Can you decline a foul your opponent calls on himself?

[Tom Wirth]

And so Dennis, when your opponent or you for that matter attempts to spot an object ball behind the cue ball and in the process moves the cue ball even slightly, what then?

No, I totally disagree. And in the case of Willie, Joe, or whomever, who do you think they were referring to as the person spotting the ball? A ref maybe?
And with no wish to speak for Dr. Bill, the quote you provided does not appear to refer specifically to spotting balls next to the cue ball. As I stated before, I have never played a single match where an object ball could be spotted frozen to the cue ball nor have I ever heard of a tournament where this was allowed, including the DCC.
Was I missing something at all those DCC events I played in? At least half of them.
I would be interested in Dr. Bill addressing this specific issue.

Tom

[crabbcatjohn]

The way I always played you never freeze a spotted ball to the cue ball. I assumed that was general pool knowledge.

[Jeff sparks]

And so Dennis, when your opponent or you for that matter attempts to spot an object ball behind the cue ball and in the process moves the cue ball even slightly, what then?

No, I totally disagree. And in the case of Willie, Joe, or whomever, who do you think they were referring to as the person spotting the ball? A ref maybe?
And with no wish to speak for Dr. Bill, the quote you provided does not appear to refer specifically to spotting balls next to the cue ball. As I stated before, I have never played a single match where an object ball could be spotted frozen to the cue ball nor have I ever heard of a tournament where this was allowed, including the DCC.
Was I missing something at all those DCC events I played in? At least half of them.
I would be interested in Dr. Bill addressing this specific issue.

Tom

I agree...

Everybody who ever played serious pool knows you can’t freeze an object ball to the cb when spotting the object ball... I don’t believe Dr. Bill ever sanctioned this as proper when spotting balls in front of or behind an interfering cb located along the foot spot string...

Onepocket.org rule 9.1 clearly states this as a fact and specifically mentions the cb in this context as not being allowed to be frozen to an object ball... Common sense tells us that in non white gloved referee governed matches, which, for all but a select few, we are spotting the referenced object balls ourselves, and in doing so, we are not allowed to freeze the ob to the cb for a reason... One such reason could be that in allowing the spotter of said ob, the spotter could knowingly or accidentally move the cb to a more advantageous position, which certainly can’t be allowed. Just makes sense to not allow that possibility, by simply not allowing the spotter to freeze the ob to the cb, just place it as close as possible, which I believe the legends of yore had in mind also...

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

And so Dennis, when your opponent or you for that matter attempts to spot an object ball behind the cue ball and in the process moves the cue ball even slightly, what then?

No, I totally disagree. And in the case of Willie, Joe, or whomever, who do you think they were referring to as the person spotting the ball? A ref maybe?
And with no wish to speak for Dr. Bill, the quote you provided does not appear to refer specifically to spotting balls next to the cue ball. As I stated before, I have never played a single match where an object ball could be spotted frozen to the cue ball nor have I ever heard of a tournament where this was allowed, including the DCC.
Was I missing something at all those DCC events I played in? At least half of them.
I would be interested in Dr. Bill addressing this specific issue.

Tom

Tom & Jeff, I just deleted my long reply.
But the real question is, which rule would you rather play by?
A rule that allows the opponent to spot an object ball so close that it almost touches the cue ball, so that there is no way to shoot your way out of it, except to skim that object ball. Trapping the opponent like Efren did!
Or, a rule that allows the object ball to be frozen to the cue ball, and you can shoot directly into it and on any angle you want? The '68 BCA rule!

This is the question I would put to Billy, if you really want to Tom. But, Tom & Jeff ask that question of your selves. Let me know which way you would rather play by, and the wisdom behind it, if you wish to reply.

As I remember, Billy only recalled an object ball not being frozen to the cue ball, but he realized the wisdom behind having the object ball frozen to the cue ball. Further as I recall, he questioned the gap, for it is not specifically defined as to how much of a gap.

I tried to find his response this morning but was unable, but I will look some more.

OP.org allows a ball to be disturbed when spotting a ball, including the cue ball. So there is no argument there, whatsoever. I just reviewed a post by Steve that stated this in my search for Billy's response. Whitey

[cityhall]

There are two types of fouls, ones that you can take intentionally and ones that would be unsportsmanlike to do deliberately.

In the first category we have scratches, cue ball off the table, and intentionally not hitting a rail. It's reasonable to expect a ball to always spot for each of them as an established part of game strategy.

The second category includes press shots, fram pushes, scoop jumps, and moving object balls with your cue or hand. Perhaps the incoming player should have the option to decline fouls of the second type but not the first.

