whats the call?

[tatcat2000]

Maybe Buddy Eick can tell us the reasoning behind the BCAPL rule against it.

Once again - Calling a ball and calling a safety is not prohibited in BCAPL play. Let's see if I can put it in a nutshell.

In BCAPL 8-Ball:

• ALL shots except the break are called shots. We simply forego the formality of verbally expressing the obvious ones;
• calling a safety simply puts conditions on the shot - specifically that you will not shoot again. It is still a called shot;
• there is no rule prohibiting calling a safety on an open table;
• a ball pocketed on a safety is defined as an illegally pocketd ball;
• On an open table groups can only be decided by a legally pocketed ball;
• therefore, groups cannot be decided on a safety.
• at least at the BCA/BCAPL nationals, this ruling has not changed since at least 1998.

I am done speculating or making even casual comments on this issue concerning the 2008 WSR or any other rule set. It's all in my previous posts. (I really should not have done it in the first place.):smile:

Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee (WOW!! very humbled to be promoted. )
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".
* 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.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

a ball pocketed on a safety is defined as an illegally pocketd ball

It's the reasoning behind this that I wonder about. What unfair advantage is gained by allowing a legal called shot and a safety on the same shot?

Called safeties exist specifically so the player can choose to stop the inning while pocketing a ball in what would otherwise be a legal fashion - if the player doesn't pocket a ball in a legal fashion there's no need for a called safety; the player can simply play safe silently. So since the inning is stopped by calling the safety it seems unnecessary and arbitrary to also say the ball is illegally pocketed - unless there's some other reason for doing so.

pj
chgo

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

It's the reasoning behind this that I wonder about. What unfair advantage is gained by allowing a legal called shot and a safety on the same shot?

Called safeties exist specifically so the player can choose to stop the inning while pocketing a ball in what would otherwise be a legal fashion - if the player doesn't pocket a ball in a legal fashion there's no need for a called safety; the player can simply play safe silently. So since the inning is stopped by calling the safety it seems unnecessary and arbitrary to also say the ball is illegally pocketed - unless there's some other reason for doing so.

pj
chgo

I think you guys are forgetting, this isn't a debate. There is actually a right and wrong answer to this. You want the right answer, you can view tatcat's response (or any of mine).

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think you guys are forgetting, this isn't a debate. There is actually a right and wrong answer to this. You want the right answer, you can view tatcat's response (or any of mine).

What makes your answer "the right answer" where BCAPL rules don't apply? The VNEA rule you quoted doesn't address this situation specifically.

And I'm not debating what the BCAPL rule says, just asking for the reasoning behind it to help me judge whether it's a good rule.

pj
chgo

 

[GADawg]

I think you guys are forgetting, this isn't a debate. There is actually a right and wrong answer to this. You want the right answer, you can view tatcat's response (or any of mine).

Right again.. The rules are the rules, like them or not.

I think maybe some of the confusion here comes from the fact that obvious shots do not have to be called verbally and players sometime confuse that with the mistaken notion that the shot is not then a called shot. It is still a called shot, but the call is silent because it is obvious.

When you call "safe", it is the same as saying " I am not calling a ball and a pocket" and any ball that is pocketed is not "legally pocketed" because the shot is not called. Even if it is a ball sitting in the jaws where no verbal call would be required, when you say "safe", it is the same as saying "I am not calling that ball in that pocket". This applies on any called safe in eight ball and the safe call overrides anything else you might want to do.

On an open table, groups can only be decided on a called shot into a called pocket, whether verbally announced or not. Calling "safe" is a declaraton of not calling any ball in any pocket and no matter what goes in, it does not count and the table is still open. You can't do both. That is the rule, like it or not.

I participated in a discussion on another forum several years ago on exactly this same subject where I asked the original question. I think it was Fran Crimi who finally explained it so I could understand.

