Can you decline a foul your opponent calls on himself?

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

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

Thanks in advance.

LS, I have posted before the exact wording of the '68 One Pocket rules. It is only 3/4 of a page long for a complete game rule. I believe it is the same writing as the '67 rule, which is the first year BCA recognized One Pocket. One Pocket in the last game recognized in the 68 pages devoted to billiard games. I took a picture of the written rule straight out of the rule book, and posted it. The 2nd. least recognized is Nine Ball. Both gambling games and thus they were frowned upon by Brunswick.
The spotting rule is located under the game of Rotation, and reference as such, so when you wanted to learn the rule on spotting balls it would guide you to rotation as the rule for all games that spot balls. Rotation is the 3rd game reference with 3 pages devoted to it, and Straight Pool 14.1 is referenced 4th and listed as the Championship Game, it has 14 pages dedicated to it. Like I said the 'Spotting Rule' it is quite long, nearly half a page. But I will take a picture of the rule and post it.
To be a true historian of American rules, it would take researching many volumes. Like I mentioned the President of BCA either changed yearly or every other year, so rules were changing and rewrote quite often. But you would have to acquire each year to realize changes in the rules up until WPA rules came into effect, and their rules have also changed over the years.
I regret that the rules our golden age hof masters played by are now somewhat lost. For example, who would of ever thought our BIH behind Line rule would of ever changed to what it is now.
In regards to calling a foul upon your self, yes indeed if you fouled and know it and your opponent did not call it, then yes call a foul on yourself. But, like I said you may not know you foul, and this happens, and the other side of the coin is, your opponent can call a foul on you that did not happen. The question is do you have to accept a foul that the shooter calls on himself. I believe Tom restated the question properly that should of been asked. Check his post, it is very well to the point, and solves this dilemma. thanks, LS! Whitey

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Tom & Jeff,
I was very up set yesterday about something else not related to this. So I deleted my responses, so Jeff if you also delete my response also I would appreciated. I should not have been on here, being that upset. thanks, Whitey

[Jeff sparks]

Tom & Jeff,
I was very up set yesterday about something else not related to this. So I deleted my responses, so Jeff if you also delete my response also I would appreciated. I should not have been on here, being that upset. thanks, Whitey

Have a better day today Whitey...

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

'68 BCA Spotting Ball rule

This is the '68 BCA rule pertaining to spotting balls.
Since games were all played by All Ball Fouls, which means if any ball gets accidently disturbed (touched) then it is a foul. So when spotting this obviously is waved and the cue ball is treated just as if it is an object ball, thus it is allowed to freeze (ball touching ball) the spotted ball to the cue ball.
This spotting rule is probably decades old, prior to '68.Whitey

[Jeff sparks]

This is the '68 BCA rule pertaining to spotting balls.
Since games were all played by All Ball Fouls, which means if any ball gets accidently disturbed (touched) then it is a foul. So when spotting this obviously is waved and the cue ball is treated just as if it is an object ball, thus it is allowed to freeze (ball touching ball) the spotted ball to the cue ball.
This spotting rule is probably decades old, prior to '68.Whitey

You are correct about the rule back then... it’s right there in black and white... I stand corrected... My apologies...

I just never played that way and the interpretation involving ( as close as possible ) was confusing to me...

[LSJohn]

You are correct about the rule back then... it’s right there in black and white... I stand corrected... My apologies...

I just never played that way and the interpretation involving ( as close as possible ) was confusing to me...

This page is for rotation, where the spotted ball would not be the lowest numbered ball on the table, allowing the incoming to shoot through it if frozen.

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

This page is for rotation, where the spotted ball would not be the lowest numbered ball on the table, allowing the incoming to shoot through it if frozen.

Jeff, I responded to this on LS John's Spotting Ball thread, so there you will find the answer. Whitey

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

You are correct about the rule back then... it’s right there in black and white... I stand corrected... My apologies...

I just never played that way and the interpretation involving ( as close as possible ) was confusing to me...

No apologies needed but well received. I'd question my statement also if over all those years I never played that way. It is just I did not play very long so my memory is quite clear about that era, for I was not a lifer, whereas I did not go through rule changes over the last 50 years.

I was watching an old match, US Championship 9-ball, I believe in the '90's. Keith McCready was playing somebody, and his opponent jumped an ob off the table plus made his shot, the ref. simply spotted the ball and the opponent keep shooting. Keith said it is a foul, and kept muttering that has to be a foul. Keith was right, it now was a foul.

But, the ref. was old school from an era when that was not a foul. And the jumped ball rule just happens to be right on this page I posted.

There are times when a written official rule is not the way a game is commonly played. A perfect example is the game of 8 ball. For an 8 ball made on the break was a loss of game, but no one played it that way. I am talking about during the era, late '60's - early '70's. thanks, Whitey

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Dr. Bill's Response spotting ball frozen to cb.

My recollection of Dr. Bill's response to spotting a ball frozen to the cb came under questioning. On pg. 40 'Spotting Balls' by Dennis 'Whitey' Young 3/1/18.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff sparks
I can’t say I remember it your way Whitey??? I played a lot of pool back then, and if memory serves me, we never froze a ball to the cue ball when it was in the foot spot area...as close as possible, yes, but never frozen...

Wonder if it’s geographical? Where did you play back then?

Here is Bill's reply:
Yes, I agree, as far back as I can remember the cue ball and an object ball spotted on the foot spot were not supposed to be frozen, unlike OB to OB.

Personally, I feel that all balls, including the cue ball, should be frozen when spotting balls on the foot spot. By not freezing balls against the cue ball will at some point breed an argument about the amount of space between the balls when there is a possible shot which would be decided by the distance between both the OB and cue ball. The less we leave to discretion the smoother things seem to flow.

