What's Your Ruling? BCA 8-ball

[tatcat2000]

Quick official response...

Ruling was correct. At work now, will dissect this thread later. Lots of good advice here. But I'll basically be quoting the BCAPL book...it's all there already for anyone intersted enogh to read it, including the appropriate Applied Rulings. I'll also fill in a little background info on why the combo/bank/kick/etc rules are written the way they are.

Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

My first match I was playing a guy who was a first year player out in Vega$. Second game, he has his last ball on the table and the 8. He banks his ball cross side. He didn't call it. He knew he was banking it cross side. I knew he was banking it cross side. I didn't call a ref over and ask for a foul. I did tell him after the game that unless the shot is straight in, he should make sure he calls it cause another opponent might call it on him.

And you know what? I really wished the world were filled with people just like you. I like playing the game this way, myself. I think 'intent' should always mean something and one should recognize that the rules are there to establish fair play, not for the sake of manipulation. Interestingly though, manipulation can occur in many forms here and I think many of the people who have responded in this thread have illustrated that point well.

 

[cleary]

Show me the rule that defines every obvious shot, please.

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 a "called shot game", anything that isn't an obvious cut shot needs to be called. His shot is the same as missing a ball, it goes around the table 37 rails and in a pocket. His inning is over in a called shot game.

 

[8pack]

So, in one of my matches at the BCAPL, I had an unusal situation come up. In an obvious attempt to play safe, I combo'd a ball into the side pocket. I nestled the cueball right behind the 8-ball forcing a kick for either me or my opponent, depending on who had to shoot next.

My opponent immediately got up out of his chair and said, "I didn't hear you call safe." I replied, "I didn't call anything and combos need to be called." I immediately got a ref to decide. To be honest, I had no clue which way the ruling would go and both of us seemed content with whatever the ruling was.

Before I reveal what the BCA ref had to say, I was wondering what you think the ruling SHOULD be. Perhaps one of the BCA head refs can offer an opinion here.

Well they probably let you get away with the chicken sh!t move.
You done confessed to(I nestled the cueball right behind the 8-ball forcing a kick for either me or my opponent, depending on who had to shoot next.)
Why are you and so many others like this?

 

[TheNewSharkster]

Yeah, I read the rule in red, too. What is ambiguous about that is not all combos, banks or caroms have any chance at creating confusion.

The rule does not explicitly say that 'all combos must be called'.

I believe that is what they meant, but it is NOT what they said.

The problem arise with the use of the term obvious. Something can be obvious and a combo. There are many cuts that are ambiguous--on monday I had a shot that I could play in two pockets. One pocket was nearly straight in, the other was a near 90deg cut about 3' away. I took the 90deg cut. Was it obvious? I doubt it, because the reason I took it was because there was a tiny chance I would run into trouble the other way. Did I call it? No, because I didn't figure anyone would argue because it was a cut.

The BCAPL rules are, unfortunately, pretty poorly written. If the want every combo, kick, carom or bank to be called, then they need to explicitly say so, not allude to it.

dld

If the opposing player decides not to call his/hers shots then you have every right in the world to ask for clarification. In the example the TC gave his opponent should have asked what the call was.

 

[tatcat2000]

The BCAPL rules are, unfortunately, pretty poorly written. If the want every combo, kick, carom or bank to be called, then they need to explicitly say so, not allude to it.

If you mean World Standardized Rules, which Cleary quotes, I sympathize with your statement. If you really mean BCAPL rules, which apply to the OP situation, a little more research might help your analysis.

The following excerpts are from the BCAPL Rule book. (The numbering on some will change a little on 6/1 when the new edition comes out, but the wording in the new edition has not changed):

From the introductory material - "A note on Sportsmanship and Communication":

When playing call shot games, remember that shots defined as not obvious must be called. There are no exceptions under any circumstances, regardless of how simple or obvious the shot may appear.

From the definition of "Combination Shot":

1. A shot in which the cue ball first contacts a ball other than the called ball, followed by that ball then contacting the called ball or other object ball(s) which then contact the called ball.

From the definition of "Obvious Shot":

A shot in which the non-shooting player has no doubt as to, or does not question, the called ball and the called pocket. The following types of shots are exceptions and are defined as being "not obvious":

a. bank shots;
b. kick shots
c. combination shots;...

Rule 1-16-3:You must always call shots that are defined as not obvious. This rule applies regardless of whether or not your opponent asks about the shot, and regardless of how simple or obvious the shot may appear.

Rule 1-16-6: If you do not call a shot defined as not obvious and you pocket any ball on such a shot, your inning ends and the incoming player must accept the table in position.

From the Applied Ruling for "Safety", excerpted from a discussion of a situation similar to the OP shot, thus leading to contention:

In many situations like this, the unintentionally pocketed ball is the result of a shot that is defined as not obvious. Such shots do not apply to this problem because they must be called.