 

[stumpie71]

It would still be an open table while playing under BCA rules. I'm not cpu savvy (so I can't provide the quote or link) but at the bottom of the BCA rules from tatcat 2000 it has a rulings section at the bottom. This situation is covered in there (2.5) and it states that safeties are illegally pocketed balls and as such can not determine solids or stripes. However the other rules I have read VNEA I believe, this would be a legal shot while calling a pocket and safety in the same shot. The shooter would then forfeit his/her turn. It all depends on the rules in which you are playing under it seems.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

What makes your answer "the right answer" where BCAPL rules don't apply? The VNEA rule you quoted doesn't address this situation specifically.

And I'm not debating what the BCAPL rule says, just asking for the reasoning behind it to help me judge whether it's a good rule.

pj
chgo

Are we dscussing rules or rule theory? As a player, I'm really only interested in rules. When I start my own 8ball league, I'll discuss rule theory.

 

[tatcat2000]

What unfair advantage is gained by allowing a legal called shot and a safety on the same shot?

In BCAPL play, none. The player's inning ends regardless. Which is exactly why there's no point in making the two mutually exclusive. (Oops - I slipped into commentary again. Sorry.)

Called safeties exist specifically so the player can choose to stop the inning while pocketing a ball in what would otherwise be a legal fashion - if the player doesn't pocket a ball in a legal fashion there's no need for a called safety; the player can simply play safe silently.

Exactly right. However, depending on the rule set there is a trap that a player could fall into. It is addressed in the BCAPL Applied Ruling for the definition of Safety and Obvious Shot. Better to call the safety even if you do not plan on pocketing a ball. If you do, you can never fall into the trap. Of course it's not designed as a trap. It's just another carryover from the old WSR that the BCAPL did not see fit to change. It's another whole can of worms for a different thread.

So since the inning is stopped by calling the safety it seems unnecessary and arbitrary to also say the ball is illegally pocketed - unless there's some other reason for doing so.

In the net effect of the whole thing, you are absolutely correct.

As I said earlier, it got this way because these were provisions carried over from the old WSR. As we find these questionable issues and constructions, the BCAPL is dedicated to reviewing them and taking action to correct them if deemed necessary. Having to wind your way through three rules and a definition is probably not the best way to get to the end.

For the BCAPL 8-Ball rule set, it would be just as easy to drop the whole "illegally pocketed ball" thing and simply add a provision to BCAPL Rule 2.6 that groups cannot be established on a safety. It would be much more simple and direct. However, in BCAPL play there is still no reason to make calling a shot and/or calling a safety mutually exclusive - see first paragraph.

As of now, I have put it on the agenda for the final review of the 2009 edition. Thanks to everyone for engaging in the BCAPL part of this discussion. Although there will likely be no substantive change in the effect of the rules in question, my gut reaction is that, by virtue of this thread, you have probably created a change to the wording of the book in the name of simplicity. Reps to PJ and JR.

Finally - apologies again for hijacking a VNEA thread. I assure you that it was not intentional nor did I start it.

Buddy

 

[Patrick Johnson]

When I start my own 8ball league, I'll discuss rule theory.

You're discussing "rule theory" when you express your opinion about how rules should be interpreted. Since there is no VNEA rule that clearly covers this situation, that's what you've done.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Buddy:
...by virtue of this thread, you have probably created a change to the wording of the book in the name of simplicity.

Thanks for helping with our understanding, Buddy. You seem like a clear thinker and a good choice for your important roles at BCAPL.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

GADawg:
The rules are the rules, like them or not.

And, like it or not, the rules (except BCAPL rules) don't cover this situation clearly.

When you call "safe", it is the same as saying " I am not calling a ball and a pocket"

This is your interpretation of the rules; it isn't clearly stated anywhere (that I can find) except in the BCAPL rules, and it isn't clearly the only logical interpretation either. If there's some clear unfair advantage gained by doing it or some other clear reason for prohibiting it, then I'd interpret the rules the same way, but I don't see that yet.

pj
chgo

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

You're discussing "rule theory" when you express your opinion about how rules should be interpreted. Since there is no VNEA rule that clearly covers this situation, that's what you've done.

pj
chgo

Patrick, I mean, I am simply concerned with how a situation will be ruled. I know how this will be ruled. You're the one who is discussing whether or not it's a good rule and the reasoning behind it. The original poster asked "what's the call" not "what's the reasoning behind this rule?".

