A to realize what's happened while Player B stands around waiting for the time to run out? If no time limit, is Player B going to be rushing to the table to get a shot off before Player A realizes their mistake? None of it works.

Option 2 - assign responsibility for spotting, and therefore the foul, to Player B. Although it is easier to justify and enforce from a procedural standpoint, there are still, at least in the view of the BCAPL, serious problems in principle. The two biggest problems are (1) the act being penalized is one of omission vs. commission, and (2) the overwhelming probablility of a complete lack of intent, coupled with no basis for the foul in relation to the action of the balls on the table. Another problem, though one not unique to this situation, is Player A's possible knowledge of the situation. It's the age-old argument if you are Player A: do you stand by and let Player B foul, or prevent the foul by taking action? Show me 100 randomly selected players and I'll show you a 50/50 split.

Two things are always looked at by the office when discussing decisions when no clear guidance exists: situations that could be considered similar, and other rules that appear to have similar principles. Some that were discussed concerning this situation were:

* The similar situation of a player shooting at an illegal object ball because of a failure to realize either their group in 8-Ball or the lowest numbered ball in 9/10-Ball. This was discarded because the foul charged in this situation is definitive under Rule 1.19.1, and it is contact with the wrong ball that is being punished. In the OP situation, no such act occurs.

* Situations in which the correct OB is contacted yet a foul is still called for a reason other than the direct action of the balls on the table, such as no foot on the floor. However, in any such situation currently covered, the foul is assigned because of the comission of a physical act, not omission (even though the comission may not carry intent, such as unknowingly using an illegal cue.)

* The situation of a ball being rejected by a pocket full of balls because the shooter did not inspect the pocket before shooting. This was the only situation we could find that is: specifically addressed by the book; is directly related to the condition/lay of the table other than the balls in play; in which the consequences are applied to the shooter; in which tradition and customary practice assign responsibility to the shooter. Those four conditions would also apply in Option 2 above. But the principle of the full pocket situation was also rejected because, even though the shooter suffers the consequences of his inattention (loss of turn), no foul is assigned.

Finally the possibility of allowing the referee to restore the position if possible, spot the ball and allow the shooter to contninue was discussed. However it was quickly rejected as being not consistent with the current BCAPL 8-Ball application, to prone to unacceptable subjectivity, and arbitrarily timed (restore after one shot, two shots, etc.) The only allowable restorations of entire shots in BCAPL play are in the case of actions completely beyond the players control, which is not the case here.

In the end it was determined that (1) the overwhelming probabliltiy is that the situation is caused by a combined and unitentional omission and that no fault should be assigned, and (2) no procedure should be implemented assigning responsibility, since it would create a new situation in which players are faced with the ethical dilemma of whether or not to alert Player B of the situation (see above), and we have enough of that already.

Those are the bulk of the things that were discussed by the BCAPL. They are presented here by way of explanation. No one is saying they are perfect, or that other opinions might not be valid. But you can be assured of consistency in application and availability of the ruling to all players as soon as the decision is published.

As for WSR, they provide no guidance, so until they do the situation at hand remains a TD decision under WSR and unfortunately, as usual under WSR, players have no reasonable expectation of prior knowledge of criteria for decisions or consistency in rulings. However, if I'm the TD it's gonna be a re-rack.

One final note: this entire discussion presupposes lack of intent. However, a careful reading of the OP's actual situation clearly describes an intentional act by Player A. It also is apparent that it was fortunate that nothing critical was at stake. If the same situation arose when something critical was at stake, and it could be clearly determined by an official that Player A's act was intentional and that any embarassment/humiliation was suffered by Player B, Player A would clearly be at risk of being penalized for UC. Referee/TD discretion applies.
:smile:
[/SIZE]

Wow, sincerely, that is a very nice response to a very difficult question. It is obvious you guys put a lot of thought into this, and it shows. Great post, and thanks for posting it.

Let me just play devil's advocate here with you for a second, and granted I realize this would probably never happen.... but hear me out:

What if Player A sends the cue ball into the pocket after striking the 8 ball, the 9 ball goes in as player A has his back turned, player B comes up and shoots in the 8 ball, yet there is no nine on the table. Now, I know you went over the unintentional omission, and I did read your post very thoroughly, yet I think these far-fetched hypotheticals are good to examine in these cases. I think we have to look at and decide upon rules in EVERY possible situation, not in the ones we have seen come up, or the ones we think will come up. There is a lot of strange and very unusual behavior out there, and I feel it is necessary to keep this in mind when rules are being established. In short, you must account for everything.

