Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What’s your take on this?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by NH Steve View Post
    Our rules did make an attempt at laying groundwork to define this sort of mistaken interference at what is thought to be the end of a game. From our rules:


    Just speaking from my heart, I believe I would have said replace the cue ball and carry on. Because the shooting player never did disturb any of the balls on the table, so they never violated the hard rule of disturbing "two or more" of the remaining balls (which would be loss of game for them). Both players disturbed the "soft rule" of reaching into the opponent's pocket. Player B took it one step further and picked up the cue ball. Technically that is only one ball disturbed so the balls go back and player A continues (granted, if it was player A). I don't think I would call a foul on player B because it was not their shot and there were extenuating circumstances. If player A had picked up the cue ball I would say they fouled, a ball spots and player B shoots. But simply based on both players seemingly having a hand in the kerfuffle so to speak, that would probably have been my off the top of my head ruling.

    But looking closely at our official rules, there is a definite penalty for player 'B' disturbing any balls at all, thinking the game is over -- highlighted in red above. So technically it looks like by our rules as written, player 'B' has conceded, basically like Dr. Bill noted.
    This is the first I've heard of this rule, but I'm good with it. If in a friendly game, I'll just respot the cue ball or replay the game, otherwise, I'm going with this rule. Thanks for digging it up.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Mkbtank View Post
      This is also my take. Lesson learned to count the balls before moving anything on the table. Sucks but even if it were me who did it I would accept it the loss and lesson.
      Period, as a seated player it's ''your job''.


      The seated player could of possibly won the game legally if he would of left opponent alone in his ball gathering, and then do the final count with his ''hands off'' approach. One you touch balls, it's an act of conceding.

      In 8 ball, if your opponent shoots your ball group and you don't inform him of the foul right away, then once he makes the second ball a foul cannot be called.
      Bill Meacham
      WBT
      www.worldbilliardtour.com
      no link....

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by jalapus logan View Post
        Conceding a game is inherently a willful act, therefore one can not unwillingly concede a game. Player B did nothing impulsive here, rather he acted on good faith that player A was correct, which he was not. Player A caused the confusion, player B finished it. It is my sense of fairness that the game should be replayed, so I agree with Ghost. If I were in either players shoes, I'd offer to replay the game. Just IMHO. Probably no hard and fast right or wrong here. Of course, if in tourney play, must go by the letter of the law, whatever that may be.
        Part of the reason the concession rule is in place, is that when the opponent accidentally or on purpose (they will almost always say accidentally -- even if you repeatedly see it from certain players lol), but when they make those moves it is generally a disruption of the shooting player's momentum, i.e. those moves have the effect of potentially sharking the shooter.

        I had a guy 40 years ago (back in the 9-ball days), who would very often reach for the rack, before I shot in the 9-ball. After I missed the 9 a few times, and knowing that it bugged me, but damned if I was going to acknowledge that to my opponent, I came up with what turned out to be a lucky genius solution. From then on when he did that, I stopped shooting, and began to reach into the pockets and pull out the other 8 balls -- but I did it subtly and carefully, so as not to disturb either the 9 or the cue ball. That forced his hand and he had to either go ahead and concede the 9 or learn that he needed to stay put if he wanted me to shoot the 9. I never really had that problem with him again!!

        Plus this has served me very well ever since with many other players -- including in One Pocket. (Although after one guy balked at conceding the last ball when that played out he did threaten to squash me like a bug when I followed up with something like, "Well, If you want me to shoot, you need to stay sitting in your seat and shut up.")

        Now Jeff's story makes me wonder just a little teeny bit -- did player 'B' happen to get up, reach for the cash, or say something prior to player 'A' taking the balls out? If he did, that exactly parallels the kind of thing I am talking about, and further reinforces why player 'B' gets the loss in Jeff's situation
        "One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
        -- Strawberry Brooks

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mkbtank View Post
          This is also my take. Lesson learned to count the balls before moving anything on the table. Sucks but even if it were me who did it I would accept it the loss and lesson.
          I did exactly that in a local tournament once -- I was the shooter and I mistakenly raked the last two balls thinking I was out, when in fact I still needed one. It knocked me out of the money. Lesson learned -- maybe lol.
          "One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
          -- Strawberry Brooks

          Comment


          • #20
            10.1 It is the responsibility of the shooting player to verify their own ball count as they approach their out ball, and the non-shooting player should avoid making comments about how many balls are needed. However, if the non-shooting player disturbs the balls, or breaks down their stick, or in the judgment of the acting official otherwise significantly disturbs the shooter in the assumption that the shooter is already out, such acts are considered a concession, and the shooter is considered to have won, regardless of whether a subsequent count reveals that more balls are needed. Likewise, if it can be verified that the non-shooting player’s mistaken statement of the number of balls needed leads directly to the shooter pocketing said number of balls and the assumption of the game being over, then the shooter wins, even if it is subsequently determined that the non-shooting player’s statement of balls needed was in error.