Bold emphasis added in all cases. If there is anything still not clear, please let me know, so we may consider further clarification in the next edition.

Again, the OP situation has nothing to do with WSR. As promised earlier, more later...:smile:

Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee
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/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/Default.aspx

* Unless specifically stated, 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.
* Unless specifically stated, 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.
* 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 9.5.3 and 9.5.4 and the BCAPL Rules "Statement of Principles" apply.
* For General Rules, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, and 14.1 Continuous: 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" for those games. The BCA has no rules committee. 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".
* Since 2004, there is no such thing as a "BCA Referee". The BCA no longer has any program to train, certify or sanction billiards referees or officials. The BCAPL maintains what we consider to be the most structured, complete and intensive referee training program available.
* The BCAPL has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA. The letters "BCA" in BCAPL do not stand for "Billiard Congress of America, nor for anything at all.
* 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.
* All BCAPL members are, as always, encouraged to e-mail Bill Stock at the BCAPL National Office, bill@playcsi.com, with any comments, concerns or suggestions about the BCAPL rules.

 

[PGHteacher]

Both camps have exactly the same problem IMHO the people who say “isn’t it obvious what I was doing?” and the “hey you didn’t call it so I am going to say YOU are not following the rules so YOU should be penalized”. The problem is egocentricity plain and simple and the more of it you have the more likely you are to either try to manipulate the rules or think that the rules shouldn’t apply to you in a particular case.

But it is obvious that the guy knew your intention was to play safe but in his mind “YOU didn’t follow the rules” so you should be penalized. In your mind it was absolutely obvious what you were doing so “why call it?” here is why because not to causes problems with some people. I could be a smart*** and say something like “yea the word safe is really difficult to pronounce, takes away from you concentration and is an all around pain to utter” to me an “uncalled shot” is more of a distraction to me than calling the shot., That is probably why I run into this problem every so often because I call everything when the person doesn’t hear me they think they can “get over on me”.

If BOTH of you had “checked your egos at the door” this wouldn’t have happened; the ref need not have been called over, play could have continued as any normal shot and both of you would have felt better about the outcome of the match. The RESULT is exactly what should have happened but the situation need not have arisen in the 1st place.

I ask you a very simple question “why did you NOT just call SAFE?” what could the reason possibly be? And if you say “because the rules say IF IT’S NOT OBVIOUS” I will say then just call every shot that could possibly be construed as being NOT obvious to anyone anywhere anytime; and no that is not the same thing; an “obvious” shot to a SL7 is NOT an “obvious” shot to an SL2.

Exactly what happened is exactly what should have happened but if everybody would just “follow the rules” these situations would very rarely come up but from my observations in life most people think that either they don’t need to follow the rules because they are stupid or that they can get over on the rules because they think that they are smarter than everybody else. The people that “just follow the rules” (like me) are the smallest camp.

There is no simple solution like “just call everything” because you will always have jack a**h**** who will say “hey I didn’t hear you call ___” because he is trying to “get over” on you. For me calling everything has been the best solution to everything in most situations. The call (in call shot games) is part of my pre-shot routine. It doesn’t always work but it ends in the fewest problems.

 

[oneballeddie]

I disagree

And you know what? I really wished the world were filled with people just like you. I like playing the game this way, myself. I think 'intent' should always mean something and one should recognize that the rules are there to establish fair play, not for the sake of manipulation. Interestingly though, manipulation can occur in many forms here and I think many of the people who have responded in this thread have illustrated that point well.

First of all both players broke the rules. Bank shots are never obvious and must always be called. The fact both players decided to ignore the rules out of perceived "sportsmanship" or "courtesy" sets up all kinds of future arguments with both of them.

 

[oneballeddie]

Half right

What on earth are you talking about? A combo is not an obvious shot... even if it's hanging in the hole, by the rules, its not a obvious shot. As far as a safety goes, you don't have to call a safety. A missed shot could be a safety. At the same time, if you make a ball and didn't call it... your inning is over. In this case, Jude made a ball he didn't call (because he didn't intend to make it). So his inning is over. In 9ball, yes, it would still be Jude's shot. But 9ball is a slop game...

You must call every shot that is not obvious. You must also call a safety if you plan to pocket a ball that would otherwise be considered an obvious shot.

 

[Raider510]

Good information

 

[Luxury]

Jude, you screwed up. Anytime a ref rules in your favor but tells you that you should change the way you play going forward then you obviously did something wrong.

Because of these rules that you can shoot a combo then if you end up hooked you can force your opponent to shoot then your opponent should force you to sit down after making the most obvious combo without calling it.

Doesn't matter how honest Jude is. You have to have rules that prevent cheaters from prospering. Because there ARE cheaters all around you in pool.

I totally believe Jude was not trying to cheat but if I made a mistake and did what Jude did I would honestly have kept shooting.

