One point came up during the recent Scott/Shane match. Here's a question for you gamblers. In gambling play, not tournament, if the cue ball and the object ball are very close together, and the player strikes steeply down at the cue, and the cue ball goes through the position once occupied by the object ball, but then draws nearly straight backward a good distance, is it a foul as Scott contended, or is it a good shot, as Shane contended? I know in tournament play, the call is whether the cue travels more than halfway through where the object ball once occupied. However, in gambling I have consistently seen the players acknowledge it as a good shot if the cue is drawn backward. Any thoughts? How is it played in your part of the country? I was asked to make the call from the rail and I called it a good shot. I based my decision solely on what I have seen in actual gambling, even though the rulebook used in tournaments says otherwise. Was I right or wrong?
Another odd circumstance was that in the same match two balls were agreed to be so close together that if the cue ball went through it would be considered a foul. Scott shot and the ball did go through more than a foot, then stopped abruptly in the middle of the table due to the effect of draw bottom stroke, but did not travel backwards. There was absolutely no telling sound to convict of a double hit, just the presumption agreed to by the players. The players had previously agreed that this would be considered a foul. However, Shane noted that the ball did not travel backward, which seemed to say that the backward draw was possibly a deciding factor for deciding these matters (if they hadn't agreed beforehand).
These questions come up all the time in gambling. Should there be a definite rule for all to follow? Should the general rules of one-pocket prevail, even though gamblers seldom follow it in actual practice? All I can say is that the players need to decide beforehand which rule they will follow.
This also applies to the ball leaving the table rule, the jump shot rule, the three foul rule, and what constitutes cue ball fouls. On the latter, Shane called a foul when a ball in motion was touched inadvertently by Scott. Scott said it was not a cue ball foul, and I have to agree, so long as the cue ball was not involved. Of course, the other player could put the ball wherever he thought it should be. But the ball was part of the play, actually in motion, so at first I was leaning toward Shane. I'll let you decide.
Another odd circumstance was that in the same match two balls were agreed to be so close together that if the cue ball went through it would be considered a foul. Scott shot and the ball did go through more than a foot, then stopped abruptly in the middle of the table due to the effect of draw bottom stroke, but did not travel backwards. There was absolutely no telling sound to convict of a double hit, just the presumption agreed to by the players. The players had previously agreed that this would be considered a foul. However, Shane noted that the ball did not travel backward, which seemed to say that the backward draw was possibly a deciding factor for deciding these matters (if they hadn't agreed beforehand).
These questions come up all the time in gambling. Should there be a definite rule for all to follow? Should the general rules of one-pocket prevail, even though gamblers seldom follow it in actual practice? All I can say is that the players need to decide beforehand which rule they will follow.
This also applies to the ball leaving the table rule, the jump shot rule, the three foul rule, and what constitutes cue ball fouls. On the latter, Shane called a foul when a ball in motion was touched inadvertently by Scott. Scott said it was not a cue ball foul, and I have to agree, so long as the cue ball was not involved. Of course, the other player could put the ball wherever he thought it should be. But the ball was part of the play, actually in motion, so at first I was leaning toward Shane. I'll let you decide.
