Gambling and the Break as a Spot in One Pocket

[Jim McCary]

I think there was an agreement before they started and when he broke to the wrong hole, there should be a rerack because there was a violation of the agreement. The guy breaking does not have a leg to stand on if he wants to argue.

Jim Mc

[beatle]

in reality the game goes on and the breaker just knocked a bunch of balls in front of his opponents hole who now shoots.

[lll]

if the guy was a jerk and wouldnt re rack
i would just keep playing with you (now the shooter) thanking him for surrounding your hole with balls and its your shot......
just like if he shoots one in your hole
you keep it and it ends his inning (if he didnt make one in his pocket too )

in reality the game goes on and the breaker just knocked a bunch of balls in front of his opponents hole who now shoots.

beatle
i am always amazed and encouraged when we agreee......

[chicagomike]

Re-rack and break towards correct hole. No big deal in my book....If he refuses just go after his family....simple.

[beatle]

it isnt that simple when gambling as what if he did make a ball in the hole he was supposed to have. now he may want it and want to keep shooting. so you cant have it both ways. so for any important games you have to specify what happens and when if broken to a wrong pocket.
if no one does that then you just have a player that made a big mistake and suffers from it. isnt that part of competition?
same if he forgets and shoots a ball in your hole. do you put it back and let him shoot again or do you just say thanks and now take the table.

[lll]

beatle
i am always amazed and encouraged when we agreee......

great minds think alike.....

[jtompilot]

Make the guy break to the other hole twice then your back on the normal rotation

[J.R.]

I have a question regarding the break in one pocket. I will present the question in its simplest layout. Additionally, there are no written house rules at Red Shoes Billiards regarding the below situation.

Two players are gambling. One of the players is getting each and every break as the spot. The only stipulation is that the player getting the spot must change pockets after each game. Both players agree to the stipulation.

The player getting the spot breaks to the left corner pocket in the first game. The player getting the spot breaks to the left corner pocket in the second game. After the player getting the spot breaks, his opponent states that this game must be restarted because he should have broken to the right corner pocket. The player getting the spot objects. An argument ensues and "you" are asked to make a decision on whether the game has started or whether the game must be re-racked and started again with the player getting the spot breaking to the right corner pocket.

How would you rule? Please provide the reasoning for your ruling.

I will provide additional information regarding the above situation and how I ruled in a few days.

Well, after reading the opinions of my forum brothers, I am bewildered that nearly all have put the onus only on the "breaker." Perhaps its my policeman's background looking for fairness but only snips of equity were established in the opinions I have read. The statement in my original situation is: "Both players agree to the stipulation." I maintain that this is the utmost decisive point at issue. At the moment before the balls break, both the "player getting the spot" and "the player giving the spot" are equally responsible for ensuring that the stipulation is upheld. This prevents gamesmanship by either the breaker or opponent.

If either player voices that the break is nullified because of the established stipulation, doesn't hold water in the face of fairness. I have used the word "fairness" but it is interchangeable with integrity, honesty, and righteousness. When a "spot" is established in a pool game it is to even the playing field for a fair game. Stipulations are sometimes part of the "spot" to establish a fair game. Stipulations are negotiated by both players and consequently should be enforced by both players. When was the last one-pocket gambling or tournament game you were playing and not present when your opponent was breaking the rack of balls to his pocket? My point is that since both players negotiated the stipulation, both players are present, then both players are equally responsible that the correct pocket is shot to before the break. Stipulation or without stipulation, once the breaker makes contact with the rack, the pocket has been established.

When I made my ruling in the original situation presented in the forum I used this same rational. I'll repeat that rational: "Once the breaker makes contact with the rack then the pocket has been established."

Returning to my initial post, there were additional variables that were part of the original situation yet did not factor into my ruling. First, I will describe the gamblers. One works a job to gamble at pool and the other gambles at pool as if he has no job. Neither one is known as straight, true and upright on one hand nor dishonest, vile, or wicked on the other. Second, the breaker successfully made a ball on the break in his pocket, followed by two additional made balls. Afterwards, his opponent had a realization that the breaker had made the balls in the wrong pocket based on the stipulation. The opponent wanted the break nullified to which the breaker refused. This was the last game of the night and it was for $200. They asked me for a ruling. You know my ruling. It was ruefully accepted by the opponent.

