Straight Pool Rules Question

L.S. Dennis

L.S. Dennis

Well-known member
On intentional fouls, what happens if one player takes an intentional foul by simply rolling the cue ball gently against the rack and at that point his opponent declares that he also intends to take a foul but he just touches the cue not hitting anything. Is this a legal intentional foul? If not what happens in this situation?
 
Last edited:
Either would likely be unsportsmanlike conduct, similar to Efren Reyes vs Dallas West in the 2000 US Open. Dallas knew the rules, Efren didn't.
 
L.S. Dennis said:
On intentional fouls, what happens if one player takes an intentional foul by simply rolling the cue ball gently against the rack and at that point his opponent declares that he also intends to take a foul but he just touches the cue not hitting anything. Is this a legal intentional foul? If not what happens in this situation?
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand the question. Are you suggesting that it is a special case because the cue ball is struck but doesn't collide with any other balls? Would you also consider it a special case when the cue ball is shot away from all of the balls?

I don't think there are any special cases here. Just a regular foul.
 
L.S. Dennis said:
On intentional fouls, what happens if one player takes an intentional foul by simply rolling the cue ball gently against the rack and at that point his opponent declares that he also intends to take a foul but he just touches the cue not hitting anything. Is this a legal intentional foul? If not what happens in this situation?
Click to expand...
Touches the cue? I’m not sure what you mean by that? Do you mean touches his cue to the cue ball? I believe it needs to be the tip of his cue that touches the cue ball, but no, he doesn’t have to run the cue ball into another ball. It’s just a common foul.
 
Taking an intentional foul is certainly not unsportsmanlike conduct as it is done all the time at pro lever straight pool matches I’ve even seen Mosconi and Caras do it on video tapes. I thought I was quite clear in my description of my question, but let me try it another way. What constitutes a legal intentional four? Maybe Bob Jewett can chime in on this one.
 
What's required is a "shot," which involves a forward stroke motion of the cue stick. Just tapping the cue ball with some part of the cue stick, even the tip, is no good. But this requirement has been violated for decades in some circles, including by pros.
 
Last edited:
The 2 key points here are which rules and what game. Do you mean World Standardized Rules? You did say Straight Pool so that is clarified. If it was One Pocket that may be different. So it is down to which set of rules are being used? And I think the concern is "forward motion of the cue".
 
I wasn’t aware that there were different sets of 14-1 continuous straight pool rules. I’m sim[ply talking about the normal straight pool used in this country (since the game was invented in this country) that have been used from Ralph Greenleaf to this day. One last way to put my question as clearly as I can make it, is when you take an intentional foul do you need to contact an object ball (or anything else) with your cue ball for it to be considered a legal (or accepted )
intention foul with one point penalized on that stroke? This is assuming it is your first or second stroke therefore not triggering the 15 point foul rule on the third foul.
 
L.S. Dennis said:
... One last way to put my question as clearly as I can make it, is when you take an intentional foul do you need to contact an object ball (or anything else) with your cue ball for it to be considered a legal (or accepted )
intention foul with one point penalized on that stroke? ...
Click to expand...
No, you do not have to contact an object ball when taking an intentional 1-point foul. The WPA rules can be found here: https://wpapool.com/rules-of-play/
 
Rule violations become routine/accepted because no one bothers to read the rule book (or has trouble comprehending english). I used to play 14.1 years ago with a guy who would take BIH after my scratch, place it behind a headrail pocket corner, and then merely touch it with his tip. I let him get away with it because I didn’t know any better then. He would also typically take an intention foul by only tapping the top of the CB with his ferrule.
 
The question at hand is, in 14.1, what constitutes a legal intentional foul? Does the cue ball have to move and contact something; does the cue ball have to move but it doesn't matter whether it contacts anything or not; or, can one intentionally foul simply by touching the cue ball with the cue tip and the cue ball doesn't move? None of the rules I find, including WPA, address the question. However, the WPA rules do say, "If a player fouls three times without making an intervening legal shot, it is a serious foul." That suggests to me that not making a legal shot is what constitutes a foul, so all three options above would be ways to intentionally foul.

Why would that make sense? However minimal the impact an intentional foul has on the layout, the incoming player can replicate the first foul until the other player is forced to do something else to avoid the penalty.
 
Here is the rule: 'A forward motion of the cue'...swiping, taping, pushing the cue ball is a foul.

