True to a point but still any type of barrier left on the table can change the outcome of the shot or breakout.Forget about the magic rack being left on the table,a tiny little fluff can change the trajectory of the shot if the ball rolls over it.I've seen so many guys get screwed because there cueball hits a piece of debris and they end up out of line or hooked.Even the rule of 3 balls have to pass the headstring or its a foul is one of the dumbest rules I've seen yet.I understand they don't want guys soft breaking,because they would rather them break hard and stupid but for me either change the rack spot or have a speed gun clocking that they have to break over a certain speed.If they break above the regulated speed it won't matter how many balls pass the head string.Billiards is very funny,they search for the best tables and conditions,cues ,tips,chalk,and when guys start playing perfect pool,there must be a problem,go figure?
the nit list
- Thread starter lee brett
- Start date
Sharking grrrrrr
It's bad when your playing somebody & that happends.
It happened to me this last Weekend.
We were the last 4 playing on the winners side of the (Empire State Championship) Predator Tournament.
I was shooting the 9 He decided to take off his sweatshirt during my shot.
Yup missed the 9 Lost that game to go up 2-0
I let it bother me so much I couldn't shoot. I let it affect me the rest of the match.
I didn't say anything Didn't really know if he was just dumb & did it by mistake.
But when he was up 6-1 race to 7 I was shooting another 9 He moved again.
So after I made the 9, 90% of my mind was on making the 9 the other 10% was watching him to see if he moved.
So I called a time out went to cool off a bit on my way back I did visit the tournament Director.
My words to Tournament Director was Please help me not get arrested! Because if he has a chance to do it again & he does I will go to JAIL.
It's a shame that this is part of somebody's game plan but Crime does pay sometimes because he did come in 2nd to win $1,300.00.
But i'm a believer that what goes around comes around so it will go full circle.
It's bad when your playing somebody & that happends.
It happened to me this last Weekend.
We were the last 4 playing on the winners side of the (Empire State Championship) Predator Tournament.
I was shooting the 9 He decided to take off his sweatshirt during my shot.
Yup missed the 9 Lost that game to go up 2-0
I let it bother me so much I couldn't shoot. I let it affect me the rest of the match.
I didn't say anything Didn't really know if he was just dumb & did it by mistake.
But when he was up 6-1 race to 7 I was shooting another 9 He moved again.
So after I made the 9, 90% of my mind was on making the 9 the other 10% was watching him to see if he moved.
So I called a time out went to cool off a bit on my way back I did visit the tournament Director.
My words to Tournament Director was Please help me not get arrested! Because if he has a chance to do it again & he does I will go to JAIL.
It's a shame that this is part of somebody's game plan but Crime does pay sometimes because he did come in 2nd to win $1,300.00.
But i'm a believer that what goes around comes around so it will go full circle.
Tournament Directors are not baby sitters
Tournament Directors are not baby sitters!
We as players must be our own referees with good sportsmanship.
Listen, They can't watch evrey match nevermind everyshot.
Just in a little 32 player tournament you will have 16 tables going in the first round. Do you really expect them to watch all the tables?
The only thing I expect is if somebody complains it should be noted & that person should be put on notice.
Then if it happends again something will happen.
Foul, loss of game, 2 game loss, loss of match, then maybe disbarred.
Only my opinion don't kill me for it.
Tournament Directors are not baby sitters!
We as players must be our own referees with good sportsmanship.
Listen, They can't watch evrey match nevermind everyshot.
Just in a little 32 player tournament you will have 16 tables going in the first round. Do you really expect them to watch all the tables?
The only thing I expect is if somebody complains it should be noted & that person should be put on notice.
Then if it happends again something will happen.
Foul, loss of game, 2 game loss, loss of match, then maybe disbarred.
Only my opinion don't kill me for it.
It was in the World PPA 9 ball on the big tables.
Cheaters always Win
Lee, I apologize for what happened.
What happened to you is why the rest of the world, calls us "Ugly Americans".
I am not making judgment on what happened to you as there is two sides to every story and I was not there.
Including knowing the rules.
Cheaters always win here in the US, even if they lose.
I was in a tournament last year, getting ready to play the winner of a match.
