Rule question from the Derby City Classic

[Cowboy Dennis]

slept ball

slept ball

His opponent would have to sit and not notice anything that Roy was doing until Roy gathered the balls still left on the table and at that point act very suprised and say "What are you doing? You still need a ball, you owed one." Then explain to Roy that they should get the tournament director over to find out what to do in this case. The opponent would be awarded the game and Roy would have learned a lesson with no hard feelings. His opponent could even let Roy know how bad he feels about the ruling.

His opponent erred by getting out of his chair and counting the balls and then setting Roy up by not saying anything and then returning to his chair to wait for Roy to move the balls. His opponent needs lessons on how to appear like a class act while making a sneaky move look totally legitimate.

Wayne

I do agree that Roys opponent should have called attention to the fact that the game was not over after Roy moved the score to add one game to his side. At that point he should be obligated to point out that the game is not over yet and move the score back to reflect the score of the set. But maybe he thought the game was over. Roy said they didn't notice the coin until after he had racked the balls.

But he did not err in getting out of his chair. If Roy moves the score button then his opponents responsibility is to see that he has all balls necessary to win the game. What would you have him do at that point? Sit there and let Roy rack and maybe only have 7 balls? Larceny goes both ways.

Nobody set Roy up but Roy. I have seen players think they were out when they only had seven balls. It's not my job to help my opponent beat me is it?

That said, if I was in that situation and Roy did that to me, I would stand up and move the scorekeeper back to where it was and sit back down. He has a coin by his pocket to tell him of his owed ball. If he cannot figure out why I moved the scorekeeper back and sat down, that's his problem.

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

I do agree that Roys opponent should have called attention to the fact that the game was not over after Roy moved the score to add one game to his side. At that point he should be obligated to point out that the game is not over yet and move the score back to reflect the score of the set. But maybe he thought the game was over. Roy said they didn't notice the coin until after he had racked the balls.

But he did not err in getting out of his chair. If Roy moves the score button then his opponents responsibility is to see that he has all balls necessary to win the game. What would you have him do at that point? Sit there and let Roy rack and maybe only have 7 balls? Larceny goes both ways.

Nobody set Roy up but Roy. I have seen players think they were out when they only had seven balls. It's not my job to help my opponent beat me is it?

That said, if I was in that situation and Roy did that to me, I would stand up and move the scorekeeper back to where it was and sit back down. He has a coin by his pocket to tell him of his owed ball. If he cannot figure out why I moved the scorekeeper back and sat down, that's his problem.

Everyone gave thier opinion and the rules are the rules and roy made the mistake. Most of us will agree to that and no what I am saying. What do we do from her. I gave the saloution to the problem and its fair and it is good for both players. Or do you want the same rule to stand and not change the rule to a better rule. And the punishment for the rule is to strong. And why not have a good rule. Change the rule and nobody will win the game on a tecknicality. What do you think about the rule. Do you see anything wrong with the rule. And should the old rule be changed. Awarding a player with the whole game and match is to strong. Whoever makes the rules read this and let me her your oponion. I now Rod would like the rule changed. And the rule I gave is fair and its good for the game and players.

 

[Wayne]

Here is how Grady called it over on AZ:

"Fatboy and Roy as regards the call: That was a terrible decision and completely wrong: If your opponent owes a ball, you have to tell him he owes that ball. If he runs eight and forgets to spot up a ball(S) he owes and disturbs the balls, he wins, not you. NOW, it is ok to wait until he runs eight and not play position on a needed ball before you tell him he owes one."

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

slept ball

slept ball

Here is how Grady called it over on AZ:

"Fatboy and Roy as regards the call: That was a terrible decision and completely wrong: If your opponent owes a ball, you have to tell him he owes that ball. If he runs eight and forgets to spot up a ball(S) he owes and disturbs the balls, he wins, not you. NOW, it is ok to wait until he runs eight and not play position on a needed ball before you tell him he owes one."

Does anyone know the rules they were playing by at the D.C.C.? I do believe that if Roy moved the scorekeeper button and then his opponent checked his ball count and went and sat down, then he is conceding the game to Roy. No argument from me if that's what happened. Roy wins in that situation even if they both notice later that Roy owed a ball. I do believe however that it's up to the shooter to know how many he needs.

