Rules question

[BRLongArm]

Player A shoots and while he shoots, he move two or more balls with the butt of his stick along with the balls he shot. The result are several balls either collided because of the foul or crossed the path of a ball that moved. Player A says "foul", but does not allow player B to move balls back to where they were before the shot. The result is many of the balls are now in front of player A's hole. This was not intentional, mind you, but the offending player has received a huge benefit from the unintentional foul. Player B is hot.

Call it:

1. One ball foul, play on as they lay
2. Player B gets to move the balls that were moved back to where he thinks they were before being illegally moved during the shot
3. Impossible to reconfigure the game, loss of game.

Do our rules cover this scenario?

 

[beatle]

ive always played B. since its cue ball fouls only. and player B gets leeway to arrange them best as he can or wants.
its covered in the new rules well, for tournaments differently.

 

[12squared]

This is the closest and it does discuss your scenerio. But I feel the offending player would still get the best of it.

6. Fouls

6.1 Cue ball fouls only: When a referee is not presiding over the match to call all ball fouls then disturbing a ball is governed by standard "Cue ball fouls only" rules. For clarification, it is always a foul to disturb the cue ball but not a foul to disturb a single object ball as long as there is no effect upon the shot. Any time one or two balls are disturbed, the shooter and opponent must be notified, and the opponent given the option to restore the position or leave the balls as they lie before play resumes. It is a foul for the shooter to restore a disturbed ball without prior permission from the opponent. If two or more balls are disturbed then it is always a foul, whether there is an effect on the shot or not. If multiple (3 or more) balls are accidentally disturbed, they are considered unrestorable and in addition to the standard foul penalty, the opponent has option of ball in hand behind the line.

 

[NH Steve]

Player A fouled — it’s playerB’s option to move them back or not. The guilty playerA that fouled has no say in the decision to move the balls back or leave them.

It’s part of why our rules clearly allow restoration if it’s either one or two balls moved. Our new rules propose BIH option if three or more balls are moved.

 

[BRLongArm]

Player A fouled — it’s playerB’s option to move them back or not. The guilty playerA that fouled has no say in the decision to move the balls back or leave them.

It’s part of why our rules clearly allow restoration if it’s either one or two balls moved. Our new rules propose BIH option if three or more balls are moved.

I agree, but the rule does not contemplate moving the balls during the shot, which would not allow the opponent to move them back. 6.1 allows the option for ball in hand behind the line, which I have never seen before. Along the same lines, what happens when the player drops the bridge and splatters the stack?

 

[darmoose]

I wonder what is wrong with a loss of game foul being called for when a player drops the rake and splatters 3 or more balls. It no doubt would cause players to be more careful, and in some cases not even try to do something that dangerous, perhaps trying to make a very difficult shot. Simply find another option or shot.

I have absolutely no problem with loss of game when 3 or more balls are moved, period. I do not like putting BIH into the game foe other than the current scratch or CB off the table.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Thanks for putting up a thread on this, for it does bring more attention to moving multiple balls. My very earliest years of beginning to play pool, I recall that I had anxious times while shooting, for I would unintentionally sweep my cue sideways, and I could move some balls with some force.
There are times when shooting and stroking your shot, there are multiple balls in close proximity of the stroke, and it is easy to move a ball and it contacts some other balls. It really does not amount to much movement of the balls. But to offer up a much less violent moving of multiple balls, I in this case would have a hard time saying this is a loss of game.

With that said, it is much different than accidently dropping the bridge on the stack, or violently knee jerking the cue sideways and moving a lot of balls.

But, I do not see a correlation to illegally trapping a cue ball within the stack and opponent getting BIH option / and accidently moving 3 or more balls and having the option to get BIH. Eliminating one should not eliminate the other.

I am not saying the rule should not be adjusted, for I would never do that, for that would only tend to stymie the discussion!
Carry on, it is a good and worthwhile discussion! I am staying very open minded on this one, and I kind of like Beatle's comment on how players have played this, and I am open to loss of game at least in certain instances. It is of course an automatic loss of game if the opponent disturbs a ball.
Whitey

 

[NH Steve]

I agree, but the rule does not contemplate moving the balls during the shot, which would not allow the opponent to move them back. 6.1 allows the option for ball in hand behind the line, which I have never seen before. Along the same lines, what happens when the player drops the bridge and splatters the stack?