The guy who was losing said to the other guy, your wife has a fat a$$, in front of his wife.
Of course he went ballistic and four of us jumped him so he wouldn't kill the cheater.
The match resumed after 20 minutes but the damage was done.
The guy couldn't see straight the more he played the madder he got.
He eventually left and forfeited the game, I haven't seen him since.
The Cheater he continues to play in tournaments with a innocent smile on his face.
I have never seen a Tournament Director kick Earl Strickland out of a match or Larry Nevel for getting out of line.
I remember Nevel's mom apologizing for her son's behavior to a top player.
I imagine it is because Tournament Directors don't want to upset the tournament.
I don't know the answer, Tournament Directors like Mark Griffin and Bob Beauliu have a tough job.
I wish them the best.
Therefore as you can see the Cheaters always win and they know it.
Sorry for the rambling, Barney
Lee, I apologize for what happened.
What happened to you is why the rest of the world, calls us "Ugly Americans".
I am not making judgment on what happened to you as there is two sides to every story and I was not there.
Including knowing the rules.
Cheaters always win here in the US, even if they lose.
I was in a tournament last year, getting ready to play the winner of a match.
The guy who was losing said to the other guy, your wife has a fat a$$, in front of his wife.
Of course he went ballistic and four of us jumped him so he wouldn't kill the cheater.
The match resumed after 20 minutes but the damage was done.
The guy couldn't see straight the more he played the madder he got.
He eventually left and forfeited the game, I haven't seen him since.
The Cheater he continues to play in tournaments with a innocent smile on his face.
I have never seen a Tournament Director kick Earl Strickland out of a match or Larry Nevel for getting out of line.
I remember Nevel's mom apologizing for her son's behavior to a top player.
I imagine it is because Tournament Directors don't want to upset the tournament.
I don't know the answer, Tournament Directors like Mark Griffin and Bob Beauliu have a tough job.
I wish them the best.
Therefore as you can see the Cheaters always win and they know it.
Sorry for the rambling, Barney
Dont be so quick to put us all in your little group. you know damn well what would have happpened had that been my match....
" no offense " holly shit man you are off your meds. somebody, please hurry, reach over and smack this guy hes choaking on some bullshit.
you're right only americans behave like jack asses. this behavior would never happen in, say, england. oh wait, then there's ronnie o'sullivan
he always acts like a gentleman.you're right only americans behave like jack asses. this behavior would never happen in, say, england. oh wait, then there's ronnie o'sullivan
in snooker its the norm to act like a gentlemen. in pool its seem the norm is to act like an asshole.
big difference.
I'm not going for this. I've met a lot of class acts in pool....
..even when I gambled a lot.
In snooker there has been Alex Higgins head-butting a ref and peeing
in a potted plant in a lobby. Quinten Hann wasn't too kosher either.
There are always exceptions....even in a sedentary game like chess.
In the 30's two grand masters were playing to an audience...it was a
crucial time in the game and one of them chickened out and played a
move that both knew would result in a stalemate.....the other player
stood up on his chair and urinated on the board.
I think golf has the best record here....but you still have Tommy Bolt
breaking his club and throwing his caddie into a water hazard.:yikes:
As far as Earl goes, I have penalized him a game before and let him know the next offense will be a forfeit. He calmed down.
To avoid any confusion in the future in regards to the word "Nit" when referring to someone that is completely void of any gamble, lets just call them a "Donny Mills".
For example "Quit being a Donny Mills, get your ass up and bet a nickel a game"
For example "Quit being a Donny Mills, get your ass up and bet a nickel a game"
That my friend
Is exactly the way ALL these situations need to be handled. Too many times, a guy is warned, he throws a little fit, and says, "it ain't my fault", and then continues. Too many tourney directors won't stand their ground, and say, "one chance, that's it and you're gone". And most of the time, they already know who the repeat offenders are, and what they will do, before the tourney even starts.
Is exactly the way ALL these situations need to be handled. Too many times, a guy is warned, he throws a little fit, and says, "it ain't my fault", and then continues. Too many tourney directors won't stand their ground, and say, "one chance, that's it and you're gone". And most of the time, they already know who the repeat offenders are, and what they will do, before the tourney even starts.