In retrospect, I would make that ruling every time, and there has been nothing I read in this forum that would sway my decision.

Any thoughts?

[Mkbtank]

Gambling and the Break as a Spot in One Pocket

I agree that they share the blame somewhat. I’ll add this.. the minute the non breaker allowed a 2nd ball (then a third) the is no way he could then try to take away or change anything. He was 100% complicit at that point

[J.R.]

I agree that they share the blame somewhat. I’ll add this.. the minute the non breaker allowed a 2nd ball (then a third) the is no way he could then try to take away or change anything. He was 100% complicit at that point

In response, I don't think there is blame or complicity on either the breaker or opponent. It's only a chance for gamesmanship by either player. To say one is right or partly right and the other is wrong or partly wrong only adds to the confusion and disagreement. I choose to make neither right or wrong. The rule is once the balls are cracked then the pocket for the breaker is decided. Whether it is a good break or bad break, whether a ball is made or not made, does not factor into the decision.

[lll]

this from our rules of the game
bold and color are mine for emphasis
....................
11. Keeping track of which pocket is whose

11.1 It is each player’s responsibility to keep track of which pocket is theirs; opponents are under no obligation – other than good sportsmanship — to correct such an error prior to an opponent’s shot. A ball legally pocketed in the wrong pocket counts for the player who legitimately has that pocket, regardless of who shot the ball. However, a ball shot into the wrong pocket does not entitle the shooter to continue their inning, unless on the same stroke they legitimately score into their own pocket as well.

11.2 In the event that a player shooting into the wrong pocket is permitted to continue the same inning at the table (beyond what is entitled by legally pocketing a ball in their own pocket) by their opponent’s or the referee’s failure to notify them of their error, such failure of notification does not legitimize any additional balls pocketed in that inning, whether pocketed in the shooter’s pocket or their opponent’s pocket. Thus the first shot to the wrong pocket in a given inning is the shooter’s responsibility, and the shooter’s opponent is entitled to any balls pocketed on that first stroke. However, any subsequently pocketed balls in the same inning are to be spotted as illegally pocketed balls, because it is the referee’s or opponent’s responsibility to notify the shooter before they erroneously continue their inning.
........
.........
.........
j.r.
the rules above for shooting to the wrong pocket is what i would have used in this situation
breaker spots all but 1 ball made into the "wrong" pocket and shooter has the "correct" pocket and keeps that 1 ball
jmho
icbw

[NH Steve]

Well, after reading the opinions of my forum brothers, I am bewildered that nearly all have put the onus only on the "breaker." Perhaps its my policeman's background looking for fairness but only snips of equity were established in the opinions I have read. The statement in my original situation is: "Both players agree to the stipulation." I maintain that this is the utmost decisive point at issue. At the moment before the balls break, both the "player getting the spot" and "the player giving the spot" are equally responsible for ensuring that the stipulation is upheld. This prevents gamesmanship by either the breaker or opponent.

If either player voices that the break is nullified because of the established stipulation, doesn't hold water in the face of fairness. I have used the word "fairness" but it is interchangeable with integrity, honesty, and righteousness. When a "spot" is established in a pool game it is to even the playing field for a fair game. Stipulations are sometimes part of the "spot" to establish a fair game. Stipulations are negotiated by both players and consequently should be enforced by both players. When was the last one-pocket gambling or tournament game you were playing and not present when your opponent was breaking the rack of balls to his pocket? My point is that since both players negotiated the stipulation, both players are present, then both players are equally responsible that the correct pocket is shot to before the break. Stipulation or without stipulation, once the breaker makes contact with the rack, the pocket has been established.

When I made my ruling in the original situation presented in the forum I used this same rational. I'll repeat that rational: "Once the breaker makes contact with the rack then the pocket has been established."