8.2 Shot

A shot begins when the tip contacts the cue ball due to a forward stroke motion of the cue
stick. A shot ends when all balls in play have stopped moving and spinning. A shot is said to
be legal if the shooter did not foul during the shot.

What may help to understand this, there is a difference between a foul and unsportsman like conduct. Taping a cue ball is unsportsman like conduct and the penalty can be more severe. However some areas and venues take a more relaxed attitude.
 
Last edited:
It takes a delicate touch. Something that likely should be practiced (performing a legal ‘forward stroke’ without moving the CB very far)
 
This post is about taking intentional fouls in straight pool, which is perfectly legitimate and part of the game. If a forward motion of the cue is all that's required to intentionally foul, then I guess there is no requirement for the cue ball to strike another ball. Which was the original question.
 
AtLarge said:
No, you do not have to contact an object ball when taking an intentional 1-point foul. The WPA rules can be found here: https://wpapool.com/rules-of-play/
Click to expand...
Like one of the upper posts, just read through the WPA rules regarding fouls in 14.1 continuous (thanks for sending it) but unfortunately like the upper poster said it does not address the question of taking intentional fouls which is what my question pertained to. I also read the section of unsportsmanlike conduct sec 6.16 and there’s nothing there that has anything to do with what this is all about.
So unless I see a specific section in the rules WPA/BCA regarding taking intentional foul in 14.1 the question remains out there.
 
Tennesseejoe said:
What may help to understand this, there is a difference between a foul and unsportsman like conduct. Taping a cue ball is unsportsman like conduct and the penalty can be more severe. However some areas and venues take a more relaxed attitude.
Click to expand...
Ok. Then what is the minimum effort needed for it to NOT be an unsportsmanlike foul? Forward motion and 1/16" cueball movement? 2" movement? That's the question being asked here.
 
Mick said:
Ok. Then what is the minimum effort needed for it to NOT be an unsportsmanlike foul? Forward motion and 1/16" cueball movement? 2" movement? That's the question being asked here.
Click to expand...
I agree that's the other side of the coin, Mick. I see it as, what's the minimum effort required to execute an intentional foul? Seems the bottom line is that the rules don't answer the question from either perspective.
 
We usually just intentionally foul by dropping the tip straight down on the CB, but:
DynoDan said:
I used to play 14.1 years ago with a guy who would take BIH after my scratch, place it behind a headrail pocket corner, and then merely touch it with his tip.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely doing this the next time my buddy scratches, just for fun. Feels like this should definitely be an unsportsmanlike foul, as funny as it is.

I know it's an unpopular stance, but the ultimate solution is to play 14.1 like we play 8 or 9, with BIH anywhere for any foul. Yes, it would remove a lot of things that make straight pool straight pool, but it would also add some complexity and difficulty to some situations as well, and it would eliminate arbitrary judgement rule violations like the one quoted above. I think the only real reason that we don't play with BIH is that we don't play with BIH.
 
Mick said:
We usually just intentionally foul by dropping the tip straight down on the CB, but:

I'm definitely doing this the next time my buddy scratches, just for fun. Feels like this should definitely be an unsportsmanlike foul, as funny as it is.

I know it's an unpopular stance, but the ultimate solution is to play 14.1 like we play 8 or 9, with BIH anywhere for any foul. Yes, it would remove a lot of things that make straight pool straight pool, but it would also add some complexity and difficulty to some situations as well, and it would eliminate arbitrary judgement rule violations like the one quoted above. I think the only real reason that we don't play with BIH is that we don't play with BIH.
Click to expand...
Mick said:
We usually just intentionally foul by dropping the tip straight down on the CB, but:

I'm definitely doing this the next time my buddy scratches, just for fun. Feels like this should definitely be an unsportsmanlike foul, as funny as it is.

I know it's an unpopular stance, but the ultimate solution is to play 14.1 like we play 8 or 9, with BIH anywhere for any foul. Yes, it would remove a lot of things that make straight pool straight pool, but it would also add some complexity and difficulty to some situations as well, and it would eliminate arbitrary judgement rule violations like the one quoted above. I think the only real reason that we don't play with BIH is that we don't play with BIH.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting observation and idea, and you’re correct that would resolve this issue entirely. I remember Nick Varner suggesting something along this line one time when he and Grady were doing a commentary on a straight pool match.

The would be sped up if there were BIH after all fouls, but then it would no longer be the old straight pool of yore. Good ideas anyway,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top