More CSI info... Part I, very long - sorry...
There are just enough unanswered questions and bits of conjecture here that I'm going to put in a little more info for CSI for the purpose of education for future BCAPL events and, possibly, other CSI events.
DISCLAIMER: I’m going out on a limb with Part I, but I’m sure Mark/Bill will support an analysis of how this would have been handled by a good CSI ref at a CSI event. The OP situation, as has been noted, did not occur during a CSI event. I have no idea what rules they were playing under or what transposed at the players meeting (if there was one), but I will go out on a limb and assume
Again assuming WSR in effect, moving the ball back without the expressed permission of the opponent is almost always considered a violation of Regulation 20. It should be noted that such a ruling is not necessarily supported by the strict syntax of Regulation 20, but touching a disturbed ball before the opponent's decision has been rendered has traditionally been considered the point of the foul occurring - not the execution of the shot as stated in the regulation, (particularly if no shot actually occurs.)
And I will tell you - strictly by the book and regardless of local rules I'm not aware of that may have been in effect - that you were winning the argument way back at the point where the opponent was denied BIH by the TD. I'm telling you now, just as if I were telling any player how to get the maximum benefit from the rules, that as soon as the TD ruled no BIH, personlally I would have planted my butt in the chair, picked up a magazine, a sandwich and a drink, and relaxed while the opponent went on with their little tantrum.
That is the VERY good advice I give players all the time: regardless of the opponent's behavior, by trying to enforce your moral assessment of the situation upon them (or officials), all you do is aggravate the situation and put yourself at risk of being penalized as well. One of my favorite down-home sayings of all time applies so well: "When you wrestle with a pig you both get dirty. The pig enjoys it."
Again - nobility may be a nice thing, but when you let it distract you from the task at hand - playing the game - then it is no longer the virtue you think it is. This may sound strange to those who wear their nobility on their sleeve, but it is not the other player's behavior that is the problem...it's YOUR reaction to that behavior.
The very nature of the UC rules under both WSR and BCAPL are, by necessity, gray and flexible. When you get your panties in a wad, you completely disregard the fact that it takes all kinds to make up a world. If referees went around handing out UC losses and disqualifications every time someone got offended, there wouldn't be anyone left to play the game. Because what you believe to be ultimately noble and gentlemanly - that being your own behavior under any normal circumstance - another player might find offensive and come crying to me about. Yes, there are limits, and ones that can mostly be practically enforced. But don't get high and mighty about it. You may well find yourself at a disadvantage in the end. Yes, the nits will win a few. You will win far more by just shutting the hell up. If you are truly so worried about your opponents being calm and gentlemanly that it is going to make your life miserable at a crucial moment like this, then you might be better off quitting pool and joining a debate society.
And for the love of whatever deity you prefer, learn to recognize when you've won a fight!! You had won your's, but didn't recognize it. As Judge Judy says so often to the litigant that has clearly won but still won't shut up..."Do I look like I need your help?"
For Blackballed (post#52) - thanks for saying in 72 words what it just took me 1300 to say.
OK – enough about that. On to other details in part II...
There are just enough unanswered questions and bits of conjecture here that I'm going to put in a little more info for CSI for the purpose of education for future BCAPL events and, possibly, other CSI events.
DISCLAIMER: I’m going out on a limb with Part I, but I’m sure Mark/Bill will support an analysis of how this would have been handled by a good CSI ref at a CSI event. The OP situation, as has been noted, did not occur during a CSI event. I have no idea what rules they were playing under or what transposed at the players meeting (if there was one), but I will go out on a limb and assume
- that WSR were predominately in effect;
- that WSR Regulation 5, Playing with an "Area" Referee, and Regulation 20, Cue ball fouls only, were in effect.
So far so good...nothing wrong here.
Again assuming WSR in effect, moving the ball back without the expressed permission of the opponent is almost always considered a violation of Regulation 20. It should be noted that such a ruling is not necessarily supported by the strict syntax of Regulation 20, but touching a disturbed ball before the opponent's decision has been rendered has traditionally been considered the point of the foul occurring - not the execution of the shot as stated in the regulation, (particularly if no shot actually occurs.)
