When the rules run off the rails

[Bob Jewett]

In 1982 the rules for three consecutive fouls changed. Here is that section from the 1982 BCA rule book. A year or two later an explanation was added of what 20% meant for different game lengths, such as 15 points if the game was to 75. The option at the end is particularly interesting.

(If you click on the image, you can get a larger version.)

 

[alstl]

What exactly does "appropriate penalty deducted plus 20% of winnings generated" mean?

 

[Bob Jewett]

What exactly does "appropriate penalty deducted plus 20% of winnings generated" mean?

The wording is quite remarkable. It was clarified in later editions. It means one point for the foul plus 20% of the length of the game.

 

[garczar]

WTF?????????

 

[alstl]

The wording is quite remarkable. It was clarified in later editions. It means one point for the foul plus 20% of the length of the game.

If the option is BIH for the opponent I suspect most players would take BIH.

 

[Bob Jewett]

If the option is BIH for the opponent I suspect most players would take BIH.

For good ones, yes. They have to give up the 20% penalty which would be 30 points on 150. They would have to expect to run more than 30 with ball in hand.

 

[alphadog]

Seems I brought this 20% 3 consecutive fouls rule up years ago and I was told baloney!

 

[Bob Jewett]

Seems I brought this 20% 3 consecutive fouls rule up years ago and I was told baloney!

Well, it was gone within a few years so some might not have noticed it go by.

 

[DynoDan]

The wording is quite remarkable. It was clarified in later editions. It means one point for the foul plus 20% of the length of the game.

Likely they eventually realized that “winnings generated” could mean only points already scored (since that’s what the wording implies).
Also, I wonder what originally inspired the ’rule juggling’ that enlarged the 3-foul penalty? Maybe they thought straight pool was losing popularity because long, intentional-foul safety battles were boring spectators, and the BCA thus wanted to encourage more aggressive play (?)

BTW: Not-so-good players might choose the BIH option, even if “OBs in position” were still a solid pack. That would preclude your opponent from taking the initiative by accomplishing a successful ‘opening break’, and leaving you the choice between an intentional foul or likely disturbing/opening the rack with a long safety attempt (you could easily freeze the CB to a corner ball, and only brush it while lagging to the headrail).
If your opponent is good enough to runout, giving up the larger score penalties would still likely be preferable to leaving him any opening. But, taking 3 fouls yourself would just turn the tables, which might make for a very long game (both players with deep neg. scores). Likely why the option rule went away (?). Forcing the ‘re-break’ probably presents the best likelihood that a player will eventually get open.

 

[WildWing]

In 1982 the rules for three consecutive fouls changed. Here is that section from the 1982 BCA rule book. A year or two later an explanation was added of what 20% meant for different game lengths, such as 15 points if the game was to 75. The option at the end is particularly interesting.

(If you click on the image, you can get a larger version.)

View attachment 626255

Good post. I also find it interesting that bathroom or other breaks are not addressed in the rules of 14.1. I still laugh at Grady Matthews and Bill Incordona arguing about what the break rules were in 1989. Grady argued that you have a couple breaks, but if you take a bathroom break, that's a break as well, apparently adding to your other breaks. Billy argued, but probably didn't know. He wasn't playing. Grady was. Grady did admit that tournament holders do indulge their whims when holding a tournament.

All the best,
WW

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I also find it interesting that bathroom or other breaks are not addressed in the rules of 14.1....

Breaks have essentially nothing to do with how the game is played. The WPA puts such matters, like that and the time clock and the dress rules, into a separate area called "Regulations" that is kept separate from the rules. I think that division is good.

It is interesting that snooker has no rules or regulations about bathroom visits so far as I can tell. The players go between frames, generally, and if they really need to go during a frame, they just go.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... realized that “winnings generated” could mean only points already scored (since that’s what the wording implies). ...

That may be one way to interpret the words. I think it's not the only way. In any case, we are rid of that idiocy.

 

[JusticeNJ]

I like how it says you can remove the foul by either pocketing a ball or completing a legal safety, and then the next sentence says if the player fails to do either of those things, it's another point and the player is on two fouls. Does the definition of "safety" include a missed shot that does not result in a foul - even if the player doesn't call "safety?"

 

[zencues.com]

I like how it says you can remove the foul by either pocketing a ball or completing a legal safety, and then the next sentence says if the player fails to do either of those things, it's another point and the player is on two fouls. Does the definition of "safety" include a missed shot that does not result in a foul - even if the player doesn't call "safety?"

Yes, any legal shot, even a miss, resets fouls back to zero.

 

[JusticeNJ]

Yes, any legal shot, even a miss, resets fouls back to zero.

But the rule says something else. It says only two kinds of shots reset the fouls, and does not mention a missed ball as one of those shots. According to those two sentences, if you miss a ball while on a foul, it's another foul - even if the shot is otherwise legal (rail contact, no scratch).

Obviously you are right - but since we’re pointing out the language of this rule. Assuming that safety doesn’t also mean a missed ball.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I like how it says you can remove the foul by either pocketing a ball or completing a legal safety, and then the next sentence says if the player fails to do either of those things, it's another point and the player is on two fouls. Does the definition of "safety" include a missed shot that does not result in a foul - even if the player doesn't call "safety?"

Yes, that wording is also broken. It should have said something much simpler, like "If the player fouls on his next shot..." Part of the problem is that the writer is trying to provide description and instruction rather than just state the rule. That's why the rule is so long.

 

[alstl]

Likely they eventually realized that “winnings generated” could mean only points already scored (since that’s what the wording implies).
Also, I wonder what originally inspired the ’rule juggling’ that enlarged the 3-foul penalty? Maybe they thought straight pool was losing popularity because long, intentional-foul safety battles were boring spectators, and the BCA thus wanted to encourage more aggressive play (?)

BTW: Not-so-good players might choose the BIH option, even if “OBs in position” were still a solid pack. That would preclude your opponent from taking the initiative by accomplishing a successful ‘opening break’, and leaving you the choice between an intentional foul or likely disturbing/opening the rack with a long safety attempt (you could easily freeze the CB to a corner ball, and only brush it while lagging to the headrail).
If your opponent is good enough to runout, giving up the larger score penalties would still likely be preferable to leaving him any opening. But, taking 3 fouls yourself would just turn the tables, which might make for a very long game (both players with deep neg. scores). Likely why the option rule went away (?). Forcing the ‘re-break’ probably presents the best likelihood that a player will eventually get open.

Long intentional foul battles are similar to up table one pocket games. Yawnfest.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Long intentional foul battles are similar to up table one pocket games. Yawnfest.

If the rule change was intended to speed things along, it was ineffective. Rather than a deduction from the fouler, they should have made it an addition of the 20% to the seated player's score.

 

[alstl]

If the rule change was intended to speed things along, it was ineffective. Rather than a deduction from the fouler, they should have made it an addition of the 20% to the seated player's score.

I commend the effort to speed things up. Seems to me the best way to speed it up would be BIH on any foul other than cue ball scratching in a pocket.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I commend the effort to speed things up. Seems to me the best way to speed it up would be BIH on any foul other than cue ball scratching in a pocket.

I think a much better way is with a shot clock and specifically the chess clock style. That works well for straight pool, doesn't take any added personnel and has the added benefit of getting the guy who just missed back to his seat quickly.