What is your ruling?

selftaut

selftaut

straight pool nut
Silver Member
On occasion I get called to make a ruling in one of the 14.1 leagues, sometimes its a no brainer that the players should know and sometimes its not. Here is one that came up last night.

Player A has player B on 2 fouls, the second foul by player B was a scratch. Player A has ball in hand behind the headstring and puts the cue ball inside the one of the corner pockets behind the headstring and rolls the cb lightly to freeze in the jaws so player B has to shoot from behind the point. Player B asks for a ruling , does player A with cb in hand behind the headstring HAVE to shoot so that the cb crosses the headstring or not?

Whats your ruling?
 
Yes he has to cross the line in order for the shot to be valid, just placing the cueball in the corner pocket is not allowed.

gr. Dave
 
Yes as Dave said its not allowed. To elaborate the way we've always played it. The players inning is not over until the cue ball crosses the headstring, but touching the cue ball with the cue tip is in and of itself a foul.

I was told once that the action constitutes and intentional unsportsmanlike conduct foul of 15 + 1 points but I've never played that way as a house rule.
 
Memories

I saw Gary Penkowski as a joke set the rock in the corner pocket and push it into the shim-freeze. It was funny if you were with Gary because he laughed so loud. He said "I think I pushed it." The other guy was furious. Gary said "That's a foul ain't it?"
"You can't do that"!
"Well if I push it I take a foul?"
k you Gary.
They were friends. Gary was still laughing when he took his shot.
"You didn't have to get so mad, it was funny".
Nick :)
 
nick serdula said:
I saw Gary Penkowski as a joke set the rock in the corner pocket and push it into the shim-freeze.
Click to expand...

Good grief! Your story about Pinkowski got the smoke coming out of my ears. Did you, at one time, go by the nickname of "Onions"??
 
I think this is just a regular foul for -1 point, not an intentional for -16.

Players will routinely get into a safety battle where they intentionally foul, and it's just -1. I don't see why doing this very mean trick with the point (rather than an object ball) should make it any different. If it happened by good luck on the part of a fouling player, he doesn't get any special penalties.
 
CreeDo said:
I think this is just a regular foul for -1 point, not an intentional for -16.

Players will routinely get into a safety battle where they intentionally foul, and it's just -1. I don't see why doing this very mean trick with the point (rather than an object ball) should make it any different. If it happened by good luck on the part of a fouling player, he doesn't get any special penalties.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, that one foul is proper. The important thing however, is that the inning for the player is not over until the cue ball crosses the headstring line. So corner hooking the opponent who is on a scratch or two is a moot point, he must shoot over the headstring for the game to continue. If he miscues again without crossing the headstring HE is on two ... and so on. :)

Or .. the most common way of course is no foul at all for the person who is attempting the corner hook, simply tell them, forget about that and cross the headstring.
 
selftaut said:
... Whats your ruling?
Click to expand...
It's a foul and the cue ball remains in hand for his opponent. I'd have to check the new proposed WSR, but they might have an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for that move.

In any case, you have to shoot the cue ball over the line when you have ball in hand. If you take a shot that does not do that, it will remain in hand for your opponent. Some say, "the shot doesn't start until the cue ball crosses the line." They're wrong, including for the break shot. The shot starts when the tip hits the cue ball.
 
what if?

i think the only way he could shoot the cue ball behind the line directly leagelly is to put it on the head spot to shoot. just like leaveing the cue ball in the rack with a ball behind the spot after racking the balls at the end of a rack. other wise the cue must go over the head spot . i think it would be and unsportsman like penalty of 15 balls...but i have never seen this move i my 45yrs. of strait pool! very interesting!!!!
 
Why would a player do anything like this?

This was a shark test. No one passed. It works like this. You are playing a hot head for big beans. He is a monster player but is known to dog when he is angry.
Many top players have this weakness.
Gary was playing mind games. He knew if the guy got hot it didn't matter how good he played when he was level headed because he was a big dog when his temper flaired up!
It was a no shot. He took a scratch. The guy gets up there and fires at a break shot from behind the string and well missed by a mile. Big suprise!
Gary beat him but the table had nothing to do with it. It was like he beat his brains out with a hammer!!
Because Gary was laughing the whole time the guy couldn't stay mad at him. Hard to get mad stay mad at a good natured fellow. Especially when he has all your beans,looks you dead in the kisser and says hay how bout I buy you a nice steak!! Where is the best steak house around here? I thought you had me.
Sound familiar?
I have to admit this memory has me smiling.
Nick :)
 
this just came up 2 nights ago for me...

I learned that I shouldn't scratch for a 2nd foul, my opponent did this to me (we are friends). I shot out of the jaws and made a good hit thankfully. I guess it does have to cross the headstring and I should have gotten BIH. oh well.

and to summarize...