Again, given the traditional interpretation, the opponent is correct and the TD not so much so, BUT there could have been other tournament regulations in effect that make my analysis wrong. If so, disregard this and the last paragraph; if not, it probably should have been a foul.
You just put yourself in peril regarding the entire situation. Assuming your recounting of the situation is accurate, you would be the first person to hear the words UC coming out of my mouth, but only as a very gentle initial warning...the opponent's behavior up to this point, even if animated, is only involving a discussion of the rule. Your name-calling is not. Even if he used laguage prior to that which you did not relate to us, you still lowered yourself to his level and became equally subject to penalty.
Irrelevant to the entire conversation/situation.
Regardless of the situation, and despite the opponent's behavior, that could actually be more potential/actual UC. However, you might have been saved by...
You did what?!?! You were clearly winning the argument - why would you want to continue to disrupt the table? No matter what else is transpiring during an altercation, moving balls on the table is going to be treated as an independent event, in this case one that would be possibly/likely be penalized by loss of game. However...
Noble or just plain idiotic, I'm not sure which. I'll let the reader decide that (as many already have). I'm not here to judge the morality of the issue - that's not the referee's job under any circumstances. I'm only breaking it down per the book.
And I will tell you - strictly by the book and regardless of local rules I'm not aware of that may have been in effect - that you were winning the argument way back at the point where the opponent was denied BIH by the TD. I'm telling you now, just as if I were telling any player how to get the maximum benefit from the rules, that as soon as the TD ruled no BIH, personlally I would have planted my butt in the chair, picked up a magazine, a sandwich and a drink, and relaxed while the opponent went on with their little tantrum.
That is the VERY good advice I give players all the time: regardless of the opponent's behavior, by trying to enforce your moral assessment of the situation upon them (or officials), all you do is aggravate the situation and put yourself at risk of being penalized as well. One of my favorite down-home sayings of all time applies so well: "When you wrestle with a pig you both get dirty. The pig enjoys it."
Again - nobility may be a nice thing, but when you let it distract you from the task at hand - playing the game - then it is no longer the virtue you think it is. This may sound strange to those who wear their nobility on their sleeve, but it is not the other player's behavior that is the problem...it's YOUR reaction to that behavior.
The very nature of the UC rules under both WSR and BCAPL are, by necessity, gray and flexible. When you get your panties in a wad, you completely disregard the fact that it takes all kinds to make up a world. If referees went around handing out UC losses and disqualifications every time someone got offended, there wouldn't be anyone left to play the game. Because what you believe to be ultimately noble and gentlemanly - that being your own behavior under any normal circumstance - another player might find offensive and come crying to me about. Yes, there are limits, and ones that can mostly be practically enforced. But don't get high and mighty about it. You may well find yourself at a disadvantage in the end. Yes, the nits will win a few. You will win far more by just shutting the hell up. If you are truly so worried about your opponents being calm and gentlemanly that it is going to make your life miserable at a crucial moment like this, then you might be better off quitting pool and joining a debate society.
And for the love of whatever deity you prefer, learn to recognize when you've won a fight!! You had won your's, but didn't recognize it. As Judge Judy says so often to the litigant that has clearly won but still won't shut up..."Do I look like I need your help?"
For Blackballed (post#52) - thanks for saying in 72 words what it just took me 1300 to say.
OK – enough about that. On to other details in part II...
Last edited:
More CSI info...Part II...not quite so long
Now just a few notes concerning how some observations would be handled at CSI/BCAPL events. Not so many opinions or conjecture in Part II...mostly facts
Under WSR Regulation 5, true if one party does not ask for a ref.
Under BCAPL rules, there is no such provision, and neither player has any type of non-combatant status available. If a referee is called to rule on a situation after the fact, neither player - shooter or non-shooter - has any different status thatn the other. More on the BCAPL handling of the Magic Rack in a minute...
------------
For Renfro (hope you're felling better) - many of the ideas you suggest are actually incorporated into either the BCAPL rules, the CSI/BCAPL referee training program, or both. However, a few of the ideas, while well intentioned, are simply not possible or practical, and by the very nature of UC provisions must be left to referee's judgment.