            10.2 If the shooting player disturbs only one of the remaining balls on the table under their own mistaken assumption that the game is over, play continues under the terms of rule 6.1. However, if the shooting player disturbs two or more of the remaining balls in play on their own mistaken assumption that the game is over, then it is the shooting player that forfeits the game.

            Players should refrain from moving or removing balls from their opponent’s pocket or scoring tray for any reason, except to spot a ball following a scratch or to sufficiently clear a pocket to permit entry of additional balls for an impending shot, and should only do so with respect for their opponent’s scoring preferences.
            Rule 10.1 doesn't really apply here. The non-shooting player did nothing on his on volition. He was acting on information attested to by the shooting player. It would have been a concession only if the non-shooting player decided on his own that the shooter was out, and then subsequently picked up or raked balls.

            In this example the shooting player was wrong on two counts. He mistakenly announced that he was out, then he removed balls from his opponent's pockets. His actions caused the opponent to believe that the shooting player was out, and to pick up the cueball. Obviously the shooting player should have removed balls from his own pocket in order to demonstrate that he was out.

            In a formal tournament game it should be ruled loss of game against the shooting player. In a private match, if the non-shooting player was willing to replace the cueball, then I think most contestants would simply continue the game.

            ~Doc

            Comment


            • #21
              This little exercise is a perfect example of what is wrong and frustrating with so many aspects of our lives in society today in this country.

              Everybody has an opinion, and is very happy and willing to express it and then to defend it whether it makes any sense, whether it has any logic or not, whether it is in direct contradiction to a previously considered and established rule.

              There is no longer any truth to be found, there is only opinions ensconced in dogma stemming from self importance (my opinion is just as good as your opinion) thinking. Even when confronted with the written rule which contemplated the exact situation, opinions will continue to be argued.

              In this little example it is for the most part inconsequential, but consider this same situation as it applies to something like, say, immigration.

              Asking a question like this, as innocently as it may have been asked, prior to looking to see if there is already an established rule that directly addresses the situation, only gives license to people to opinionate and muddy the water, garanteeing that some going forward, when confronted with the same or similar situation, will respond based on opinion rather than fact.
              The early bird may get the worm...but the second mouse gets the cheese...Shutin@urholeisOVERATED.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by darmoose View Post
                This little exercise is a perfect example of what is wrong and frustrating with so many aspects of our lives in society today in this country.

                Everybody has an opinion, and is very happy and willing to express it and then to defend it whether it makes any sense, whether it has any logic or not, whether it is in direct contradiction to a previously considered and established rule.

                There is no longer any truth to be found, there is only opinions ensconced in dogma stemming from self importance (my opinion is just as good as your opinion) thinking. Even when confronted with the written rule which contemplated the exact situation, opinions will continue to be argued.

                In this little example it is for the most part inconsequential, but consider this same situation as it applies to something like, say, immigration.

                Asking a question like this, as innocently as it may have been asked, prior to looking to see if there is already an established rule that directly addresses the situation, only gives license to people to opinionate and muddy the water, guaranteeing that some going forward, when confronted with the same or similar situation, will respond based on opinion rather than fact.
                That's why we have rules for our game -- and we try to keep them simple and consistent. But I have noticed that it is quite amazing how many unusual nuances and quirky situations can come up in real life -- I mean specifically in One Pocket but obviously the greater world also.

                I also try to use this kind of question as an opportunity to look at how our rules did at answering the question. In this case I think they were pretty clear in faulting player B, although several people (including me) expressed a lot of sympathy for player B and might have ruled differently in the moment, if we did not check the written rules. Or even if we did, and both players were in agreement. Ultimately my feeling is that if two players agree to a solution, that works for me. It's when they don't, then rules are our friend in settling without bias as best we can.
                "One Pocket, it's an epidemic and there ain't no cure."
                -- Strawberry Brooks

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by NH Steve View Post
                  That's why we have rules for our game -- and we try to keep them simple and consistent. But I have noticed that it is quite amazing how many unusual nuances and quirky situations can come up in real life -- I mean specifically in One Pocket but obviously the greater world also.

