Weird rule discussion

D

delarge

Banned
Let's say you are playing somewhere and there is a no jump policy. Ok, you have a shot on say the 1 ball and you are near the rail, you are strait in on this one ball. There is perhaps a ball snookering you from hitting the one full and making it, but you need to draw back anyway. Since you are on the rail you jack up to draw back and as a result the cueball may leave the table slightly and barely jump the side of the interfering ball. but the argument being if the interfering ball wasn't there you would have shot the shot exactly the same so it's not really a jump shot, it's just you "seeing" you have a lane there when you put the desires stroke on the ball.

so if that made any sense it will be interesting to hear the opinions.
 
delarge said:
Let's say you are playing somewhere and there is a no jump policy. Ok, you have a shot on say the 1 ball and you are near the rail, you are strait in on this one ball. There is perhaps a ball snookering you from hitting the one full and making it, but you need to draw back anyway. Since you are on the rail you jack up to draw back and as a result the cueball may leave the table slightly and barely jump the side of the interfering ball. but the argument being if the interfering ball wasn't there you would have shot the shot exactly the same so it's not really a jump shot, it's just you "seeing" you have a lane there when you put the desires stroke on the ball.

so if that made any sense it will be interesting to hear the opinions.
Click to expand...

Or you might jack up to masse around the blocking ball, which would probably also cause a jump, but the CB wouldn't actually jump over the blocking ball...

pj
chgo
 
it's a lot more common to see jump cues banned than jump shots...

i figure, if you can do it with your playing cue, no one should stop you.

-s
 
steev said:
it's a lot more common to see jump cues banned than jump shots...

i figure, if you can do it with your playing cue, no one should stop you.

-s
Click to expand...

I agree. There should be a lot of clarification between jump shots and jump cues. Really, How many guys pop the cue ball off of the table during a break? It that a jump shot?
 
I understand that fully, I was just making the point that the ball comes of the table on a lot of occasions. The shot in question, imo, should not be legal if the rules said, "No Jump Shots."
 
Jallan said:
I understand that fully, I was just making the point that the ball comes of the table on a lot of occasions. The shot in question, imo, should not be legal if the rules said, "No Jump Shots."
Click to expand...


I have to agree with this one. Not that I like it though. I know exactly what you're trying to describe. You just need to jump a hair to get past that interfering ball and the cue ball is going to get some lift anyway because you're jacked up on the rail. If that ball wasn't there you may have an argument but since the rules stipulate "No Jump Shots" then that would be considered a jump shot. If it wasn't there it's not considered a jump.
MULLY
 
delarge said:
... the cueball may leave the table slightly and barely jump the side of the interfering ball. ...
Click to expand...
At some point it is simply not possible to tell whether the cue ball went over the edge of the object ball. That makes the "no jumps" rule problematic. I think it is sufficient for such rooms to go by: no jump cues, and no jumps by miscuing or scooping. I think there will be fewer "earnest discussions" that way.
 
One of the pool halls I play in used to have that rule in their tournaments. They had a secondary rule about not jacking up past 45 degrees. That seemed to clarify it a little more, but I agree with Bob that the rule is inherently problematic.
 
akinnyz said:
One of the pool halls I play in used to have that rule in their tournaments. They had a secondary rule about not jacking up past 45 degrees. That seemed to clarify it a little more, but I agree with Bob that the rule is inherently problematic.
Click to expand...

I play in a weekly tournament that has this same rule. I have been in a similar situation to the OP where I was jacked up on the rail and had to pull off a rediculous draw shot. I called over the tournament director and he allowed me to shoot the shot even though I was well over 45 degrees. I shot the shot and the CB did come off the table naturally before drawing back. His logic was that I'm not actually jumping any obstructing ball using a 45 degree angle. I think the rule needs to just be thrown out all together. Just allow all jumps, masse, etc.

-J Chao
 
follow shot "jump"

delarge said:
Let's say you are playing somewhere and there is a no jump policy. Ok, you have a shot on say the 1 ball and you are near the rail, you are strait in on this one ball. There is perhaps a ball snookering you from hitting the one full and making it, but you need to draw back anyway. Since you are on the rail you jack up to draw back and as a result the cueball may leave the table slightly and barely jump the side of the interfering ball. but the argument being if the interfering ball wasn't there you would have shot the shot exactly the same so it's not really a jump shot, it's just you "seeing" you have a lane there when you put the desires stroke on the ball.

so if that made any sense it will be interesting to hear the opinions.
Click to expand...
The cue ball "jumps" on every follow shot (see HSV B.13). So with no-jump rules, should follow shots also be prohibited? :frown:

Regards,
Dave
 
The only time I see a jump shot not being allowed is if the room owner/manager set that rule to protect the tables. Same thing for those little pads I have seen places hand out to use when breaking. I think every single pool has has one of the signs "no gambling, no masse, no jump shots". If no jump is in a tournament, well that's a bit weird, although I hear the APA does not allow jump shots (or even elevated cues).
 
Rules violation vs. House Rules

Note that the APA (our chapter at least) makes a clear distinction between APA rules and house rules.

In particular, they state that violating a house rule (that isn't otherwise against APA rules) is not to be considered a foul in the APA match. As a practical matter, the house might kick you out, and you would then have to forfeit the match, but the violation isn't itself a foul.

Seems to make sense...
 
hang-the-9 said:
I hear the APA does not allow jump shots (or even elevated cues).
Click to expand...

Actually, APA has no rule on cue elevation, and they do allow jump shots, just no jump cues. You can shoot a jump shot but you have to use your full shooting cue. If you are using a cue that will break down, you cannot break it down to make the shot. Also in the rule book it states that local house rules get first priority, so if the house says no masse or jumps, then you are not allowed to do them.

As akinnyz stated, in the APA Masters division, jump cues are allowed.

Back on topic:

I would have told the opposing player your intention before the shot, as it is a questionable shot with the blocking ball. Then if they want to have someone watch the shot to make sure you do not actually jump the other ball, it would be a legal shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top