Official BCAPL response
Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but I promised Jude an answer, and I will not fail in that promise. So Jude (and all) - ten weeks late and a dollar short, here we go...
The discussion that follows refers specifically to the diagram posted by Jude in post 28.
I am going to address it as if I had been called to the table to make a ruling, and as I would if I were anywhere up the chain from ref supervisor to TD, and a player or ref came to me looking for a ruling.
Clarifying and confirming my understanding of the situation: the contact with the 1-ball is accidental.
Ruling: Foul. 1-ball remains pocketed. BIH to offended player.
Reasoning: There is no room for doubt in BCAPL play. I simply go to BCAPL Applied Ruling 1.33, Disturbed Balls (Cue Ball Fouls Only):
"General Discussion: “Outcome of the shot” is considered to only mean the action of the balls on the table as a result of the immediate shot, and has no relation to the ending position of the table or any effect the ending position may have on the desires, strategy or intentions of the offended player.
The effect of the above statement is that, while extremely rare, it is possible that a foul may be committed under Rule 1.33.4 that results in the offended player being left in an undesirable position. While considering the effects of the rule, the BCAPL decided that the possibility of such an event was outweighed by the offended player (in most games) having ball in hand and the strategic advantages that are inherent with it.
If it can be determined that an offending player deliberately created a situation that was detrimental to the offended player by abusing the provisions of Rule 1.33.4, it may be considered to be unsportsmanlike conduct and the offended player may be awarded a remedy to counteract the offense."
That pretty much ends the discussion in BCAPL play.
Now – I could be cavalier enough to just make that statement and run. And in a tournament setting, that is exactly what I would do, since there is rarely time in a tournament setting to carry on a protracted discussion as to the reasons why any given rule was written the way that it was. (Even if there were time, it would be ridiculous for a referee or administrator to do so since, right or wrong, to do so accomplishes nothing but to undermine the position of authority.) No, during a tournament the expectation should be that the referees and administration have a set of rules to go by and that they will be followed. It would certainly be nice if the players had access to that information as well. Nice thing about BCAPL play – they do.
However, in this forum I occasionally have enough time to discuss those reasons and, I hope, enlighten the reader as to how the BCAPL rules ended up the way they are. So here we go…
There was considerable discussion when the BCAPL decided to limit the ruling of "accidental movement" (what we call "disturbed balls" under BCAPL Rule 1.33) to a single ball. Under the BCAPL rules, if more than one ball is involved it is automatically a foul. No discussion, no interpretation, no judgment, no nothin'. Foul. Period. In the end, the reasoning was actually simple (and anyone who has ever refereed extensively will appreciate it). After a ball has been disturbed, it is hard enough to decide where a single ball should be restored. The BCAPL simply decided that it was not going to try to decide where more than one ball should be.
Now consider another facet to the discussion. By rule, it is a foul when a disturbed ball contacts a ball set in motion as a result of the shot, or when a ball set in motion as a result of the shot passes through the area originally occupied by the disturbed ball. Under cue ball fouls only, it has been like that forever. But did you ever stop to consider why?
The reason is simple, though often overlooked. It is because, once the ball is disturbed, we have no way of knowing what would have happened if it had not been disturbed. There is absolutely no way to accurately predict, assume, extrapolate, deduce or calculate what would have actually happened. Therefore, we call a foul. Moreover, once we call the foul there is no restoration. How can you restore what you did not know to begin with??
The key point is that there is no way to know what would have happened. And that becomes the real crux of the matter, relevant to the situation at hand: absent of UC, you cannot penalize a player based on what
might have happened. As soon as you do that, you have opened the door to a never-ending parade of "what if", which there is absolutely no way to regulate consistently from ref to ref, game to game, match to match and venue to venue.
It is easy for the offended player to say, "THIS would have happened", but you don't really know. You just don't! You can scream, reason, calmly aver, or do whatever you want to, but you just don't know. It's easy to prove to yourself. Just ask yourself how many times you have watched the beginning of a shot and thought to yourself "THIS" will happen. Then it doesn't. And the first thing you think (or say to your teammate) is "I sure thought THIS would happen", or some version thereof. If any person reads this and denies that has happened to them, they are living in some other universe.
Another aspect to consider: as I stated in a different thread earlier, it is human nature for players – especially offended players – to want to attach extra significance to events that happen in an end-game situation or when they only have the game-winning ball left. However, that is flawed logic and, under the BCAPL's rules, is not defensible. Given the shot under consideration: if it had happened on the second shot of the game when there were ten other balls on the table, no one would be arguing for loss of game. They would just take BIH and go their merry way. But you can't, in good conscience, apply a rule one way at one time during the game, and then apply it a different way eight shots later, just because of the lay of the table.
Finally - the level of play is irrelevant. If it is a BCAPL event, it doesn't matter if it is two rank amateurs or SVB vs Archer. The rules will be applied exactly the same way.
If you steadfastly disagree with anything in this post, I cannot help you, and you and the BCAPL will just have to agree to disagree. If you have a different point of view then believe me - your side of the story has already received due consideration at some point during three years of discussions. I am not arguing personal opinion here. I am just stating the way the BCAPL rules are and trying to offer a little insight as to how they got that way.
I hope this has helped. At least when you play a BCAPL event, you know exactly what the ruling will be.
Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee (WOW!! very humbled to be promoted :grin: )
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/Rul...2/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 9.4.3 and 9.4.4 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.
* 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". 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 has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA.
* 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.
