What's the Ruling?

[desmocourtney]

Okay, I'll state this again. I'm not really sure why anyone is hung-up on the specifics of the diagram. I was simply illustrating a point. I can create a shot that falls under this category and I'm sure I can figure-out a way to manufacture a break-shot from it. I can also record it, post it to youtube and provide the link here. OR, you can go to a poolroom and try it yourself. Why is it so important that someone prove it can be done? It can be done. So long as the angle is greater than 90 degrees (which it is), it falls under the paradigm of acceptable angles and even then, others have proven you can go beyond this threshold. From there, you have speed and spin that can get you to the rack. Does it change anything if I move the balls around and get a break from it? Does it change anything if I have to go two rails? I don't think so. I think the point of the discussion remains intact.

I have an interest in extreme cut shots. That is all. Relax.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I have an interest in extreme cut shots. ...

Well, in that case, two points:

The shot as drawn looks to be only 90 degrees so it's possible. With ball in hand I'd put the cue ball down for an easier shot, though.

The position for the smallest cut angle on a "back cut in/out of the kitchen" shot would give about a 40 degree cut, so not bad at all but it wouldn't be breaking along the path shown.

 

[pdcue]

The diagram is meant to illustrate a point. The specifics of actual ball placement shouldn't really matter. You have BIH in the kitchen. If you get the cue ball to cross the head string, what rule says I can't cut a ball in the kitchen?

That would be the one that states it is a violation to contact an
object ball located in B-A-L-K, which this one obviously is.


Next.

Dale

 

[gibson]

I think this is going to be a tough call for a referee. I think 6.11 gives an option for hitting any ball behind the line if the cue ball passes the line before contact. On a cut shot most players would reference the rule on the placement of the object ball and not think of the cut as occurring forward of the line. Unless there is another rule, and you can prove the cue ball passes over the line before contact it should be a legal shot. What is the B-A-L-K rule?

 

[michael4]

It's your last sentence that sort of makes my argument. It's about where the base of the ball actually lies. When it's out of the kitchen, the entire ball is regarded as out. You may play it any way you want, regardless of whether or not the cue-ball passes the line because the ball is playable.

But, when the ball is in, it does not possess the entire properties of where it lies because part of the ball can be out too. it's inconsistent. The entire ball should possess the properties for where it lies, just like if it were out of the kitchen.

I see where you're going with the inconsistency argument, but let me word it another way........."either the OB or the CB has to be out of the kitchen (at least for a while) for the shot to be legal." If OB is out, all is good. If CB is hit out of kitchen, any shot that takes place after that is also good. (its NOT that the OB is partially out of the kitchen that makes the shot legal, its that the CB went out of the kitchen before contact- same as for kick shots, etc)

I would argue the OB in the diagram does have 100% of the properties of the center of the OB, namely you cant hit ANY of it, UNTIL the CB is first out of the kitchen.

not arguing, just throwing it out there, good thread


EDIT - so what makes the original diagram unique? well, for a kick shot, the CB goes out of the kitchen (which already makes the shot legal), but then come back into the kitchen to make the shot. In the OP, the uniqueness is the CB leaves the kitchen (again making the shot legal at that moment), but doesnt need to come back into the kitchen to make the shot, thats the only difference...........

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

I see where you're going with the inconsistency argument, but let me word it another way........."either the OB or the CB has to be out of the kitchen (at least for a while) for the shot to be legal." If OB is out, all is good. If CB is hit out of kitchen, any shot that takes place after that is also good. (its NOT that the OB is partially out of the kitchen that makes the shot legal, its that the CB went out of the kitchen before contact- same as for kick shots, etc)

I would argue the OB in the diagram does have 100% of the properties of the center of the OB, namely you cant hit ANY of it, UNTIL the CB is first out of the kitchen.

not arguing, just throwing it out there, good thread


EDIT - so what makes the original diagram unique? well, for a kick shot, the CB goes out of the kitchen (which already makes the shot legal), but then come back into the kitchen to make the shot. In the OP, the uniqueness is the CB leaves the kitchen (again making the shot legal at that moment), but doesnt need to come back into the kitchen to make the shot, thats the only difference...........

I see your point. The sum of it is, prior to this rule, there was a clear distinction between what you can do with an object-ball based on whether it was ahead or behind the line. What's more, the moment the shooter's intention is revealed, the sitting player can question if the ball was in or out prior to the shot and there would be a black or white ruling on what the shooter is allowed to do. Now, there's a gray area. Do gray areas exist in sports? Absolutely but usually, those gray areas carry greater significance.