And as far as Grady's opinion on this, I respect his opinion, but I would ask one question of him. How would you protect the player in a chair in this situation if the shooter ran 8 balls and failed to get position on his 9th. Then he quickly rakes the balls off the table and starts to rack for the next game? The non-shooter never had a chance to point out the owed ball. The rule must protect both players. Not just the weaker one who made an innocent mistake.

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

Does anyone know the rules they were playing by at the D.C.C.? I do believe that if Roy moved the scorekeeper button and then his opponent checked his ball count and went and sat down, then he is conceding the game to Roy. No argument from me if that's what happened. Roy wins in that situation even if they both notice later that Roy owed a ball. I do believe however that it's up to the shooter to know how many he needs.

And as far as Grady's opinion on this, I respect his opinion, but I would ask one question of him. How would you protect the player in a chair in this situation if the shooter ran 8 balls and failed to get position on his 9th. Then he quickly rakes the balls off the table and starts to rack for the next game? The non-shooter never had a chance to point out the owed ball. The rule must protect both players. Not just the weaker one who made an innocent mistake.

If I was gambling and the player racked the balls without making the correct amount of balls YOU LOSE THE GAME. AND IF GRADY AND I WERE GAMBLING AND HE OR I RACKED THE BALLS BEFORE MAKING THE CORRECT AMOUT OF BALLS YOU LOSE THJE GAME NO MATTER WHO SAYS WHAT> THOSE ARE THE RULES. And thats why the rules have to change to what I said. BUt Nobody Nobody has replied on what I said. I can not belive it. THat someone hasant said that my rule is good or bad. The rules need to get changed. We dont need to keep talking about the same thing like a buntch of old ladies. Change the rule and make it wright. HAve the rule maker call me and I will be happy to inliten him.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

slept ball

slept ball

If I was gambling and the player racked the balls without making the correct amount of balls YOU LOSE THE GAME. AND IF GRADY AND I WERE GAMBLING AND HE OR I RACKED THE BALLS BEFORE MAKING THE CORRECT AMOUT OF BALLS YOU LOSE THJE GAME NO MATTER WHO SAYS WHAT> THOSE ARE THE RULES. And thats why the rules have to change to what I said. BUt Nobody Nobody has replied on what I said. I can not belive it. THat someone hasant said that my rule is good or bad. The rules need to get changed. We dont need to keep talking about the same thing like a buntch of old ladies. Change the rule and make it wright. HAve the rule maker call me and I will be happy to inliten him.

Artie, you said it all in your first sentence. "If I was gambling and the player racked the balls without making the correct amount of balls YOU LOSE THE GAME."

Sounds clear and simple and a very good rule to me. It does not need to be changed. And you are also correct about something else, this is my last comment on this issue.

 

[NH Steve]

My understanding is that Scott Smith basically uses our rules, although there may be specific decisions he makes from his experience, given he has run so many gazzillion tournaments.

I guess I am the most responsible for the way our rules are written, because I took the final steps to compile them, based on researching various historical rules, talking to seasoned players, and consulting with seasoned tournament directors, and of course debating them here on OnePocket.org. The whole point of them is to clarify common situations, so controversy can be reduced and competition can move forward. When something like this comes up, it does tell me that there has to be a better way to write something, so it is clearer.

In this case, I think something about "letting your opponent rack the balls" needs to be added as one of the signs of concession on the part of the opponent. Because I do think that if a player lets their opponent move a bead and rack the balls, without objection, that game is OVER, no matter what.

 

[androd]

My understanding is that Scott Smith basically uses our rules, although there may be specific decisions he makes from his experience, given he has run so many gazzillion tournaments.

I guess I am the most responsible for the way our rules are written, because I took the final steps to compile them, based on researching various historical rules, talking to seasoned players, and consulting with seasoned tournament directors, and of course debating them here on OnePocket.org. The whole point of them is to clarify common situations, so controversy can be reduced and competition can move forward. When something like this comes up, it does tell me that there has to be a better way to write something, so it is clearer.

