WPA rules regarding using the cue ball as a measuring device

MattPoland said:
...

This is an area I think the BCAPL rules are significantly more explicit and make it clear what is and is not allowed. Usually in scenarios like this I highly respect whatever Bob Jewett has to say on the matter. It’s always wise and logical. It’s just a bummer WPA rules don’t have explicit wording to reinforce that perspective.
Click to expand...
The problem with explicit wording is that some player/lawyer will look at the list of forbidden things and come up with something you didn't think of. It's impossible to guess how inventive players will get. One word: Deuel.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The problem with explicit wording is that some player/lawyer will look at the list of forbidden things and come up with something you didn't think of. It's impossible to guess how inventive players will get. One word: Deuel.
Click to expand...

I get the concept of what you are saying. But pool has been around long enough that we know most of the obvious things. We’ve seen that interaction where Karl Boyes tried to place the cueball in a tight (reasonable) position and referee Ken Shuman called foul on him for “measuring”. Karl objected that he wasn’t measuring but was willing to accept the ruling of the ref as final. Ken recognized the possibility of Karl genuinely attempting to place BIH and overruled his original foul judgment even though Karl struggled to recognize the ref was allowed to do that.

Meanwhile that entire interaction occurred on the big stage and isn’t just a “rules lawyer” situation. It could have been resolved by an explicit rule being created that allowed cues, hands, and cueball (in hand) to be used as measuring devices while prohibiting all other instruments, e.g. chalk, bridges, and other devices. A rule like that would have been reasonable.
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
The problem with explicit wording is that some player/lawyer will look at the list of forbidden things and come up with something you didn't think of. It's impossible to guess how inventive players will get. One word: Deuel.
Click to expand...
This is obviously true and the reason the final rule should be:

If questions about the application of any rule, section of a rule, wording of a rule, or grammar used within the writing of a rule, OR should other unforeseen issues with a rule arise -- please contact Bob Jewett directly at 555-236-5252.
 
Rule tangent:

What if I don't have a free hand for whatever medical reason to place the cue ball down, can I use a technology assist to hold and put the ball down?

The question boils down to is the hand a measuring device.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I think it is not a good idea to restrict where a player may place the cue ball when it is in hand other than to forbid touching any ball in play.

Why not let the player use it as he chooses? I think that avoids arguments. "He was measuring!" "No, I was thinking of playing it from there."
Click to expand...
I agree. I had BIH & none of my options were good. One option was to play through a tight gap, not great but I thought I should at least check it before ruling it out. Placed the CB near the gap, immediately saw that it wouldn’t pass through & picked the CB up to look for something else. My opponent called a foul saying I was using the CB to measure. I didn’t try to place the CB into the gap, I placed it on the cloth a few inches away from it & used eyesight to confirm it wouldn’t pass.
 
generally a rule isnt needed if it is available for both parties to use. so why not allow it as either player can measure with the cueball in hand.

just like if a player is about to make a close hit. and the opponent says that ball wont go. why cant they measure it so no argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top