 

[Luxury]

By the way, I was in a gambling match where I made a point of shouting, "Safe!" for my opponent and all spectators to hear because I knew my opponent made moves and I knew both of us would be hooked after I made my ball and even though all the spectators confirmed I'd called safe my opponent made me keep shooting because I didn't get confirmation from him.

I was ahead in the set and knew he would have refused to pay if he didn't get his way so I kicked and won the set anyway. Cheaters are all around you. I'd say 30% of players will play dumb after they have fouled on a very close hit.

 

[watchez]

First of all both players broke the rules. Bank shots are never obvious and must always be called. The fact both players decided to ignore the rules out of perceived "sportsmanship" or "courtesy" sets up all kinds of future arguments with both of them.

Post fail.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Jude, you screwed up. Anytime a ref rules in your favor but tells you that you should change the way you play going forward then you obviously did something wrong.

Because of these rules that you can shoot a combo then if you end up hooked you can force your opponent to shoot then your opponent should force you to sit down after making the most obvious combo without calling it.

Doesn't matter how honest Jude is. You have to have rules that prevent cheaters from prospering. Because there ARE cheaters all around you in pool.

I totally believe Jude was not trying to cheat but if I made a mistake and did what Jude did I would honestly have kept shooting.

I understand what you're saying but on the flip side, especially in 14.1, there are plenty of safeties where a ball is pocketed and it's obvious. It's so obvious that it need not be called. It's like a push shot in 9ball. Have you ever had your opponent push without calling it and then take ball in hand? I know that I should have called safe. It would have avoided the whole thing BUT that doesn't take away from the fact that a. the safe stood and b. it is customary for many "called shots" to go uncalled.

 

[Luxury]

Sorry if I sounded like a dick, Jude. I was drunk which is no excuse.

 

[CreeDo]

Everyone should just be gentlemen (or women) and not try to weasel a win on a technicality. I take no pleasure in declaring myself the winner of a match/set/tournament when I know I didn't actually outshoot the other guy.

 

[oneballeddie]

Calling Shots in Bank Pool

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..

True, except in bank pool where the details must be called too.

 

[JoeyA]

So, in one of my matches at the BCAPL, I had an unusal situation come up. In an obvious attempt to play safe, I combo'd a ball into the side pocket. I nestled the cueball right behind the 8-ball forcing a kick for either me or my opponent, depending on who had to shoot next.

My opponent immediately got up out of his chair and said, "I didn't hear you call safe." I replied, "I didn't call anything and combos need to be called." I immediately got a ref to decide. To be honest, I had no clue which way the ruling would go and both of us seemed content with whatever the ruling was.

Before I reveal what the BCA ref had to say, I was wondering what you think the ruling SHOULD be. Perhaps one of the BCA head refs can offer an opinion here.

If you pocketed YOUR combo'd object ball in the side pocket, it is YOUR shot, regardless of what your intention was. I've seen cue balls do strange unintended things. I think your opponent was right and the fact that you said you didn't call anything (including safe). The combos need to be called statement is kind of weak for a player of your caliber. It sounds like you were trying to justify not calling a safety. I don't blame you for trying but I wouldn't like it if you pocketed your ball, didn't call a safe and then tried to tell me that combos have to be called. That's a move imo but hey, it's not a down and dirty move. It put you in a murky situation instead.

 

[JoeyA]

On another thought, your opponent might have thought you were just trying to hang YOUR combo'd object ball up in the hole instead of pocketing it.

 

[oneballeddie]

Huh?

If you pocketed YOUR combo'd object ball in the side pocket, it is YOUR shot, regardless of what your intention was. I've seen cue balls do strange unintended things. I think your opponent was right and the fact that you said you didn't call anything (including safe). The combos need to be called statement is kind of weak for a player of your caliber. It sounds like you were trying to justify not calling a safety. I don't blame you for trying but I wouldn't like it if you pocketed your ball, didn't call a safe and then tried to tell me that combos have to be called. That's a move imo but hey, it's not a down and dirty move. It put you in a murky situation instead.

How can we still have this confusion? If you fail to call a combination shot, no matter how obvious it is, it is your turn to sit down. Inning fini.

A lot of this dialogue talks about "intentions" and "sporstmanship" which is irrelevant if you are playing by the rules. I would have called "safe" before executing the shot simply as a courtesy to the other player. But Jude is correct according to the rules. He did not call what his opponent could try (unsucessfully) to argue was an obvious combination and what he describes as an obvious safety. Doesn't matter - he sits down because he did not call the combination. By the rules there is no such thing as an obvious combination.

I thought the part about the ref warning him to call these safes in the future was amusing. If the warning means the ref might rule against him next time, then the ref is wrong and not enforcing the rule properly. If the ref is reminding him it would be more courteous to explain his intent before the shot then I agree.