[LSJohn]

Hey Guys, a lot of times a player does not realize they have committed a foul. So you just can not blanketly say it is unsportsmanlike conduct to not call a foul upon yourself.

That's not what you were talking about initially, because you said

"nor should it ever be regarding as poor sportsmanship to not call a foul upon yourself."

And no one else ever implied that it would be poor sportsmanship to fail calling a foul on yourself if you didn't know you fouled.

[lll]

garczar posted this on azb an example of snooze you loose and no self call of a foul (if Jennifer knew she fouled )lorree jon vs Jennifer barretta
no ref present late night match
LJH comes from behind to go hill-hill with J. Baretta. JB fails to get a rail, LJH snoozes it and ends up losing when JB makes combo to win. Gotta pay attention when there's no ref. Brutal. Start at 2hr30min point:
https://www.facebook.com/UpStateAL/v...?fref=mentions
should someone from the audience say something?

[Tom Wirth]

Tom & Jeff, I just deleted my long reply.
which rule would you rather play by?
A rule that allows the opponent to spot an object ball so close that it almost touches the cue ball, Dennis, YES, definitely. The same rules apply to both players in each case but at least prohibiting freezing the OB to the cue ball removes the risk of disturbing the precise position of the cue ball. This to me is the far more important issue. To touch the cue ball is to move it.

Billy questioned the gap, for it is not specifically defined as to how much of a gap. It seems to me that by his questioning the size of the gap he is stating there must be a gap. Personally, I have always left that the to player spotting the ball as to how close they wish to attempt spotting it without risking touching the cue ball.


OP.org allows a ball to be disturbed when spotting a ball, including the cue ball. So there is no argument there, whatsoever. I just reviewed a post by Steve that stated this in my search for Billy's response. Whitey

Are you sure of that? Where have you played where it was "okay" to disturb the position of a live cue ball? Never in my career. Here is the copy and paste of the rule taken from OP.org. maybe I'm wrong but I read this as OBs are NOT to be frozen the the cue ball when spotting them. It's just not a foul if it happens.
"It shall not be a foul to accidentally touch the cue ball while removing an object ball from an adjacent pocket, or when spotting a ball where the cue ball interferes."
Tom

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

That's not what you were talking about initially, because you said

"nor should it ever be regarding as poor sportsmanship to not call a foul upon yourself."

And no one else ever implied that it would be poor sportsmanship to fail calling a foul on yourself if you didn't know you fouled.

In the CSI rules that govern DCC, under Applied Rulings, pg.90 1-23 Calling Fouls/Fouls Not Called
General Discussion; There is no requirement for a player that fouls to make their opponent aware of the foul.

I stand by what I said; sometimes a player actually does not realize that they committed a foul. So then how can you determine that they are unsportsmanlike for not calling a foul on themselves?

This is not a one size fits all, and as I pointed out there are several times the opponent calls a foul that never happened. And then when you do not accept it then he thinks you are unsportsmanlike.
Whitey

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Are you sure of that? Where have you played where it was "okay" to disturb the position of a live cue ball? Never in my career. Here is the copy and paste of the rule taken from OP.org. maybe I'm wrong but I read this as OBs are NOT to be frozen the the cue ball when spotting them. It's just not a foul if it happens.
"It shall not be a foul to accidentally touch the cue ball while removing an object ball from an adjacent pocket, or when spotting a ball where the cue ball interferes."
Tom

Tom, This is getting pretty hard, for you really do not believe how I recalled Billy's comments, nor Steve's comment which I just viewed, nor do you believe that the '68 rule of spotting an object was to be spotted frozen to the cue ball, even though they extra emphasized it in parenthesis, so it was clearly understood. All BCA sanctioned tournaments at that time would of been played by this rule. I played that way and so did my opponents. '68-'73 So. Cal. @ the Palace So. Cal.

I was mentored by Vern Peterson, and Fred Whalen in straight pool, I also ref'ed. the '73 Cal. State Championships 14.1. Peterson won it.

You keep bringing up disturbing the cue ball is a foul, well disturbing any ball is a foul in '68. Every sanctioned BCA tournament was All Ball Fouls. So why when spotting a ball should the cue ball be treated any different than any other ball? Answer me that, if you will ! The '68 BCA rule did not treat it any different, nor should they. It is much easier to get out of a trap when the ob is frozen to the cb when spotted. The BCA HOF masters knew this, signed off on it, and I know this, everyone knows this! And that is the way BCA sanctioned tournaments were played, by BCA rules which this was one! It is pretty simple!
Just because you and others did not play by this rule does not mean it was not a rule. 8-ball was a loss during this period when made on the break, but did anybody play that way, no! But, in a BCA sanctioned 8-Ball tournament they would of. Whitey

[Tom Wirth]