In this case, I think something about "letting your opponent rack the balls" needs to be added as one of the signs of concession on the part of the opponent. Because I do think that if a player lets their opponent move a bead and rack the balls, without objection, that game is OVER, no matter what.

When you think your out, go over and sit down. If your opponent says it's your rack, game over !
PS;" letting your opponent rack the balls" is OK, but you better not touch them.

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

When you think your out, go over and sit down. If your opponent says it's your rack, game over !
PS;" letting your opponent rack the balls" is OK, but you better not touch them.

The rule needs to be changed the rule is no good and unfair. How does a player run 8 balls and his opponent has no balls and winns the game. You cannot win without making your 8 balls too its wrong and not fair. For a player to run 8 balls and his opponent has no balls and wins the game is redicoulous so change the rule. Why are you afraid to make a new rule and change the stupietie of the old rule that the hustlers used to trick thier opponent. Wake up this is 2009 and the years change and so should the rule. When are you going to change the rule. And I havant herd one comment about the rule I sugjested. Or am I Imagining all of this.

 

[androd]

The rule needs to be changed the rule is no good and unfair. How does a player run 8 balls and his opponent has no balls and winns the game. You cannot win without making your 8 balls too its wrong and not fair. For a player to run 8 balls and his opponent has no balls and wins the game is redicoulous so change the rule. Why are you afraid to make a new rule and change the stupietie of the old rule that the hustlers used to trick thier opponent. Wake up this is 2009 and the years change and so should the rule. When are you going to change the rule. And I havant herd one comment about the rule I sugjested. Or am I Imagining all of this.

I have no idea about tournaments, only been to a few. Never saw a game with a refree, saw a problem once, they called a official over and got a ruling. If you think the rule should be changed, I'll agree with you. Your rule's as good as any, better than they have now.
Rodney

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

I have no idea about tournaments, only been to a few. Never saw a game with a refree, saw a problem once, they called a official over and got a ruling. If you think the rule should be changed, I'll agree with you. Your rule's as good as any, better than they have now.
Rodney

If the rules are good then thier is no problem unless some one is trying to cheat or arguee or call the session off. Thats why you have to no who you are playing the rules do not save you alone. A million thanks for your reply. I wrote it about 7 times and no one replied to my rule. You are the first and only one. And I thank you for giving your oppinion. And This could go on for ever back and forth because the rule is no good. And people have mixed opinions witch way the rule interpeds. And if nothing changes then everything stays the same. Just talking about it does not change anything. The have to change the rule in the rule book to protect the players. BOTH PLAYERS. The rule is fair and its the saloution to the problem oweing a ball. And it gets paid wright away. And thats the end of that story. No clam or free game to loose the game or match. Imagine how brutle the rule is to run 8 and out to your opponent having no balls and you loose the game and match. Thier is a big quistion mark on who made that rule and why. And the could have done a lot better. And nobody even told the player that he still needs one more ball? Because he ows a ball. And if some one in the audience would have told him he owes a ball he would have contiued the game and nothing would have ghappened. And what is the penalty for a sweater or player telling him he needs one more ball. The penalty is zero. Thier would have been no loss of the game and the player would have keepte shooting. And he would no have lost the game and match. If it was my fried I would have told him wright after he ran the 8 balls that he owes one and that would not have happened. But nobody said bo because nobody cared. Now that its over people give that im sorry stuff. But that does not change anything. And if the change thje rule this will never happen again. And I wrote enough to wake up the rule makers and if some one wants to the can put it on AZ billiards. Because the rule needs to go with Adolp Hitler. Just show all those rule makers what I wrote and the will see and understand that the old rule has to go. And thanks again for repyling and understanding what I wrote. BElive me its a good and honest rule. And it will eliminate all the old bull shit . In getting free games and matches with out making a ball. What a horrable rule. You loose the game and match by one stupied rule. Its unexcusiable. And if the dont change the rule after what I wrote then keep your old crapie rules. And someone else will do the same thing. You need to change the problem and the rule is the problem. Not the player.