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I know how this will be ruled.

If you say so.

You're the one who is discussing whether or not it's a good rule and the reasoning behind it.

In the case of VNEA I'm discussing how the rules are interpreted, since this specific rule doesn't exist there.

The original poster asked "what's the call" not "what's the reasoning behind this rule?".

OK, but both questions are valid here. People involved in writing rules read these discussions and even pay attention to them. Someone did in this very thread.

pj
chgo

 

[mdavis228]

This isn't an opinion. I've been to the VNEA Natl's in Vegas many times & I've seen this situation come up & be officiated.
Table open, Player A calls the 6 in the corner & calls safe & makes the shot as called. Player A has made a legal, called shot & has solids. It's Player B's turn, and he/she has stripes.
Been there, seen it. Can be a really devastating way to open the game.

 

[Danktrees]

No, it's not like that at all. Calling a ball and a safety at the same time doesn't double your chance of success.

pj
chgo

u misunderstand my comparison. my comparison isnt based on the "chance of success" my comparison is based on calling 2 shots at once. if u cannot do it in the situation i presented, then u cant do it anywhere. when u call a safety, that is ur call shot. same with when u call the 6 ball in the pocket. whether calling both shots is beneficial to u or not is irrelevant. the argument is that u cant call 2 shots at the same time, not whether doing so will increase ur chance of success.

 

[mjantti]

Because it's impossible to call both a ball and a safety in a same shot and as a referee wouldn't have time to make sure and ask which the player is calling, I'd pick the latter. The player is entitled to change his mind with the calling and by saying "the 6-ball and the safety" I would rule that he has played a safety whereas if he said "a safety and the 6-ball" I'd rule that he has called the 6-ball. IMHO the last call the player makes overrules all the previous contradicting calls. Then I wouldn't have to start reading the rulebook word by word to figure out if calling a safety will overrule other calls because there isn't anything written as far as I know. The WPA rules start with 1.1 Player Responsibility which tells that in the end the player is responsible for knowing the rules. If one doesn't, there is no one else to blaim but oneself. In an unclear situation which is not written down, the referee/TD has to make a call on this and it may be different with different referees/TD's/tournaments. But this is how I would rule it as an official referee.

Talking about WPA/EPBF here of course because I know the rules pretty well. And I think BCA uses WPA rules. I think this wouldn't be too bad of a solution for VNEA/APA either. Just my $0.02.

Interesting question btw...

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Danktrees:
...calling 2 shots at once. if u cannot do it in the situation i presented, then u cant do it anywhere

Says who?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

mjantti:
...it's impossible to call both a ball and a safety in a same shot

Says who?

pj
chgo

 

[mjantti]

Says who?

pj
chgo

I guess you don't like the word "impossible". According to the rules there is no scenario in which both can be called. Therefore if you want to play by the rules, you call either safe or a ball. If you decide to call both and the referee isn't sure of which you have called, there's nothing you can do but to accept the decision the referee/TD makes in this case (player responsibility). This is what I meant. It's not impossible, just plain stupid from the player not to call his intentions clearly.

Or perhaps I didn't understand your question ?

Quote from the official WPA rules:

"1.6 Standard Call Shot
In games in which the shooter is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant. Only one ball may be called on each shot.
For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.
In call shot games, the shooter may choose to call “safety” instead of a ball and pocket, and then play passes to the opponent at the end of the shot. Whether balls are being spotted after safeties depends on the rules of the particular game. "

The word "instead" in the last paragraph tells me that it's either a ball and pocket or a safety. No way to call both according to the rules.

 

[railfirst]

jude is right, you either have to call a shot or a safety. you cant pocket a ball when the table is open call safe and be the suit of the ball you made. If i was the referee i would rule the table is open and its player A's shot because the last shot that player B called was a safety.

Ben
BTW 1,000 posts!!!!!!!!!!!

stop arguing there is only one right answer. Jesus PJ youre almost as annoying here as on the NPR, give it a rest.


Ben