You keep bringing up disturbing the cue ball is a foul, well disturbing any ball is a foul in '68. Every sanctioned BCA tournament was All Ball Fouls. So why when spotting a ball should the cue ball be treated any different than any other ball? Answer me that, if you will ! The '68 BCA rule did not treat it any different, nor should they. It is much easier to get out of a trap when the ob is frozen to the cb when spotted. The BCA HOF masters knew this, signed off on it, and I know this, everyone knows this! And that is the way BCA sanctioned tournaments were played, by BCA rules which this was one! It is pretty simple!
Just because you and others did not play by this rule does not mean it was not a rule. 8-ball was a loss during this period when made on the break, but did anybody play that way, no! But, in a BCA sanctioned 8-Ball tournament they would of. Whitey

Geez, Whitey, I'm about done with this but why don't you get your facts straight. I just looked up the rule in the BCA Official rule book (copyright 1948 - 1990) regarding spotting balls and if you had done the same thing we would not be having this discussion. Take a moment and look it up yourself.

I've given you all I can on this subject. I'm spent!

Thanks for the discussion,

Tom

[Jeff sparks]

Tom & Jeff, I just deleted my long reply.
But the real question is, which rule would you rather play by?
A rule that allows the opponent to spot an object ball so close that it almost touches the cue ball, so that there is no way to shoot your way out of it, except to skim that object ball. Trapping the opponent like Efren did!
Or, a rule that allows the object ball to be frozen to the cue ball, and you can shoot directly into it and on any angle you want? The '68 BCA rule!

This is the question I would put to Billy, if you really want to Tom. But, Tom & Jeff ask that question of your selves. Let me know which way you would rather play by, and the wisdom behind it, if you wish to reply.

As I remember, Billy only recalled an object ball not being frozen to the cue ball, but he realized the wisdom behind having the object ball frozen to the cue ball. Further as I recall, he questioned the gap, for it is not specifically defined as to how much of a gap.

I tried to find his response this morning but was unable, but I will look some more.

OP.org allows a ball to be disturbed when spotting a ball, including the cue ball. So there is no argument there, whatsoever. I just reviewed a post by Steve that stated this in my search for Billy's response. Whitey

Whitey

It’s a simple rule, go back as far as you care to and to my knowledge you won’t find any rule where it states that you can freeze an object ball to the cb... Find just one credible source that’s states it ok to freeze it, not place it as close as possible, (and after all, there is a difference between these two distinctions ) and you will get the attention of all who believe you are incorrect in your belief about this particular rule... again, , but I never heard of it being played this way, and I played a lot of pool in the 60’s and 70’s in and around Southern California and most other parts of the country as well... If it was a rule back then, I would surely have been forced to play it, as I played the LA Open twice during that time period and they didn’t use it...

Perhaps some other old timers might bare witness to what the correct rule was back then.. I know there are many members here who played one pocket for many more years than I and could easily testify as to what they did back then...

[LSJohn]

sometimes a player actually does not realize that they committed a foul. So then how can you determine that they are unsportsmanlike for not calling a foul on themselves?

Dennis, you said "ever," which certainly includes those thimes when a player does know he fouled, but does not call it if his opponent didn't see it.

Poor sportsmanship IMO.

To take it a step further, whether it is unsportsmanlike does not hinge on whether anyone but the offending player knows it has happened. It is unsportsmanlike to do it, whether or not you get caught.

[LSJohn]

This is also in line with my '68 BCA rule book, where it states all balls spotted are spotted frozen to balls, including the cb.

I would enjoy seeing the actual wording from the '68 BCA rule book rather than just a summary of it.

Thanks in advance.

[LSJohn]

For What it's worth:

The 2017 BCA rule book states under Section 1 : "These general rules apply to all pocket billiard games, UNLESS specifically noted to the contrary in the individual game rules." It the offers a link to download general rules which takes us to World Pool-Billiard Association "The Rules of Play (Effective 15/3/16) "

In Section 1, Paragraph 4 (1.4) we find:

Spotting Balls

Balls are spotted (returned to play on the table) by placing them on the long string (long axis of the table) as close as possible to the foot spot and between the foot spot and the foot rail, without moving any interfering ball. If the spotted ball cannot be placed on the foot spot, it should be placed in contact (if possible) with the corresponding interfering ball. However, when the cue ball is next to the spotted ball, the spotted ball should not be placed in contact with the cue ball; a small separation must be maintained. If all of the long string below the foot spot is blocked by other balls, the ball is spotted above the foot spot, and as close as possible to the foot spot. [emphasis added -- LSJ]

This doesn't tell us what the BCA rule was in 1968, but it is clear about what the rule was in 2016, and presumably still.