 

[lll]

artie if i read your rule corrctly you would have the balls owes taken out of the pocket as soon as they are made so as to remember to spot them. if this is correct the problem arises when both players "forget" sleep the owed balls. what am i missing in your rule. soory for the late reply but have not had time to be on the boards past few days. if i didnt have to work i would gain at least a ball or two in speed.

 

[SactownTom]

Scott's duties at the DCC are mostly Master of Ceremonies. The refs and TDs make the ruling.

I talked to the Ref that made the call and he was told by the shooter what happened and only confirmed what the shooter said with John Brumbeck. John Confirmed what the shooter said. The ref awarded the game to John B. He didn't mention any offer to replay the game.

The DCC mostly follows the OnePocket.org rules but they do NOT use base of the ball. It has to be a full ball over the head string.

 

[Roy Steffensen]

Scott's duties at the DCC are mostly Master of Ceremonies. The refs and TDs make the ruling.

I talked to the Ref that made the call and he was told by the shooter what happened and only confirmed what the shooter said with John Brumbeck. John Confirmed what the shooter said. The ref awarded the game to John B. He didn't mention any offer to replay the game.

The DCC mostly follows the OnePocket.org rules but they do NOT use base of the ball. It has to be a full ball over the head string.

I asked the ref if it was possible to play the game again, instead of losing it over a slept ball, and he said "that is up to John to decide, if it's ok for him, it's ok for me".


Thanks for all the replies.

I kind of like Artie's solution with the other guy having to tell you if you have fouled, and need a ball because of that.

Just like when you are on two fouls, the opponent need to tell you that you are on two, if not you don't lose the game if you do foul number three...

 

[gulfportdoc]

I asked the ref if it was possible to play the game again, instead of losing it over a slept ball, and he said "that is up to John to decide, if it's ok for him, it's ok for me".

The referee did not take the time to consult the rules. If he would have, the call would have gone for you. He had no business leaving the call up to Brumback. It was the referee's responsibility to make the correct call; which in this case he did not.

Doc

 

[suki]

I disagree

I disagree

The referee did not take the time to consult the rules. If he would have, the call would have gone for you. He had no business leaving the call up to Brumback. It was the referee's responsibility to make the correct call; which in this case he did not.

Doc

So what did John do to concede the game? Sit back down? I do not see anywhere in the rules that is a concession. The official made the only call he could,(as sick as it was). You cannot assume John counted the ball correctly by looking in the tray. You know as well as I do, if you really want to get it right you have to touch the balls to make sure all made it out the chute so you can count them. Maye he miscounted and thought the game was over too. That is not a concession as it is not his responsibility to get it right only correct it if you get it wrong. At this point the only reason he sits back down is because he does not have to rack, his opponent does. Then as quoted they both notice a coin and an owed ball. So why should John lose the game. I feel for Roy but it was nis mistake. My gosh how can you miss the coin, he ran 8 balls in his pocket, and that coin is staring him in the face the whole time. If he missed it in the heat of the moment and the excitement of running out that is on him, not John. It is a lousy pill to swallow but I see nothing John did wrong. If he sat down knowing Roy still needed one and hoped he would disturb the balls that is own him and his own concience.
I would like to get his real side of the story but regarless imo he did nothing wrong.

Af far as changing the rule as Artie suggests., I also disagree. I have been playing 1p for 58 years and have never seen this happen before, so how many more times do you think it will happen. I know we all forget scratches in the middle of games and there is a rule to correct it but I have never seen this situation happen on an end game when it meant so much. Changing the rule would just involve the oppoenent too much in a game the shooter is always responsible for his own score.

 

[NH Steve]

So what did John do to concede the game? Sit back down? I do not see anywhere in the rules that is a concession. The official made the only call he could,(as sick as it was). You cannot assume John counted the ball correctly by looking in the tray. You know as well as I do, if you really want to get it right you have to touch the balls to make sure all made it out the chute so you can count them. Maye he miscounted and thought the game was over too. That is not a concession as it is not his responsibility to get it right only correct it if you get it wrong. At this point the only reason he sits back down is because he does not have to rack, his opponent does. Then as quoted they both notice a coin and an owed ball. So why should John lose the game. I feel for Roy but it was nis mistake. My gosh how can you miss the coin, he ran 8 balls in his pocket, and that coin is staring him in the face the whole time. If he missed it in the heat of the moment and the excitement of running out that is on him, not John. It is a lousy pill to swallow but I see nothing John did wrong. If he sat down knowing Roy still needed one and hoped he would disturb the balls that is own him and his own concience.
I would like to get his real side of the story but regarless imo he did nothing wrong.