Returning to my initial post, there were additional variables that were part of the original situation yet did not factor into my ruling. First, I will describe the gamblers. One works a job to gamble at pool and the other gambles at pool as if he has no job. Neither one is known as straight, true and upright on one hand nor dishonest, vile, or wicked on the other. Second, the breaker successfully made a ball on the break in his pocket, followed by two additional made balls. Afterwards, his opponent had a realization that the breaker had made the balls in the wrong pocket based on the stipulation. The opponent wanted the break nullified to which the breaker refused. This was the last game of the night and it was for $200. They asked me for a ruling. You know my ruling. It was ruefully accepted by the opponent.

In retrospect, I would make that ruling every time, and there has been nothing I read in this forum that would sway my decision.

Any thoughts?

If the game has continued on after the break (assuming the opponent is present and watching), I would be inclined to say it is too late, and the game continues, with the players having the same pockets as the prior game, the way the game began, because the agreement to switch pockets was slept -- and like you said, it was slept by both players.

One other thing to consider if you are one of the players is of course, how good a customer is this that I am playing? If they are a good customer, then you don't want to spook them. Of course, you being a neutral bystander, that is not supposed to come into play. Likewise if it is your last barrel that would be tough lol.

Another way to resolve it could be to give them a choice -- 1, they flip for the rights to the breaker's pocket leaving the balls just as they are, and if the opponent wins, then going by the standard rules one ball would count and two would be spotted, with the opponent now facing the pocket with the breaker's advantage, or if the breaker wins the breaker keeps shooting. Or 2, if they don't want to flip, then a simple rerack and break toward the other pocket and start over. With the prospect of taking a chance like that on a flip, the breaker might agree to re-break.

[J.R.]

this from our rules of the game
bold and color are mine for emphasis
....................
11. Keeping track of which pocket is whose

11.1 It is each player’s responsibility to keep track of which pocket is theirs; opponents are under no obligation – other than good sportsmanship — to correct such an error prior to an opponent’s shot. A ball legally pocketed in the wrong pocket counts for the player who legitimately has that pocket, regardless of who shot the ball. However, a ball shot into the wrong pocket does not entitle the shooter to continue their inning, unless on the same stroke they legitimately score into their own pocket as well.

11.2 In the event that a player shooting into the wrong pocket is permitted to continue the same inning at the table (beyond what is entitled by legally pocketing a ball in their own pocket) by their opponent’s or the referee’s failure to notify them of their error, such failure of notification does not legitimize any additional balls pocketed in that inning, whether pocketed in the shooter’s pocket or their opponent’s pocket. Thus the first shot to the wrong pocket in a given inning is the shooter’s responsibility, and the shooter’s opponent is entitled to any balls pocketed on that first stroke. However, any subsequently pocketed balls in the same inning are to be spotted as illegally pocketed balls, because it is the referee’s or opponent’s responsibility to notify the shooter before they erroneously continue their inning.
........
.........
.........
j.r.
the rules above for shooting to the wrong pocket is what i would have used in this situation
breaker spots all but 1 ball made into the "wrong" pocket and shooter has the "correct" pocket and keeps that 1 ball
jmho
icbw

I firmly agree with this particular rule. I firmly agree that it is the shooter's responsibility to shoot at the correct pocket. It has occasionally happened in one pocket games that I have either played in or watched in the past. However, my interpretation of this rule is directed to shooting at the wrong pocket AFTER the breaker has designated which pocket is his.

[lll]

I firmly agree with this particular rule. I firmly agree that it is the shooter's responsibility to shoot at the correct pocket. It has occasionally happened in one pocket games that I have either played in or watched in the past. However, my interpretation of this rule is directed to shooting at the wrong pocket AFTER the breaker has designated which pocket is his.

so really what you are saying
its the opponents responsibility to know which pocket the breaker has to shoot to....the breaker has no responsibility with regards to this
and if the opponent snoozes he looses but there is no penalty to the breaker.
did i get that right?

[androd]

I let Otis Riggs break with the agreement we'd change pockets every game.
!st. game he broke horrible and lost.
2nd, game he broke horrible and lost
3rd, game he broke horrible and lost.
4th, game he broke horrible and lost.
5th, game he broke great, I said "oh no you had that pocket last game.
He sucker punched me.