Why Did The BCA Drop The Traditional Rack?

[dmgwalsh]

I think as a rule, we should always question something that doesn't make sense to us. The process would have been to contact the North American WPA representative --- John Lewis, at that time, and ask him to inquire about how the rule came about. John would have questioned Bob who was on the rules commmittee and would have found out and Bob did not encounter the change. So obviously it was changed outside of the committee.

If it was a mistake, it could have been corrected. If not, then I think it's important to find out who decided to make that change and why. If it was intentional, then maybe they didn't realize their logic was flawed and they needed to hear from someone who understood the game and it's logic better than they did.

Well, as I mentioned, it was the rule that was in effect when I came back to pool after a 25 year layoff and I certainly did not know that it was different from what had been in effect.

I guess that you or someone who had been in the industry for awhile might have been able to inquire and set the wheels in motion to change it back. I am guessing that is actually what happened and that they made the change the next time the committee met, but I bet you Bob Jewett would be in a pretty good position to tell us. There were leagues going at the time, in New York and probably out by Bob Jewett I think. I would guess that some of them read the rules that were in effect and noticed the change and did something about it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I am guessing that is actually what happened and that they made the change the next time the committee met, but I bet you Bob Jewett would be in a pretty good position to tell us. ...

The BCA Rules Committee had nothing to say about the change because that was when the BCA decided it no longer needed a Rules Committee. The BCA has not had a Rules Committee since about 2000. Currently the "WPA" Committee is charged with rules matters.

 

[dmgwalsh]

The BCA Rules Committee had nothing to say about the change because that was when the BCA decided it no longer needed a Rules Committee. The BCA has not had a Rules Committee since about 2000. Currently the "WPA" Committee is charged with rules matters.

This alphabet soup has my head spinning.

I thought it was the WPA that changed the rule and the WPA that changed it back in 2008. And that the BCA has to follow the WPA. I still do not understand how the change was slipped by the WPA in 2000.

 

[FranCrimi]

This alphabet soup has my head spinning.

I thought it was the WPA that changed the rule and the WPA that changed it back in 2008. And that the BCA has to follow the WPA. I still do not understand how the change was slipped by the WPA in 2000.

I don't understand either.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I don't understand either.

I think that the WPA didn't really have control of the situation until the process that produced the January 2008 WSR revision. Until then, most of the changes were actually originating in the BCA. I think that the WPA moratorium on changes (no more often than each 5 years) was a reaction to very frequent changes that happened from the creation of the WPA until 2006 or so.

 

[poolmouse]

As for why the rule disappeared, in the 2006 rules committee meeting pretty much everyone felt that the rule was a strange anachronism that was never observed in normal play.

When gentlemen/women play we always make sure the two corner balls in the rack are the most contrasty. Personally, I even make sure the ball number is straight up so it doesn't disrupt the visual curve of the ball.

Most gentlemen/women players genuinely want their opponent to play their best. Some folks rely on the few dollars they might win and are willing to do whatever they can to throw their opponent off. Including putting striped balls on the corners of the rack (or low contrast balls). I think that kind of attitude is one of the things killing the sport.

It's one of the biggest reasons I don't play much anymore. That, and the cigarette smoke that pollutes most poolrooms (still).

 

[9BallJim]

Why flawed?

I think as a rule, we should always question something that doesn't make sense to us. The process would have been to contact the North American WPA representative --- John Lewis, at that time, and ask him to inquire about how the rule came about. John would have questioned Bob who was on the rules commmittee and would have found out and Bob did not encounter the change. So obviously it was changed outside of the committee.

If it was a mistake, it could have been corrected. If not, then I think it's important to find out who decided to make that change and why. If it was intentional, then maybe they didn't realize their logic was flawed and they needed to hear from someone who understood the game and it's logic better than they did.

I've only been playing 14.1 for about 4 years and although I would rather play by the latest rules, I'm in a league that plays by the rules between 2000 - 2008 where you have the option after your opponent 3 fouls.

My question is, why is having the option a bad thing? I particularly like it.

 

[Michael Fedak]

I defer to Bob Jewett's logic and extensive historical knowledge, but, after invariably losing the opening lag, I still rack the the five on my left and the one on my right as a courtesy of "visibilty" for my opponent. Though, heaven knows, my opponents don't need any further advantages over me than they already have!