Af far as changing the rule as Artie suggests., I also disagree. I have been playing 1p for 58 years and have never seen this happen before, so how many more times do you think it will happen. I know we all forget scratches in the middle of games and there is a rule to correct it but I have never seen this situation happen on an end game when it meant so much. Changing the rule would just involve the oppoenent too much in a game the shooter is always responsible for his own score.

But don't you think the opponent should have no recourse if they let the shooter rack up the balls for the next game? We do not address this in the rules at this time, and I think we should. I think that this rule can and should be improved. Of course I do think the shooter is responsible for their count, and I also think that your opponent has the right to verify if you are out or not, but if your opponent lets you go ahead and rack the balls (which in alternate break format would come up half of the time, no matter whether you are racking your own or not, correct?), in my opinion the game should be considered over, whether a ball was slept or not. In my opinion the shooter should be considered to have won if the balls are racked for the next game. You sure cannot go back, and with all the balls picked up, who is to say that you didn't make nine balls anyway?

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

But don't you think the opponent should have no recourse if they let the shooter rack up the balls for the next game? We do not address this in the rules at this time, and I think we should. I think that this rule can and should be improved. Of course I do think the shooter is responsible for their count, and I also think that your opponent has the right to verify if you are out or not, but if your opponent lets you go ahead and rack the balls (which in alternate break format would come up half of the time, no matter whether you are racking your own or not, correct?), in my opinion the game should be considered over, whether a ball was slept or not. In my opinion the shooter should be considered to have won if the balls are racked for the next game. You sure cannot go back, and with all the balls picked up, who is to say that you didn't make nine balls anyway?

My rule eliminates all the problems of loosing the game and match. Is thier a problem with making a new rule to help the game? Eventualy all the rules will change anway. Why not now. If you owe a ball the first ball should be the ball you pay. THe proof is if you only make one ball that will be the ball you spoe. The first ball should go out of play. And if it gets paid before you make anymore balls then thier will not be a problem. And with both players knowing the rule and you can even have a coin by your pocket. ITs next to imposable for both players to forget about the ball. And if the both forget that he owes a ball. The game continues as normal and the scratch is eliminated. Just like if he owes a ball and runs 3 balls and he forgets to spot the ball and your opponent shoots what hapines now to the ball you owe. When his opponent forgot to tell him to spot the ball he owes? I no what are good and bad rules. And the bigest gamblers in Detroit would call me and ask for a ruling. And the rules in the rule book are not good rules for gambling. And the are not to good for tournaments. Eithier and it does no matter if you have been playing one pocket for a hundred years. THe rule sticks and needs to be changed to eliminate all the coffusion. And we are going no were we are on square one still. And the same stupied rule is still thier. I dont care what rules you play be. Or what stupied rule you go by. I no if I play all that bullshit is iliminated. And that can not happen if the rules are solid. And I guess AZ billiards and Onepocket .Org has different one pocket rules. So I gues thier realy araent any rules. And you play by what you make up. And I played thousands of games and I never had a problem about a rule. And I think that makes me qualified and the rule must go or keep playing by the same stupied rule. And keep saying the same nonsense over and over and nothing will change.

 

[SactownTom]

Does this cover the issue or NOT?

From our own rules....

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.

 

[gulfportdoc]

Does this cover the issue or NOT?

From our own rules....

It certainly does, Tom. I also quoted the rule in post #10: 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.

After his last shot, Roy moved his scoring bead above the light. John then came over, checked the ball tray, and went back and sat down, allowing Roy to rack. If that's not a concession, I don't know what is. What does John have to do? Go out and get a notarized statement that he has conceded the game?

Doc