If a player has BIH behind the headstring, if it does not cross the head string and has struck the ball with his/her tip, the incoming player has BIH behind the headstring? (regardless of being on 2 fouls or not)?
 
Last edited:
OneArmed said:
and to summarize...

If a player has BIH behind the headstring, if it does not cross the head string and has struck the ball with his/her tip, the incoming player has BIH behind the headstring? (regardless of being on 2 fouls or not)?
Click to expand...

Nope, the player that attempted the move and touched the cb without crossing the headstring took a foul by touching the cb with his tip and now has to shoot again with BIH until he crosses the headstring or commits 3 fouls.
 
selftaut said:
Nope, the player that attempted the move and touched the cb without crossing the headstring took a foul by touching the cb with his tip and now has to shoot again with BIH until he crosses the headstring.
Click to expand...

ahh ok, thanks for the clairification.
 
Bob Jewett said:
In any case, you have to shoot the cue ball over the line when you have ball in hand.
Click to expand...

Just to be picky (and complete), if the cue ball contacts a legal object ball, the cue ball does not have to cross the head string. (Ref: WPA rule 3.10, last sentence)

-- jwp
 
I wonder about the cue tip foul...

The cue ball must pass over the head string in order to complete a legal shot.

According to some posters here...and apparently according to WPA Rule 3.10...the player with ball in hand does not have to make the cue ball pass the head string.

I don't know if there is a BCA 14.1 Rule Book anymore but I would like to see it there. The quoted WPA rule is among many rules that apply to many games.

I'm going by memory here...but it seems to me that nothing is in play until the cue ball crosses the head string...except possibly unsportsmanlike conduct.

I can see a table position where a player with ball in hand behind the string might want to deliberately foul twice in a row in order to force his opponent to take the first shot over the head string.

For instance, the player might have ball in hand but an almost complete rack...maybe a few balls near the foot rail...and a hanger in each of the pockets behind the head string.

By taking two deliberate scratches, he will be forcing his opponent to take the first shot over the head string because he will be the first player on two scratches.

I don't know really...just seems to me that nothing happens until the cue ball passes the head string...at least that's my BCA memory from way back...

Mike
 
Mike,

As far as I can tell, the BCA no longer has an independent set of rules; the WPA rules now govern pool (to the extent that anybody pays attention to them).

Rule 3.10 applies in the case under discussion because the 14.1-specific rules do not address it. This is true in the current WPA rules, and in a 2001 version of the BCA rule book. In the latter, it is also Rule 3.10 and the last sentence of the last paragraph says explicitly

Additionally, if the shot fails to contact a legal object ball or fails to drive the cue ball over the head string, the shot is a foul ....​

Consider this case:

You have cue ball in hand above the head string. There is an object ball with its base (where it contacts the table) below the head string, but it is near enough to the head string that part of the ball hangs over the head string. By definition, this object ball is legal to shoot. Suppose you choose to shoot this object ball with a stop shot, and you pocket it. Is that a foul because the cue ball didn't cross the head string? I don't think that's the intent of the rule.

-- jwp
A patriot must always stand ready to defend his country from its government. -- Edward Abbey
 
Last edited:
jwpretd said:
Mike,

As far as I can tell, the BCA no longer has an independent set of rules; the WPA rules now govern pool (to the extent that anybody pays attention to them).

Rule 3.10 applies in the case under discussion because the 14.1-specific rules do not address it. This is true in the current WPA rules, and in a 2001 version of the BCA rule book. In the latter, it is also Rule 3.10 and the last sentence of the last paragraph says explicitly

Additionally, if the shot fails to contact a legal object ball or fails to drive the cue ball over the head string, the shot is a foul ....​

Consider this case:

You have cue ball in hand above the head string. There is an object ball with its base (where it contacts the table) below the head string, but it is near enough to the head string that part of the ball hangs over the head string. By definition, this object ball is legal to shoot. Suppose you choose to shoot this object ball with a stop shot, and you pocket it. Is that a foul because the cue ball didn't cross the head string? I don't think that's the intent of the rule.

-- jwp
A patriot must always stand ready to defend his country from its government. -- Edward Abbey
Click to expand...


it would still be a legal shot by definition as it contacted a legal object ball. There is an "if" clause so either a legal ball has to be hit or cueball must pass the head string. At least that's how I read it.
 
selftaut said:
Nope, the player that attempted the move and touched the cb without crossing the headstring took a foul by touching the cb with his tip and now has to shoot again with BIH until he crosses the headstring or commits 3 fouls.
Click to expand...
This is false. There is no such rule. (Or if there is, there has been a misprint in the rule book.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top