For the record, I'm also a big fan of baseball rules. Part of what I think is most beautiful about the rules is the balance. There are 27 outs which is evenly divisible by 9 (the number of players). Each position gets a minimum of 3 at-bats unless, of course, you're in the American League, then there's a designated hitter. Obviously, the "balance of baseball" has been tilted a little and truth be told, I like the DH rule and it doesn't really change the beauty of the game.

The same is true here. In my opinion, this new definition of the head-string is inconsistent. If I were told to write the new rule book for 2015, I would not allow this gray area but that's just my personal belief. Does it take away from the beauty of 8-ball or 14.1? Absolutely no. In fact, there's a reasonable chance most players, even if they were aware of the rule, would rarely (if ever) take advantage of it. Although the initial point of this thread was to discuss whether this rule was written poorly (since I figured hitting a ball behind the head-string wasn't allowed), I think it's been a nice healthy intellectual exercise for us. As well, I think it's good when we give Bob Jewett something to think about.

 

[poolmouse]

I think it's been a nice healthy intellectual exercise for us. As well, I think it's good when we give Bob Jewett something to think about.

Tap, tap, tap...and not once did anyone ask "How long would it take Michael 'Time Bandit' Wong" to make that shot?"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

So, at the time I posted this, I also wrote the WPA, providing them a link to our discussion. They wrote back and said the rule will be revised. I'm not sure if this means the ruling will stand and there will be new language offering more clarity OR if they mean it will revert to the "classic" interpretation of the head-string.

Either way, this is a great result of this discussion.


Personally, I think the WPA should move away from a rule"book" and, instead, utilize their website more. Any new language should show examples with diagrams or videos, perhaps links to articles that scrutinize exactly what a given rule means. I thought Bob Jewett's article about this ruling was absolutely perfect and I really do feel articles of that nature should be posted on their site.

Our game isn't taught through a rule-book. In the beginning, most of us learned the rules crudely only to be awakened once we ventured into more treacherous waters. Even then, after we've learned the real rules, there are moments when our personal interpretation muddles how we interpret the written ones. We have enough great people in our ranks who have already provided tons of material to access. When Joe has an argument with Bob while they're hovering over the table, Joe should be able to pull-out his iPad and look it up and be certain he understands what the WPA meant.

 

[poolmouse]

So, at the time I posted this, I also wrote the WPA, providing them a link to our discussion. They wrote back and said the rule will be revised. I'm not sure if this means the ruling will stand and there will be new language offering more clarity OR if they mean it will revert to the "classic" interpretation of the head-string.

Either way, this is a great result of this discussion.


Personally, I think the WPA should move away from a rule"book" and, instead, utilize their website more. Any new language should show examples with diagrams or videos, perhaps links to articles that scrutinize exactly what a given rule means. I thought Bob Jewett's article about this ruling was absolutely perfect and I really do feel articles of that nature should be posted on their site.

Our game isn't taught through a rule-book. In the beginning, most of us learned the rules crudely only to be awakened once we ventured into more treacherous waters. Even then, after we've learned the real rules, there are moments when our personal interpretation muddles how we interpret the written ones. We have enough great people in our ranks who have already provided tons of material to access. When Joe has an argument with Bob while they're hovering over the table, Joe should be able to pull-out his iPad and look it up and be certain he understands what the WPA meant.

BCA seems to have info on this scenario posted, along with an image showing three possible positions:

http://www.playbca.com/Leagues/Rules/ItsAllAboutTheRules.aspx

 

[zencues.com]

Once again. This was my point on page 2 of this thread. There are at least two different sets of rules on this issue... this is just a single small example of why billiards doesn't do well as a sport overall. The rules are different just about everywhere you go.


The BCAPL rule book is filled with drawings explaining the rules and decisions. Fig. 5 shows its clarification of legal and illegal shots with ball in hand in the kitchen. On the left, the cue ball C2 is shot to the left side rail with a lot of low left. It hits outside the kitchen and then returns to sink the 4-ball at pocket B. This is a legal shot. In the middle position, the cue ball C3 is in the kitchen and so is the 1-ball. The cue ball leaves the kitchen and then contacts the 1. This is a foul. The cue ball must contact a cushion or ball outside the kitchen before it is allowed to hit a ball that is in the kitchen. At the right, the cue ball C1 is in the kitchen but the 3-ball is not, even though part of the 3-ball lies in the kitchen. This one is legal. Pictures like these really promote clarity.

The BCAPL diagram above shows/explains the rule on shooting from the kitchen.