Player A moved balls during their shot, but it's a foul, so that ends their inning, and the balls get restored if player B wants, then player B shoots. Maybe I am missing something??

 

[sorackem]

I've written multiple posts here then deleted them. But I want to say this;

It seems to me that in extreme situations where the table dynamic is fundamentally changed by inadvertently moving balls, BIH may not be a sufficient remedy.

I think one of the biggest challenges of writing rules must be trying to address situations caused by bad-actors. People purposefully or recklessly manipulating situations. While unsportsmanlike loss of game penalties are available, they can be difficult to levy on the disingenuous if motivation is not made clear or definitive.

I like the idea of incoming player having option to replace balls, but that can be difficult to do accurately when 3 or more balls are moved.
I can see possibility that BIH may not be a fair remedy if the balls now heavily favor the offending player.

If the players have only scored a point or two a re-rack may not be a big deal, but if there are points scored, this too becomes an opportunity for manipulation and even an innocent mistake does not make a re-rack more enticing to the non-offending shooter.

Sorry, I'm not necessarily offering a solution - just clarifying what I believe are dynamics that should be weighed when considering rules.
I'm willing to accept that I'm just overthinking this and should allow good enough to be good enough.

 

[BRLongArm]

Guys getting really aggressive with the bridge over the stack wouldn't try the shot if they knew that it was loss of game if they moved the stack with the bridge. It would require them to shoot a safer shot, and in my opinion, protects the integrity of the game. We have all played guys that lay on balls when shooting, taking advantage of the cue foul only rule.

 

[BRLongArm]

Player A moved balls during their shot, but it's a foul, so that ends their inning, and the balls get restored if player B wants, then player B shoots. Maybe I am missing something??

When the balls are moving during the shot, it is impossible to recreate the layout because these balls not only move, but run into other balls and completely rearrange the furniture, not to mention the object ball you legally hit. If you allow the incoming player to just rearrange the table the way he wants, it will cause problems.

 

[jtompilot]

Guys getting really aggressive with the bridge over the stack wouldn't try the shot if they knew that it was loss of game if they moved the stack with the bridge. It would require them to shoot a safer shot, and in my opinion, protects the integrity of the game. We have all played guys that lay on balls when shooting, taking advantage of the cue foul only rule.

I’ve had a friend drop a ball and splatter the rack. Loss of game, sorry dude.
Player A has a two choices, Player B restores balls wherever or loss of game.

 

[NH Steve]

When the balls are moving during the shot, it is impossible to recreate the layout because these balls not only move, but run into other balls and completely rearrange the furniture, not to mention the object ball you legally hit. If you allow the incoming player to just rearrange the table the way he wants, it will cause problems.

The above rules say two balls can be restored. Three balls or more and the incoming player gets BIH behind the line.

 

[jtompilot]

The above rules say two balls can be restored. Three balls or more and the incoming player gets BIH behind the line.

That’s after the balls get restored?

 

[NH Steve]

In the proposed rules above these are sections that could relate to this conundrum:

6.1 Cue ball fouls only: When a referee is not presiding over the match to call all ball fouls then disturbing a ball is governed by standard "Cue ball fouls only" rules. For clarification, it is always a foul to disturb the cue ball but not a foul to disturb a single object ball as long as there is no effect upon the shot. Any time one or two balls are disturbed, the shooter and opponent must be notified, and the opponent given the option to restore the position or leave the balls as they lie before play resumes. It is a foul for the shooter to restore a disturbed ball without prior permission from the opponent. If two or more balls are disturbed then it is always a foul, whether there is an effect on the shot or not. If multiple (3 or more) balls are accidentally disturbed, they are considered unrestorable and in addition to the standard foul penalty, the opponent has option of ball in hand behind the line.

So since at least two balls were moved it was clearly a foul no matter what. So start there. If it was three or more then we put in place "unrestorable" but added an option of BIH behind the line.

But there is also 6.6 section (quoted below), that offers the possibility of asking an "official" to restore the balls. In this section, it makes no difference how many balls were moved -- the official can be called to "restore" them -- of course to the best of their ability, and the players would have to live with where the official put the balls. Since it would be very unlikely that the official saw it, they would have to consult the players and/or onlookers and do the best they could.

Joe says it was an accident by the shooter. But it's pretty difficult to figure that out, so although this is under the heading 6.6 Intentional Fouls, I would think it applies anyway since it certainly was an illegal technique, whether it could ever be determined it was intentional or not.