Dr. Bill

I am gratified that Dr. Bill felt highly enough about this rule to make a comment. With this endorsement coupled with the fact that in BCA sanctioned events they had the ob spotted frozen to the cb, I now recommend that our historical BCA Spotting Rule become a current standard OP.org rule. This rule along with our historical American Ball in Hand behind the Line Rule w/ warning given, that we all grew up playing by, and the way we played the last MOT, also should become a standard OP.org rule.
Sincerely, Whitey

[El Chapo]

Why doesn't someone just examine the way they handle rules with the pga, and whatever they do, just superimpose that style onto one pocket?

I do not think they have endless disagreements.

I do not think there are golfers with 40 years experience on their side not understanding certain rules when situations arise.

It is because one body says "this is the rule", they write it down, and it is over, and everyone knows and is on the same exact page, from the corners of nigeria to the mississippi bayou.

Why keep going on like this? Why not just model another successful sport? I think i know the answer to that, but it wont help.

[LSJohn]

Why doesn't someone just examine the way they handle rules with the pga, and whatever they do, just superimpose that style onto one pocket?

The answer looks obvious to me: Because no one has the authority to "superimpose" for the entire one pocket world.

If you know a way someone could be granted that authority, go for it.

A worthwhile project would be to raise the money to print booklets containing the onepocket .org rules and send at least one copy to every pool room in the US. Maybe you'd be a good leader for that project.

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

LS John & Chapo;
I check out some official rules of golf, and like pool there are different organizations and thus their rules will probably vary and also their rule layout format. USGA has a table of contents in which you can click on any rule or item and it directs you there. This is extremely nice.
PGA rules seems quite simplistic and they utilize many diagrams.

To answer how to make a global one fits all OP set of rules, it is not possible, for each entity wants their own rules and must have their own rules to become relevant.

But, it is possible to develop rules that are highly technically advanced above all others, and thus they would be the standard that all others are judged by.

Rules are in two formats; 1. The Game Rule; usually short and specific in pointing out how that specific game is played. 2. The General Rules; these go into detail specifics of each rule, plus all other aspects of how to play pool. General rules of today are not technically advanced. There is not one single written rule today that depicts the more highly advanced pocket billiard scenarios as we see occur quite frequently in OP.

I feel modern day 'General Rules', (not game rule that we have), need to depict these highly technically scenarios. And since they do not then it thus lowers the standard of how OP is played, and the standard that OP players play by.

A modern day set of rules needs advanced technical written 'general rules', plus diagrams and videos that compliment and further depicts these more highly technical scenarios, for comprehension.

On another point which I have become alarmingly aware of is that OP rules do not have player's proper procedure defined 'at all'. This is amazing for there is so much interaction with the balls and players! For instance; which player is responsible for putting and pulling out their balls into their collective area, who spots balls-the out going player, who puts up and removes their coins- the offending player, is the neutral ball spotted or can a scored ball be spotted in its place-the neutral ball should be spotted, when can a player take a break from play, we see abuses of these proper procedures all the time, well they are 'not' defined, thus the abuse is accepted.

This can all be accomplished! And this is not saying anything against our OP.org game rules, but WPA general rules are 'not' technically advanced enough nor can they be specific geared towards OP. for they cover all games under their domain, which OP game is not, but it will be someday for it is getting popular in Europe.

Steve has mentioned a few times that our OP.org rules are due for some upgrades, but all in all they have held up pretty well over the 2 years I have been a member in which many rule questions have come up. Thank goodness Steve had the foresight to add some clarity to the rules, otherwise there would be much more problems occurring.

'General Rules' are always changing depending on who is in power, and since WPA General Rules govern over our OP rules then our OP rules are subject to change, and unless OP.org develops their own 'General Rules' there can be no secure future going on into perpetuity.

Sorry this is so long, but I think this endeavor of developing your own 'General Rules' is such a highly credible, honorable, and is of such a historical significant nature that it is worthy of such length. With due respect, Sincerely, Whitey

[Cary]

No apologies needed but well received. I'd question my statement also if over all those years I never played that way. It is just I did not play very long so my memory is quite clear about that era, for I was not a lifer, whereas I did not go through rule changes over the last 50 years.

I was watching an old match, US Championship 9-ball, I believe in the '90's. Keith McCready was playing somebody, and his opponent jumped an ob off the table plus made his shot, the ref. simply spotted the ball and the opponent keep shooting. Keith said it is a foul, and kept muttering that has to be a foul. Keith was right, it now was a foul.

But, the ref. was old school from an era when that was not a foul. And the jumped ball rule just happens to be right on this page I posted.

There are times when a written official rule is not the way a game is commonly played. A perfect example is the game of 8 ball. For an 8 ball made on the break was a loss of game, but no one played it that way. I am talking about during the era, late '60's - early '70's. thanks, Whitey

Just two comments for the heck of it:

1) In 1966 I was playing a LOT of 14.1 in Key West. We never froze a spotted ball to the cue ball. Oddly enough I remembered this when I started playing again in 2005.

2) At Jessie's Jive on Washington Avenue in Houston, 1964 (I think), they played you lost if you made the eight on the break. I know, the disagreement after I made the 8 on the break resulted in my first visit to 61 Riesner Street.

[LSJohn]

and unless OP.org develops their own 'General Rules'

What is there about the current OP .org rules that does not meet this criterion?

[LSJohn]

I know, the disagreement after I made the 8 on the break resulted in my first visit to 61 Riesner Street.

Was someone selling firearms and ammo at 61 Riesner Street?