What's the ruling

[Jude Rosenstock]

Actually, the rule as stated from the WPA rulebook does cover this.

World Pool-Billiard Association
World Standardized Rules

http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules#20

20. Cue ball fouls only
If there is no referee presiding over a match, it may be played using cue ball fouls only. That is, touching or moving any ball other than the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the shot by either touching another ball or having any ball, including the cue ball, going through the area originally occupied by the moved ball. If this does not happen, then the opposing player must be given the option of either leaving the ball where it lies or replacing the ball as near as possible to its original position to the agreement of both players. If a player shoots without giving his opponent the option to replace, it will be a foul resulting in cue ball in hand for the opponent.

When the six hit the side of the cue, it bounced back into the area it previously occupied, and therefore did change the outcome of the shot. Although it is not technically in the spirit of the rule as far as the possibility of having another ball come into the area that the ball was supposed to have been in.

Now, here is another way to handle it. If your opponent does not agreee it is a foul (being a rather bad sportsman, I would say), then you take the option to replace the 6 ball where you "think" it was.

In the middle of the table at the worst possible angle.

Just kidding, just kidding. I would simply stick to my guns and tell my opponent, "Hey, I know it is cue ball fouls, but you changed the outcome of the shot. It's a foul. It's ALWAYS a foul when you change the outcome of the shot and the ball can't be replaced."

Rss

This is precisely what I mean by the need for a more thorough set of rules. The scenario described by the OP is a foul. Why is it a foul? Because in any event that has a WPA referee, he's going to call it a foul. The description for rule that you cited is simply incomplete. I mean, I understand some of this has to do with role of the WPA versus BCA and what ever happened to the BCA rules but the fact is, in the US, most WPA events are BCA events. The referees are BCA referees. The book they're citing is much bigger than this page you linked us to.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The description for rule that you cited is simply incomplete. ...

In what way is it incomplete? What would be a better wording?

 

[Tom In Cincy]

The BCA adopted the World Standard Rules set by the WPA rules committie in 1998 as a pre-requisite for Olympic consideration. The BCA got out of the rules making business, but still sells the rules books and refers to them as World Standard Rules.

BTW the rule PJ cited is correctly written. It is just the incorrect rule to apply to this situation.

The BCA League rules are separate from the BCA and WSR.

The WSR, currently does not have any rules for 'Cue ball fouls only' tournaments. The USA seems to be one of the very few countries that does not use Refs and All Ball Fouls.


And to stay on topic, it is a FOUL to touch a moving ball.

This is precisely what I mean by the need for a more thorough set of rules. The scenario described by the OP is a foul. Why is it a foul? Because in any event that has a WPA referee, he's going to call it a foul. The description for rule that you cited is simply incomplete. I mean, I understand some of this has to do with role of the WPA versus BCA and what ever happened to the BCA rules but the fact is, in the US, most WPA events are BCA events. The referees are BCA referees. The book they're citing is much bigger than this page you linked us to.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

In what way is it incomplete? What would be a better wording?

This is the BCA Rulebook:

3.21 FOULS BY TOUCHING BALLS
It is a foul to strike, touch or in any way make contact with the cue ball in play or any object balls in play with anything (the body, clothing, chalk, me- mechanical bridge, cue shaft, etc.) except the cue tip (while attached to the cue shaft), which may contact the cue ball in the execution of a legal shot. Whenever a referee is presiding over a match, any object ball moved during a standard foul must be returned as closely as possible to its original position as judged by the referee, and the incoming player does not have the option of restoration. (Also see Rule 1.16.1)

The WPA rules can't stand on their own. There is an assumption of greater understanding of the game of pool. For example, no where on this rules page http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules#20 does it specify what a legal jump shot is. For all I know, I can scoop the cueball all day.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

WAIT,

I found something. I have to go over this page more thoroughly. The correct citation for the example given by the original poster is rule 6.6.

6.6 Touched Ball
It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of any object ball except by the normal ball-to-ball contacts during shots. It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot. The shooter is responsible for the equipment he controls at the table, such as chalk, bridges, clothing, his hair, parts of his body, and the cue ball when it is in hand, that may be involved in such fouls. If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

There is a whole section on fouls. I'll go over it during my free time today. Perhaps all is covered.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Jude,
I don't know why you didn't find this, but it clearly covers your area that you say it doesn't cover.

8.16 Jump Shot
A jump shot is one in which the cue ball is made to go over an intervening obstacle such as an object ball or part of the cushion. Whether such a shot is legal depends on how it is accomplished and the intention of the shooter. Usually a legal jump shot is played by elevating the cue stick and driving the cue ball down into the playing surface from which it rebounds.

http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_def#8.2

This is the BCA Rulebook:



The WPA rules can't stand on their own. There is an assumption of greater understanding of the game of pool. For example, no where on this rules page http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules#20 does it specify what a legal jump shot is. For all I know, I can scoop the cueball all day.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This is precisely what I mean by the need for a more thorough set of rules. The scenario described by the OP is a foul. Why is it a foul? Because in any event that has a WPA referee, he's going to call it a foul. The description for rule that you cited is simply incomplete. I mean, I understand some of this has to do with role of the WPA versus BCA and what ever happened to the BCA rules but the fact is, in the US, most WPA events are BCA events. The referees are BCA referees. The book they're citing is much bigger than this page you linked us to.

The rule covers this situation:

"...touching or moving any ball other than the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the shot"

The rule covers situations, like this one, where an object ball that's "part of the shot" (i.e., that's moved or would be moved absent interference) is moved or interfered with, changing the outcome of the shot.

Maybe you mean it's incomplete in another way?

pj
chgo

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Jude,
I don't know why you didn't find this, but it clearly covers your area that you say it doesn't cover.