Bottom line is, given a day or so to decide lol, I would call it a serious foul, with BIH option, and the option of asking an "official" to restore the balls if the incoming player calls for that -- no matter how many balls may have been moved, and knowing that the restoration would not be perfect -- it is still the right justice for the incoming shooter in that situation if you ask me.

6.6 Intentional fouls: Standard intentional fouls are an accepted part of One Pocket tactics as long as they are played by use of a legal stroke, such as by lightly touching the cue ball with the cue tip; by rolling the cue ball to a new location without regard for legal contact with either an object ball or a cushion; by pocket scratching the cue ball; or by using a legal jump technique to force the cue ball off the table.

However, if the shooter has used an illegal technique, such as pushing, double-hitting or wedging/trapping, to direct or redirect the cue ball or any object balls to a more desirable location such as within the stack or jawed pocket, then the incoming player has the option of either playing the balls where they lie, or requesting the official to restore all such moved balls to their location prior to the illegal maneuver. In addition the incoming player has the option of cue ball in hand behind the line. The offending player is charged the standard one ball foul penalty, and in addition may be further penalized at the discretion of the acting official under the general rules of unsportsmanlike conduct.

Now reading this, I can see as written in our proposed rules, we have a conflict between "unrestorable" in 6.1, and "restorable" by an official in 6.6. So at the very least, we need to clear that up with a "ref" to the other rule or just leave it to one or the other rule.

 

[sheldon]

Most of us will likely never play with a ref, so the rule should be clear about multiple balls moving. Moving them back should always be an option for the incoming player, in my opinion. Which is covered up to 2 balls, but seems not to be if 3 or more move. At that point, I think jtompilot has the right idea.... incoming player puts them where they think they were, or game over. I worry more about the chance that the fouling player could gain an advantage than the incoming player gaining more than they deserve. Although it could be argued that a loss of game penalty might actually give the incoming player more than they deserve.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

This is the sentence that is being discussed. The rest of 6.1 apparently there are no concerns. The rule eliminated a move being made by 1 or 2 balls disturbed to be restored, but the rule created a possible move when 3 or more balls are disturbed. A concern voiced here!

6.1 Cue ball fouls only:
If multiple (3 or more) balls are accidentally disturbed, they are considered unrestorable and in addition to the standard foul penalty, the opponent has option of ball in hand behind the line.
----------------
So this is the sentence to work on! And also another sentence could be added, for there are special circumstances brought up about dropping a ball on the stack or the bridge.
It is always good to start with the sentence and then go from there.
Whitey

 

[darmoose]

Guys getting really aggressive with the bridge over the stack wouldn't try the shot if they knew that it was loss of game if they moved the stack with the bridge. It would require them to shoot a safer shot, and in my opinion, protects the integrity of the game. We have all played guys that lay on balls when shooting, taking advantage of the cue foul only rule.

I think this makes the most sense and does protect the integrity of the game. If players know that moving three or more balls is loss of game they will be more careful and not try stupid shots and they will accept the loss of game penalty.

The game has been played this way in many areas already. We talk about not changing OP, but we do things like this, and I must confess I don't understand why?

 

[NH Steve]

As the guilty shooter, I would definitely prefer to let my opponent move the balls back than lose the game -- that is a no-brainer!

It could just change to something like (underlined at changes)

6.1 Cue ball fouls only: When a referee is not presiding over the match to call all ball fouls then disturbing a ball is governed by standard "Cue ball fouls only" rules. For clarification, it is always a foul to disturb the cue ball but not a foul to disturb a single object ball as long as there is no effect upon the shot. If two or more balls are disturbed then it is always a foul, whether there is an effect on the shot or not. At any time any balls are disturbed, the shooter and opponent must be notified, and the opponent given the option to restore the position or leave the balls as they lie before play resumes. It is a foul for the shooter to restore a disturbed ball without prior permission from the opponent. If 3 or more balls are disturbed, it is considered a serious foul, so in addition to the standard foul penalty, the opponent has the option of ball in hand behind the line.

 

[vapros]

How in the world can you ask an official to restore several balls that have been moved, when he did not see what happened? Why is he the most qualified? And bear in mind that if spectators are called upon to help, as noted here, that some of them might be betting on the match or at least have a favorite player or a slot in a bracket. I see all manner of bad results - but then, I often do. A lurking serious snafu in this rule.