For example: how do you define "argument". Uh...yeah. Good luck with that.
I can tell you, however, that shy of a physical altercation (automatic DQ and likely multi-year or permanent ban from CSI events) or serious physical abuse of equipment that disrupts multiple tables (bare minimum loss of match, likely DQ), as a general rule of thumb, our referees are trained as follows:
First, there are six possible actions a referee may take following an alleged or actual UC incident.
Second, we train our referees that if, (note the word "IF"), you are going to make a mistake in severity when handing out a UC penalty, make it on the low side!
There are two very good reasons for that - not ones that some may like or consider valid, but that must be considered nevertheless:
Reason one - many people spend a great deal of money, time and effort to attend events. Before you tell them they can't play anymore, you better have a damn good reason. It's not a matter of backing away from it when it happens or being scared to DQ someone - but it is a valid reason to take a gut check before flying off the handle.
Reason 2 - If you make a mistake on the high side, you can't fix it later on.
Sitting in ref's chair thinking about the loss of game I just issued for a verbal outburst directed at no one...man, it just wasn't that bad...the guy just over-reacted a little...I let him get to me and I over-reacted a little too - I probably should have just warned him or given BIH...yeah, I should go fix this...oops...too late...
But if you make a mistake on the low side, you can fix it in the event of a second occurrence!
Sitting in ref's chair thinking about the stern warning I just issued for a verbal outburst directed straight at the opponent and slamming the stick on the table...man, I blew that a little, it was pretty bad...I probably should have given loss of game or match...well, I can't fix it right now, but I'll make sure to put it in my write-up that I was too lenient...whoa - there he goes again...where's my hammer - here it comes!!...
Referring back to Part I for a moment and people's perception of what constitutes UC, wearing their nobility on their sleeve, or what level they get offended at...three times in my in my career I can distinctly remember I have been approached by spectators asking why I don't do something about a player's language. None of the events were pro - so I had no internal org regs to worry about. And in all three instances three things were true. The table concerned was within earshot of me; I never heard anything the spectators were referring to; the opponents never said anything to me about the alleged language. But the spectators were all aghast that I should allow it to continue. A perfect example of a low and lenient UC referee action - nothing. At worst, I might have alerted the player to the complaint after the match, but if the language is so subdued that I can't hear it and the opponent either can't hear it or isn't complaining, I'm staying out of it in an amateur event.
On the pro end, a perfect example of what I'm talking about:
For Satman - yes, more consistency across the board at all events would be nice, but I'm more concerned about at least some small measure of restraint and consistency within the specific event.
-----
Now for the Magic Rack as it applies to BCAPL events. The following procedures have been in place at the BCAPL Nationals for two years (with very minor adjustments after the first year), and will be in force for 2012 Nationals, including the 9-Ball Challenge (Magic Rack mandatory), BCAPL 9-Ball Nationals and the USAPL Nationals. The US Open 10-Ball used the Delta last year - not sure about this year yet. US Open One Pocket - highly doubtful, but not sure about that one either. Anyway, for all events that do authorize or require the rack, the following procedures apply. There are slight wording variations based on the game being played and for teams, but the essence of the use/removal procedure is consistent. I post them here to help anyone interested to prepare for the event. The complete text can be found in Tournament Regulation A7 at http://www.playbca.com/portals/0/2012nc/12tregs.pdf
You may use either the rack provided with the table or a genuine Magic Ball Rack brand template. No other triangle or template is authorized. You may not deny your opponent the use of a Magic Ball Rack. If a Magic Ball Rack is used, it must be the 8-Ball version. If a Magic Ball Rack is used, it is not required to be used for every game. Magic Ball Racks are available for sale at the Tournament Director’s desk in the Grand Ballroom.
If your opponent does not have a Magic Ball Rack and they desire to use yours, you must permit them to use it at any time during your match.
The Magic Ball Rack may only be removed by the shooter before any shot after the break. Rule 1.33, Disturbed Balls, applies to the act of removing the Magic Ball Rack, and fouls may occur during its removal. Before removing the Magic Ball Rack, if the shooter’s opponent wishes a referee to observe the removal of the rack then the shooter must allow their opponent the opportunity to summon a referee. The shooter may request that a referee remove the Magic Ball Rack for them.