So, you are saying there should be a re-rack after this player B ineptly got up there and shot the 8 in with no 9 on the table in a game of 9 ball!? Let's just say for the sake of argument Player A was so upset, maybe looking away, he never even noticed the 9's absence. I totally empathize with you on this difficult situation, yet you did state it would be easier to assign fault to player B. I agree. I think there is a strong argument to be made either way, but I don't believe in re-racks (unless 2 players agree on one). Reracks give players the ability to extort "loopholes" in what would otherwise be a hopeless situations. I just think reracks are a total, 100% last resort.

I really think you guys should have looked at "control" of some sort, in that it is up to player B to shoot or not shoot as he assesses the table. The situation is in his control more or less. That combined with your "option 2" paragraph above push me to the assigning foul side. Add to this, it is almost like you guys are saying "ignorance is an excuse," ESPECIALLY when it comes to the shooter, as he is the one in control more or less of the timing of the incoming foul. Remember, we can't assume ANYTHING about a player in his chair (player A). Maybe he likes to look at his girlfriend after he misses, maybe he likes to put his head in his hands etc. But, we CAN assume things about an incoming player, ie, he is compelled to look over and assess the table to a certain extent by the very definition of playing pool. Not assessing properly could and should be penalized. The timing aspect is important too, maybe player A would have noticed there was no 9 if player B hadn't shot so quickly, but that timing is under player B's control, and his alone. Hence player B really must assume responsibility.

Another way to look at my "ignorance is an excuse" assertion, what if there is a beginner in a competitive match. Maybe the beginner doesn't even know the 9 needs to be spotted! Now he impetuously shoots after the 9 goes down on a foul (remember my "timing" point), and then you have to reward the lack of knowledge and rerack. Unacceptable. These actions need to be punished so people will learn. This isn't a small rule either, having the 9 on the table in a game of 9 ball is a MAJOR thing. These scenarios aren't hard to come by either, I can think of many... they are far-fetched, but not impossible. I have seen it all, been around 20 years, and believe me when I say, this stuff, as far fetched as it is, WILL happen.

Let me finally just preempt any argument about Player A purposefully not spotting the 9. Under my thinking, I do think this is a legitimate concern, but I actually see a benefit here. Once an incoming player is bitten by not spotting the 9 once or twice, he will remember after that. Don't we owe it to the game to make players remember the 9 in a game of 9 ball!? In other words, even if a player does try to take advantage of this rule by not spotting the 9, I think it will ultimately lead to a positive situation where the inexperienced players will better learn this rule. In short, let's let the dirtbags do us a favor by teaching the inexperienced this important rule; namely, "incoming player is ultimately responsible for spotting of 9 ball." Another version, perhaps better (I prefer this one); "outgoing player has no responsibility whatsoever other than to remain quiet and go sit in his chair and to the best of his knowledge inform his opponent of a foul or not if asked (and yes i know that needs work/rewording)."

Anyway, thanks again for stopping by and letting us know. I think you guys did a great job in your deliberations. I don't necessarily agree, but that's ok

Regards.

 

[tatcat2000]

All valid observations and concerns Chinchilla...I have a few more thoughts for you on the subject...will try to get to them soon...I couldn't get to everything last night - as evidenced by the time of the post I was getting a little stupid tired toward the end. Will post again soon...

Buddy

 

[Bob Jewett]

...is re-rack in BCAPL play. Confirmed with National Office today. ... Forgot to ask about 14.1...will get a confirmation about that ASAP...probably the same. ...

I think that a re-rack does not make sense at 14.1, and that you should simply go on. A minor point is what to do if the error is discovered more than 15 balls later. For example, your opponent scratches on a break shot. The ref spots the break ball but misses the 6 ball which was also pocketed, and no one counts the balls at the start of your inning. You are part way into the next rack, and someone in the TV booth -- doing their best to be helpful -- points out that the 6 was never spotted, even though you have been credited with pocketing 14 balls from that rack. I would propose:

If a ball should have been spotted for a foul or safe but was not and the mistake is discovered after a shot has been taken, the game continues without interruption and that ball is not counted in that rack.
​

This doesn't answer the question of what to do when a scoring error is noticed long after the fact.

 

[The Chinchilla]

I think that a re-rack does not make sense at 14.1, and that you should simply go on. A minor point is what to do if the error is discovered more than 15 balls later. For example, your opponent scratches on a break shot. The ref spots the break ball but misses the 6 ball which was also pocketed, and no one counts the balls at the start of your inning. You are part way into the next rack, and someone in the TV booth -- doing their best to be helpful -- points out that the 6 was never spotted, even though you have been credited with pocketing 14 balls from that rack. I would propose:

If a ball should have been spotted for a foul or safe but was not and the mistake is discovered after a shot has been taken, the game continues without interruption and that ball is not counted in that rack.
​

This doesn't answer the question of what to do when a scoring error is noticed long after the fact.

These are sticky situations, but I agree with you. In 14.1 all the balls are worth an equal amount. I just don't agree with this no fault philosophy in a game of 9 ball not spotting the 9 however. Nice post.