                  I also try to use this kind of question as an opportunity to look at how our rules did at answering the question. In this case I think they were pretty clear in faulting player B, although several people (including me) expressed a lot of sympathy for player B and might have ruled differently in the moment, if we did not check the written rules. Or even if we did, and both players were in agreement. Ultimately my feeling is that if two players agree to a solution, that works for me. It's when they don't, then rules are our friend in settling without bias as best we can.
                  The written rules, such as they are, are known in their entirety to almost no one, except the lawyers, lol. Case in point, my wife booked a rental car through a travel broker months ago for our vacation to the Florida keys last week. We prepaid in full. Our plane was delayed and we were 20 minutes late to pick up the car. The company rented the car to someone else, had no car to give us, AND took all of our money. When we protested that we paid for services that were not rendered, they informed us that hat we had agreed to it by contract, despite our travel plans getting skewed beyond our control. But, they have the lawyers, and consumers don't have them in their stable, so guess who wins? Not the little guy. We are living in a gotcha society these days, imo.

                  Like I said, I'll adhere to the rule, but I feel that in certain circumstances, the rules can go against the spirit of fair play and sportsmanship. Personally, I refuse to win on that type of technicality.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Jeff sparks View Post
                    Friendly competition for $20.00 a game... They both agreed to abide by whatever I decided before I would even listen to the problem... one guy I know for a long time, the other, 1st time I met him...

                    I listened and thought about what had happened and decided what I would do if I was involved as either player in this type of friendly competition...

                    I told the guy that said he was out, that he was wrong in saying that before counting the balls, however he didn’t disturb any of the remaining balls on the table, so technically he was ok within the written rules as I knew them...

                    I explained to the other guy that even though I sympathized with his error of picking up the cb, that he was at fault under the rules as I understood them... He should lose the game...

                    However, neither player had touched either one of the object balls, and both knew where the cb was before it was picked up, so I recommended replacing the cb and continuing the game to a conclusion... The player didn’t have a gimme shot at his out ball, so they agreed and continued... I sensed the player who picked up the cb was unhappy with the decision, but I thought it was fair and would rule that way again in a friendly game in the unlikely event this ever happened again...

                    I do believe in a tournament environment, he would have been even more unhappy, I think he would have lost the game...
                    Good job Jeff, I say that because it's exactly what I'd of done.
                    P.S. Great minds run deep.
                    Rod.

                    Rodney Stephens.
                    (e-mail) rod.stephens0105@att.net(e-mail) #713-973-0503 is now working

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Tobermory View Post
                      On the other hand, since Player A started the problem by miscalling the situation, then equity would call for the CB to be put back on the table as close to where it was and it is still Player A's turn.
                      I like this.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        It depends, friendly 20/30 a game, put the CB back and shoot, good call Jeff!

                        Big tournament or high stakes, I am with Frank on this one too...no matter what player a says, it was player b that disturbed the CB. Make sure you know before you touch anything...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by gulfportdoc View Post
                          then he [Player A] removed balls from his opponent's pockets.
                          If we're being technical, isn't that a foul by Player A? If so, when Player B made his error, it was no longer Player A's inning, so it was not "interference."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            President Reagan once said, "Trust But Verify." In my younger days when I was scuffling for a living, I probably (almost surely) would have called a game ending foul on my opponent. But father time has softened my position on life and now, I would have offered up some resolution satisfactory to both of us. I have played games where the opponent was "OUT" and he and I both continued to play on and he then scratched off and had to spot a ball. OOPSEE, now what do you do about that?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by jerry matchin View Post
                              President Reagan once said, "Trust But Verify." In my younger days when I was scuffling for a living, I probably (almost surely) would have called a game ending foul on my opponent. But father time has softened my position on life and now, I would have offered up some resolution satisfactory to both of us. I have played games where the opponent was "OUT" and he and I both continued to play on and he then scratched off and had to spot a ball. OOPSEE, now what do you do about that?
                              Game over, balls count them selves.
                              Rod.

                              Rodney Stephens.
                              (e-mail) rod.stephens0105@att.net(e-mail) #713-973-0503 is now working

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by jalapus logan View Post

                                Like I said, I'll adhere to the rule, but I feel that in certain circumstances, the rules can go against the spirit of fair play and sportsmanship. Personally, I refuse to win on that type of technicality.
                                (Darrell, I'm directing this at your point also.)

                                Rules remind me of "company policy." If a strict interpretation leads away from fairness, rather than toward it, something has gone wrong. A willingness to ignore a rule to find a more just outcome is a good thing IMO, but Darrell is right that this will always lead to diverse opinions. I think it's worth the price.

                                Pretty hard for me to find anything I'd put on a higher pedestal than fairness. (Well, yeah, boobs. )

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X