At the shooter’s option only, a maximum of two balls may be marked in order to remove the Magic Ball Rack, provided they are not frozen to each other or to any other ball. If more than two balls interfere with the removal of the template, or if the balls are frozen to each other or another ball, the template must stay in place until the lay of the table allows its removal.
: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
* Unless specifically stated, 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.
* Unless specifically stated, 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.
* 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.
* 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.
Now just a few notes concerning how some observations would be handled at CSI/BCAPL events. Not so many opinions or conjecture in Part II...mostly facts
Under WSR Regulation 5, true if one party does not ask for a ref.
Under BCAPL rules, there is no such provision, and neither player has any type of non-combatant status available. If a referee is called to rule on a situation after the fact, neither player - shooter or non-shooter - has any different status thatn the other. More on the BCAPL handling of the Magic Rack in a minute...
------------
For Renfro (hope you're felling better) - many of the ideas you suggest are actually incorporated into either the BCAPL rules, the CSI/BCAPL referee training program, or both. However, a few of the ideas, while well intentioned, are simply not possible or practical, and by the very nature of UC provisions must be left to referee's judgment.
For example: how do you define "argument". Uh...yeah. Good luck with that.
I can tell you, however, that shy of a physical altercation (automatic DQ and likely multi-year or permanent ban from CSI events) or serious physical abuse of equipment that disrupts multiple tables (bare minimum loss of match, likely DQ), as a general rule of thumb, our referees are trained as follows:
First, there are six possible actions a referee may take following an alleged or actual UC incident.
- nothing
- warning
- BIH
- loss of game
- loss of match
- DQ
Second, we train our referees that if, (note the word "IF"), you are going to make a mistake in severity when handing out a UC penalty, make it on the low side!
There are two very good reasons for that - not ones that some may like or consider valid, but that must be considered nevertheless:
Reason one - many people spend a great deal of money, time and effort to attend events. Before you tell them they can't play anymore, you better have a damn good reason. It's not a matter of backing away from it when it happens or being scared to DQ someone - but it is a valid reason to take a gut check before flying off the handle.
Reason 2 - If you make a mistake on the high side, you can't fix it later on.
Sitting in ref's chair thinking about the loss of game I just issued for a verbal outburst directed at no one...man, it just wasn't that bad...the guy just over-reacted a little...I let him get to me and I over-reacted a little too - I probably should have just warned him or given BIH...yeah, I should go fix this...oops...too late...
But if you make a mistake on the low side, you can fix it in the event of a second occurrence!
Sitting in ref's chair thinking about the stern warning I just issued for a verbal outburst directed straight at the opponent and slamming the stick on the table...man, I blew that a little, it was pretty bad...I probably should have given loss of game or match...well, I can't fix it right now, but I'll make sure to put it in my write-up that I was too lenient...whoa - there he goes again...where's my hammer - here it comes!!...
Referring back to Part I for a moment and people's perception of what constitutes UC, wearing their nobility on their sleeve, or what level they get offended at...three times in my in my career I can distinctly remember I have been approached by spectators asking why I don't do something about a player's language. None of the events were pro - so I had no internal org regs to worry about. And in all three instances three things were true. The table concerned was within earshot of me; I never heard anything the spectators were referring to; the opponents never said anything to me about the alleged language. But the spectators were all aghast that I should allow it to continue. A perfect example of a low and lenient UC referee action - nothing. At worst, I might have alerted the player to the complaint after the match, but if the language is so subdued that I can't hear it and the opponent either can't hear it or isn't complaining, I'm staying out of it in an amateur event.
On the pro end, a perfect example of what I'm talking about:
Bingo. "He calmed down." Mission accomplished at a relatively low level. I wasn't there, but I'll bet you $$$ to donuts that at least one person came up to Jay after the incident raising a ****storm about how he should have run Earl clean out of town, even thogh it was absolutely none of their business.
For Satman - yes, more consistency across the board at all events would be nice, but I'm more concerned about at least some small measure of restraint and consistency within the specific event.