8.16 Jump Shot
A jump shot is one in which the cue ball is made to go over an intervening obstacle such as an object ball or part of the cushion. Whether such a shot is legal depends on how it is accomplished and the intention of the shooter. Usually a legal jump shot is played by elevating the cue stick and driving the cue ball down into the playing surface from which it rebounds.

http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_def#8.2

Actually, the rule I just cited is probably better for both examples. The layout of this website is a little confusing but I'm getting it now. Thanks.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

WAIT,

I found something. I have to go over this page more thoroughly. The correct citation for the example given by the original poster is rule 6.6.

6.6 Touched Ball
It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of any object ball except by the normal ball-to-ball contacts during shots. It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot. The shooter is responsible for the equipment he controls at the table, such as chalk, bridges, clothing, his hair, parts of his body, and the cue ball when it is in hand, that may be involved in such fouls. If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

There is a whole section on fouls. I'll go over it during my free time today. Perhaps all is covered.

This would be "all ball fouls", but "cue ball only fouls", which is permitted when there's no referee, is what the OP asked about.

pj
chgo

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

The rule covers this situation:

"...touching or moving any ball other than the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the shot"

The rule covers situations, like this one, where an object ball that's "part of the shot" (i.e., that's moved or would be moved absent interference) is accidentally moved, changing the outcome of the shot.

Maybe you mean it's incomplete in another way?

pj
chgo

Hey PJ,

Refer to rule 6.6. This is more applicable. This is not a cueball fouls only situation. It's slightly different.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

This would be "all ball fouls", but "cue ball only fouls", which is permitted when there's no referee, is what the OP asked about.

pj
chgo

I can see how this can be interpreted that way but I'm not sure you're right.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This is not a cueball fouls only situation. It's slightly different.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting Neill when he said: "I want to say cb fouls only".

Anyway, IF it's CB fouls only, then I think the originally quoted rule covers it.

pj
chgo

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting Neill when he said: "I want to say cb fouls only".

Anyway, IF it's CB fouls only, then I think the originally quoted rule covers it.

pj
chgo

Agreed but rule 6.6 is not necessarily the "all ball fouls" rule by default. It covers scenarios that the other rule doesn't. Regardless which rule is cited, the end result should still be foul (which I think we both agree on).

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

In response to PJ,

The point is, what's the ruling and how do you justify your opinion. Well, both of these rules don't permit it.

Rule 6.6 encompasses a lot and Regulation 20 doesn't say it is to overrule Rule 6.6 in whole or even in part. It makes no reference to Rule 6.6. However, Regulation 20 only refers to leaving the balls "where it lies" or restoration of original position. That's an assumption that the ball wasn't in motion when it was disturbed. That's why I think Regulation 20 doesn't apply here.

 

[Neil]

...............

 

[poolboy17]

I apppreciate all the answers given. I think we all agree it should be a foul, but the actual ruling can be rather tricky in a situation like this.

Last weekend, in the MPT tour mini, I was playing Jason Kirkwood. I had a layout very similar to this. I tried to get shape on the 5 to make it in the side off the 6, thereby opening up the 6 for an easier shot. I got out of line and froze to the rail for the 5. Tried to draw off the 5 to avoid the scratch and ended up jumping the cb off the table. Cost me the set, as he won that game and the next. I lost 7-5.

I played several scenarios through my head on what I could have done different, and what the outcomes might have been. This is just one of them. I figured that if I had made the 5 in the side without touching the 6, and was able to come around 3 rails towards it, I might have been stuck with this shot.

So, I then thought out several possibilities on what to do then. This was one possibility. And I saw the potential problem with it. I did try it out on my table. Most times I didn't hit the 6 a second time. But if I left my stroke stretched out for a hair to long, it would contact the shaft, totally changing the outcome for the next shot. (Incidentally, the carom turned out to be a fairly high percentage shot.) And I got to wondering about the actually ruling on it, and wasn't sure just what to back up a foul call with.

Thanks again for all the replies! This has been an interesting scenario, and again shows a need for rules clarification. Merry Christmas to all!:thumbup:

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are describing here and would probably have to see it demonstrated on a table. However, i can tell you one thing, if the reaction of the ball was different when you stretched your stroke out...you are either pushing thru a ball or double hitting it. In either event it would be a foul. Again, I'd have to understand your scenario clearer to know for sure.

 

[Neil]

...................

 

[uwate]

Thanks for this thread, its been an interesting discussion. On a similar vein, I see people breaking and they stay down a hair too long and a ball hits their stick. I dont see this called as a foul much. Most of the time if the ball their cue hits is not anywhere near the cueball, the people say "Cueball fouls only".

 

[poolboy17]

Thanks for this thread, its been an interesting discussion. On a similar vein, I see people breaking and they stay down a hair too long and a ball hits their stick. I dont see this called as a foul much. Most of the time if the ball their cue hits is not anywhere near the cueball, the people say "Cueball fouls only".

I've seen it too but it's clearly wrong. No ifs ands or buts about it...it is a foul. Touching a ball in motion is a foul regardless of whether it is your cue, some part of your body or something you bring to the table. It doesn't matter if its the cueball or any numbered ball.

I once saw in a regional tournament where a guy broke and his cigarettes flew out of his shirt pocket and landed on the table. A ball hit it and it immediately became a foul.

 

[mbvl]

Who cares! "Cue ball fouls only" is for ball-bangers. Real cue-sports don't have rules like this. In the UK snooker championship this past week Marco Fu lost in the final by a single frame. He lost an early frame because his clothing touched a ball. Ask Marco Fu if he would rather play "cue ball fouls only", and he would laugh in your face.

Mark