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I defer to Bob Jewett's logic and extensive historical knowledge, but, after invariably losing the opening lag, I still rack the the five on my left and the one on my right as a courtesy of "visibilty" for my opponent. Though, heaven knows, my opponents don't need any further advantages over me than they already have!

Why are your opponents taking the break after winning the lag from you?

 

[Michael Fedak]

Oops, right, it was a late post.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I defer to Bob Jewett's logic and extensive historical knowledge, but, after invariably losing the opening lag, I still rack the the five on my left and the one on my right as a courtesy of "visibilty" for my opponent. Though, heaven knows, my opponents don't need any further advantages over me than they already have!

I also usually do the bright balls on the corners thing, but if either player complains, the referee needs to rack the balls in random order, however he determines a random order.

 

[alstl]

In the original rules of 14.1 or close to them, the order in the entire rack was set with the 15 in front and then rows of stripes finishing with the 1-5 on the back row. I can't find the set of rules that requires the full arrangement right now, but here is what the rules said in 1914:

View attachment 200641

As for why the rule disappeared, in the 2006 rules committee meeting pretty much everyone felt that the rule was a strange anachronism that was never observed in normal play.

I agree with the rules committee. To prevent "offending" your opponent it is a good idea to rack it the old way, but if the poor guy can't see the edge of any ball other than the one or the five he has a major problem with his eyesight, or maybe he just likes to complain.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I agree with the rules committee. To prevent "offending" your opponent it is a good idea to rack it the old way, but if the poor guy can't see the edge of any ball other than the one or the five he has a major problem with his eyesight, or maybe he just likes to complain.

It's similar to racking at one pocket, where the tradition is to rack light-colored balls in front. Some players take great offense if you are careless and happen to get the 8-6 in front. It doesn't make any difference to me if I'm breaking, but I try to "rack right" for my opponent. Probably the best visibility at one pocket is given by the 10 in front and the 8 just behind it.

 

[sfleinen]

It's similar to racking at one pocket, where the tradition is to rack light-colored balls in front. Some players take great offense if you are careless and happen to get the 8-6 in front. It doesn't make any difference to me if I'm breaking, but I try to "rack right" for my opponent. Probably the best visibility at one pocket is given by the 10 in front and the 8 just behind it.

Actually Bob, I get a lot of compliments (and gentlemanly nods) when I rack the 1 and 5 balls in the second row, with a really dark solid ball (e.g. 4, 7, or the 8) as the head ball for one pocket. The contrast between the head ball and the two brightest balls in the rack (second row) ensures easy sighting/aiming, and a "you can't complain about your break" situation for the opponent, or even myself in "rack yer own" situations.

I try to stay away from striped balls in any "breaking/contact position" in the rack. Sure, the gamblin' types want to obscure your aiming point in the rack by selecting balls colors/contrasts that match each other (e.g. the 8 & 6 situation you mention), or else throw a stripe in there (with the stripe aligned a specific way) to throw you off. But again, I like to do the gentlemanly thing whenever I can.

-Sean

 

[zencues.com]

2010 - 2011 BCA Rules

2010 - 2011 BCA Rules

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook.aspx

Page 48 (Adobe PDF file) 14.1 Racking Rules 6.2 The Rack

6.2 The Rack
For the opening break, the balls are racked as follows (see Figure 6-1):
a. in a triangle with the apex ball on the foot spot;
b. the rows behind the apex are parallel to the foot string;
c. on the row at the rear of the rack the 1-ball must be on the corner to your right and the 5-ball must be on the corner to your left;
d. all other balls are placed randomly. Figure 6-1

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

2010 - 2011 BCA Rules

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook.aspx

Page 48 (Adobe PDF file) 14.1 Racking Rules 6.2 The Rack

6.2 The Rack
For the opening break, the balls are racked as follows (see Figure 6-1):
a. in a triangle with the apex ball on the foot spot;
b. the rows behind the apex are parallel to the foot string;
c. on the row at the rear of the rack the 1-ball must be on the corner to your right and the 5-ball must be on the corner to your left;
d. all other balls are placed randomly. Figure 6-1

That isn't the BCA rule, it is the BCAPL rule. But it is nice to see Mark Griffin's group adheres to the traditional rule. The BCA (Billiard Congress of America) follows the WPA World Standardized rules and there currently is no requirement to rack the 1 and 5 in the corners.