-----
Now for the Magic Rack as it applies to BCAPL events. The following procedures have been in place at the BCAPL Nationals for two years (with very minor adjustments after the first year), and will be in force for 2012 Nationals, including the 9-Ball Challenge (Magic Rack mandatory), BCAPL 9-Ball Nationals and the USAPL Nationals. The US Open 10-Ball used the Delta last year - not sure about this year yet. US Open One Pocket - highly doubtful, but not sure about that one either. Anyway, for all events that do authorize or require the rack, the following procedures apply. There are slight wording variations based on the game being played and for teams, but the essence of the use/removal procedure is consistent. I post them here to help anyone interested to prepare for the event. The complete text can be found in Tournament Regulation A7 at http://www.playbca.com/portals/0/2012nc/12tregs.pdf
RACKING AND BREAKING PROCEDURES
You may use either the rack provided with the table or a genuine Magic Ball Rack brand template. No other triangle or template is authorized. You may not deny your opponent the use of a Magic Ball Rack. If a Magic Ball Rack is used, it must be the 8-Ball version. If a Magic Ball Rack is used, it is not required to be used for every game. Magic Ball Racks are available for sale at the Tournament Director’s desk in the Grand Ballroom.
USE AND REMOVAL OF THE MAGIC BALL RACK
If your opponent does not have a Magic Ball Rack and they desire to use yours, you must permit them to use it at any time during your match.
The Magic Ball Rack may only be removed by the shooter before any shot after the break. Rule 1.33, Disturbed Balls, applies to the act of removing the Magic Ball Rack, and fouls may occur during its removal. Before removing the Magic Ball Rack, if the shooter’s opponent wishes a referee to observe the removal of the rack then the shooter must allow their opponent the opportunity to summon a referee. The shooter may request that a referee remove the Magic Ball Rack for them.
At the shooter’s option only, a maximum of two balls may be marked in order to remove the Magic Ball Rack, provided they are not frozen to each other or to any other ball. If more than two balls interfere with the removal of the template, or if the balls are frozen to each other or another ball, the template must stay in place until the lay of the table allows its removal.
: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
* Unless specifically stated, 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.
* Unless specifically stated, 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.
* 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.
* 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.
Last edited:
Good point. I am through reading this thread.
Mark,
Words aren't the easiliest things to get across because alot of times I/don't can't get it right the first time out of the gate but I can if someone wants to have an open mind and listen. It's very apparent that I have a problem with seeing this type of behavior over and over again(players doing this and that and TD's that have developed/allowed this behavior to continue/can't be reached,lame excuses, won't admit to it even when there're busted, etc.). It's like tuning into a show when you haven't seen it in awhile and discovering that it picks up right where it lets off.
My issues are ones that have been made in the past(behavior of some players and the lack of response from people who are supposed to manage the situation. Whatever happens behide the scenes, I am not aware of, but the same repeating BS happens at every tournament!
I treat a man like he treats me no matter what been said about the man until he proves he doesn't deserve any. This problem should have exorcized itself out of the program decades ago but now it remains the status quo. There has to be some accountability and action that is preventative NOW!
Can't you figure out how to do this? Yes? It appears to be no from one of your replies to someone.
My frustration with you was mainly directed toward those that have had the reins to change these situations and haven't. My appology to you. This is a serious problem! as without the dead money, there wouldn't be no money so why put them in any situation that would/might demean them and mostly ruin THEIR RIGHT OF CONCENTRATION/TO CONCENTRATE!.
Next issue was the charging up the ass thing. I do believe that people who run 9 day shows get a discount from the hosting site. That's the only reason I can think of having major get togethers in the middle of Winter. I don't know for sure, but that's my problem. It's really costly to stay in a room much less cash in, especially when there are a fair amount of sponsored players who don't have that pyschological burden AND get to act however they feel because they know that mostly they'll establish a psychological advantage.
I just don't like the statis quo. The worst behaviors in my experience are those that are at the amateur and pro tournaments! How strong is that?
If there's not a solution you can employ then it might be assumed that certain things are not worth it. Happy with the status quo . .
Again my anger was directed at the wrong person. They know who they are. Good luck and I hope you make a possitive change ..
Canwin
Last edited: