WPA Ball Size Regulations - is there a mistake???

Average Joes

Average Joes

New member
Hi Guys

Need some input from those in the know...

We're doing some ball reviews for YouTube, and looking at the WPA regulations specfically on size:

----

Recommended Equipment Specifications - WPA Pool

(Effective November 2001 ) 1. Purpose 2. Table Bed Height 3. Design 4. Slates 5. Playing Surface 6. Rail and Cushion 7. Height of the Cushion 8. Cushion Rubber 9. Pocket Openings and Measurements 10. Pocket Liners 11. Ball Return and Drop Pockets 12. Cloth 13. Fastening of the Cloth (Guidelines)...
wpapool.com wpapool.com

All balls must be composed of cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ¼ (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+ .127 mm)] in diameter and weigh 5 ½ to 6 oz [156 to 170 gms].

----

Now, it's a little confusing and so would like some clarification...

It says that balls must be 2 1/4", fine got that, and that the tolerance is .005"...

BUT it specifies "+.005" which would mean that you're allowed to go OVER (+) 2 1/4" by 0.005", but not below as there is no minus sign...

I would expect to see: +-0.005"

But they list only: +0.005"

Do you think they mean +- even though they don't have the minus sign???

Without a minus allowance none of the balls we are testing (including Aramith Tournament's) meet WPA specs as a set. So it MUST (surely!!?!??!!) mean the tolerance is plus or minus 0.005" which makes logical sense, but that's not what it actually says!

Does anyone here have experience of knowledge of this?
 
Yes, just shot them a message. Good thinking!

It's definitely a little confusing, and as mentioned before without the minus tolerance none of the ball sets we are testing would hit WPA specs, including Aramith Tournaments.

They give a nice definitive minimum and maximum for weight, but on size just the target size and allowable tolerance, but it reads that the tolerance only applies in one direction?

We'll see...
 
This issue with the WPA specs has come up before, all their specs are written that way, with the tolerance ranges stated as only the + side. I’ve ass-u-me-d that this is just a typo/omission and that they all should be read as ”+/-“. I think (but am not sure) that Bob Jewett has confirmed this interpretation. It would certainly be good to have clarity from WPA. Please be sure to close the loop here if/after you get official word from them. ✌️
 
Yes, will do. Agreed it is most likely +/- as that makes sense. When I get official word back from the WPA I'll be sure to post it here.
 
I suspect that the +- came up because the author was using a character set or coding different from what made it onto the web page. There is a single character in some character coding sets that is "plus-minus". Maybe this will show up on your screen, maybe not: ±

The worst pool-related example of this is the first edition of Eddie Robin's first book on one pocket where all of the non-standard characters -- like 1/2 written as a single character -- got changed into something else. Maybe it was an Apple/DOS compatibility problem.
 
Average Joes said:
Yes, will do. Agreed it is most likely +/- as that makes sense. When I get official word back from the WPA I'll be sure to post it here.
Click to expand...

What tool are you using to measure ball size? There are plenty of tooling needs around here who have built various contraptions for this purpose.
 
Average Joes said:
All balls must be composed of cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ¼ (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+ .127 mm)] in diameter and weigh 5 ½ to 6 oz [156 to 170 gms].
Click to expand...
Not related to the OP's question, but I'd like to see them tighten up the weight requirements to 6 ounces with a tolerance of ±.1 ounce or similar. Having it be a range from 5.5 to 6 ounces just seems like an awfully big unnecessary spread. Not that we we often see that much variance within a single set, or see any sets weighing 5.5 ounces very often either one, but even so if there is going to be a standard then it needs to be tight enough to make some sense.
 
Tightening the tolerances sounds simple and easy but manufacturing pool balls and keeping them
close to tolerance is the real challenge. Pool ball sets would need replacement much sooner & pool
halls aren’t inclined to do that. The current specs work but I’ve criticized the variation in weight that’s
allowed for over a decade on the Forum, primarily with lighter and heavier cue balls versus object balls.
3/8 oz. lighter cue ball plays different as would any cue ball that much heavier than the object balls. The
diameter requirement is less worrisome than object ball weight variations and especially, the cue ball.
 
Bavafongoul said:
... Pool ball sets would need replacement much sooner & pool halls aren’t inclined to do that. The current specs work but ...
Click to expand...
The vast majority of pool balls in use on tables in bars and pool halls do not meet the current spec due to wear. They are nearly all smaller than spec. Making the manufacturing spec tighter is unlikely to change how pool halls operate.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The vast majority of pool balls in use on tables in bars and pool halls do not meet the current spec due to wear. They are nearly all smaller than spec. Making the manufacturing spec tighter is unlikely to change how pool halls operate.
Click to expand...
I question whether it even matters anyway, since I seriously doubt more than the top 1% or so of players would be able to tell the difference anyway.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The vast majority of pool balls in use on tables in bars and pool halls do not meet the current spec due to wear. They are nearly all smaller than spec. Making the manufacturing spec tighter is unlikely to change how pool halls operate.
Click to expand...
I would assume that tightening the specs would raise the price a good amount.
 
buckshotshoey said:
I would assume that tightening the specs would raise the price a good amount.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. In practice, tighter specs in any high precision field - simply equates to more stringent testing and lower production yield - not any improvement in engineering/manufacturing processes. That said, I think that applies to the size spec - I agree with @Poolplaya9's comments above on weight - 1/2 oz on a 6 oz ball is roughly an 8% tolerance - also seems inordinately large to me.
 
Average Joes said:
Hi Guys

Need some input from those in the know...

We're doing some ball reviews for YouTube, and looking at the WPA regulations specfically on size:

----

Recommended Equipment Specifications - WPA Pool

(Effective November 2001 ) 1. Purpose 2. Table Bed Height 3. Design 4. Slates 5. Playing Surface 6. Rail and Cushion 7. Height of the Cushion 8. Cushion Rubber 9. Pocket Openings and Measurements 10. Pocket Liners 11. Ball Return and Drop Pockets 12. Cloth 13. Fastening of the Cloth (Guidelines)...
wpapool.com wpapool.com

All balls must be composed of cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ¼ (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+ .127 mm)] in diameter and weigh 5 ½ to 6 oz [156 to 170 gms].

----

Now, it's a little confusing and so would like some clarification...

It says that balls must be 2 1/4", fine got that, and that the tolerance is .005"...

BUT it specifies "+.005" which would mean that you're allowed to go OVER (+) 2 1/4" by 0.005", but not below as there is no minus sign...

I would expect to see: +-0.005"

But they list only: +0.005"

Do you think they mean +- even though they don't have the minus sign???

Without a minus allowance none of the balls we are testing (including Aramith Tournament's) meet WPA specs as a set. So it MUST (surely!!?!??!!) mean the tolerance is plus or minus 0.005" which makes logical sense, but that's not what it actually says!

Does anyone here have experience of knowledge of this?
Click to expand...
its +/-. don't lose any sleep here.
 
garczar said:
HUH??? +/- .005 is pretty damn tight tolerances. has nothing go do with ball prices. modern phenolic balls are so good its almost scary.
Click to expand...
That's kind of what I meant. It would be meaningless and needlessly expensive to tighten the tolerances to say... +/- .002.
 
How many tournaments use a cue ball that didn’t come with the original set of balls?
Grams weight comparison is a more accurate gauge of weight and for comparisons.

A lighter cue ball, or a heavier cue ball, than the object balls can become a factor, IMO.
And with 7’ Valley tables in tournaments, the cue is often different from the original CB.

This allowable variance has existed for years and I suppose it’s more a topic for discussion
rather than enacting actual changes in sanctioned equipment specifications for pool balls.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I suspect that the +- came up because the author was using a character set or coding different from what made it onto the web page. There is a single character in some character coding sets that is "plus-minus". Maybe this will show up on your screen, maybe not: ±

The worst pool-related example of this is the first edition of Eddie Robin's first book on one pocket where all of the non-standard characters -- like 1/2 written as a single character -- got changed into something else. Maybe it was an Apple/DOS compatibility problem.
Click to expand...
It showed up on my screen but as a drafter I have seen the fractions get screwed up. Really pisses me off that a document intended for sharing needed fixing, ACAD should straight up not use those characters EVER!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top