Rules Update Conversation

[sappo]

In the recent Busty/Deuel match in rack 39 Busty made a ball on the break and reracked and on the rebreak he scratched. Deuel went on to win that game. This obviously had no impact on the games outcome because of the large lead Busty had BUT if the match was a close it could have been the deciding factor as far as who won the entire match.

I believe a ball pocketed on the break should count and that the breaker should continue shooting. Many of us work hard trying to perfect a good break and there is no reason a pocketed ball should not count. As previously discussed the opposition has every right to inspect the rack and question anything that is not right. If the pool powers deem a repack is the correct action then anytime a breaker scratches there should also be a rerack. It should also be noted that in the above match I believe that rack 39 was the only time a ball was made on the break during the 3 day event, its not like they are dropping in at a frequent rate.

One last point Ive heard the argument that a ball on the break is just luck and that the game should not be determined by luck, well Im willing to bet there is much, much more luck in the way balls roll and carom off each other in almost every game played than when one goes in on a break. Keith

 

[NH Steve]

I think this point is false. Can you explain why you think it is easier to tell edge versus base?

As for the edge vs base of the ball, that is the kind of question it is easy to run a poll on. I personally do not care either way as long as my opponent doesn’t sneaknn b too far over the line lol

 

[darmoose]

When the CB and an OB are close together, it's always been a challenge to judge the hit. There are 2-3 popular methods/solutions:

6.7 Double Hit / Frozen Balls (WPA)
If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball
is close to but not touching an object ball and the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue
ball contacts that object ball, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is very close to an object ball,
and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the
first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball
contact is made.

As far as the DCC rules, I couldn't find any section on "nearly frozen" CB/OB-- only frozen ones, in which they rule that the cue stick must be elevated 45 degrees, but that the player still must not "push through" the shot by maintaining cue tip contact. Presumably a referee must be called when the OB/CB are close to each other.

The old BCA rules admonish against the double hit, and they state that when the CB and OB are at or within a chalk's width distance to one another, if the CB follows through the OB more than 1/2 ball, then it is considered a foul.

So the WPA has it that if the CB "barely grazes" the OB then it's never considered a foul. Should we say that "barely grazing" might be, say, 85 degrees? But what about shots at 1 to 84 degrees? So "shooting away" from an OB is defined as how? AT what angle is the player "shooting away"? And who makes that judgement?

The old BCA rule is fine if there is a neutral referee closely observing the hit.

A double hit is fairly easy to determine if the CB jumps, or if there's a miscue. But in many other situations it's very difficult to determine if there's been a double hit. That's why I favor the elevated cue solution, even though there might be the danger of ignoring a minor double hit.

~Doc

When the CB and an OB are close together, it's always been a challenge to judge the hit. There are 2-3 popular methods/solutions:

6.7 Double Hit / Frozen Balls (WPA)
If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball
is close to but not touching an object ball and the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue
ball contacts that object ball, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is very close to an object ball,
and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the
first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball
contact is made.

As far as the DCC rules, I couldn't find any section on "nearly frozen" CB/OB-- only frozen ones, in which they rule that the cue stick must be elevated 45 degrees, but that the player still must not "push through" the shot by maintaining cue tip contact. Presumably a referee must be called when the OB/CB are close to each other.

The old BCA rules admonish against the double hit, and they state that when the CB and OB are at or within a chalk's width distance to one another, if the CB follows through the OB more than 1/2 ball, then it is considered a foul.

So the WPA has it that if the CB "barely grazes" the OB then it's never considered a foul. Should we say that "barely grazing" might be, say, 85 degrees? But what about shots at 1 to 84 degrees? So "shooting away" from an OB is defined as how? AT what angle is the player "shooting away"? And who makes that judgement?

The old BCA rule is fine if there is a neutral referee closely observing the hit.

A double hit is fairly easy to determine if the CB jumps, or if there's a miscue. But in many other situations it's very difficult to determine if there's been a double hit. That's why I favor the elevated cue solution, even though there might be the danger of ignoring a minor double hit.

~Doc

Forgive me, Doc. I must be typing upside down or sumptin. I see nothing in the WPA 6.7 rule you quoted that provides any kind of method/solution for resolving how we can avoid disagreements as to whether a foul was committed when shooting a CB that is very close or is frozen to an OB.

In a game of infinite measurements like pool, it is impossible to write a rule that doesn't have at least the potential for an exceptional shot result that one could argue disproves the rule. Having said that, we still must have rules and must make the effort to keep the exceptions and outliers to a minimum.

In post # 5 I thought I explained pretty well what my proposal was. The primary problem with this type of shot is that it is all but IMPOSSIBLE to see or even hear any evidence of the foul that the shooter will be compelled to agree with if he has larceny in his heart. What I have proposed is to determine that the shooter is aimed in such a way to avoid the foul PRIOR to shooting. Your discussion of all those angles 1 to 84 degrees or whatever seems to miss my point, sorry. The shooter is REQUIRED to aim his cue stick in such a direction so as to avoid hitting the OB on his follow through, whatever angle that requires. I don't see how that could be any easier, and the shooter and the opponent can predetermine if the shooter is complying before he shoots.

Shooter to his opponent: "how does this angle look to you?"
Opponent to shooter: "looks good, fire away", or "looks like your stick could contact the OB, give it a bit more angle".

It is the PREDETERMINATION of this shot that solves the problem. And, for those who just can't bring themselves to follow the rules, and think they are special enough to execute a "CB close to OB" shot, which we can't stop them from attempting, we need a more objective way to determine if a foul was committed. If the CB travels past the point of contact with the OB it is a foul. There are still going to be rare occasions where the rule can be questioned, but far less than we have currently. IMHO

ON the DCC 45 degree rule it is my understanding that on any shot, whether frozen or just close to frozen, so long as the shooter is jacked up 45 degrees, no foul can be called. I could be wrong. That is a terrible rule in my opinion that allows all kinds of unscrupulous behaviors. C'est la vie.

 

[NH Steve]

In general I am in favor of keeping the basic rules the same as they have been forever as a general principle. So in the case of a ball made in the break I’m inclined to have them keep shooting. But maybe times are changing. A couple options are we could put the rerack rule right in place if players rack their own or we could place the rerack option in the alternate italics section. Or we could make the rerack rule standard, in which case I would put the keep shooting rule in the alternate text

Or we

 

[darmoose]

I think this point is false. Can you explain why you think it is easier to tell edge versus base?

It seems far easier to me, Bob, and that is true of most all the people I play with or discuss it with. Every time it comes up before a gambling match that i am involved in and I ask, the other guy always seems to say "edge of ball" or "whole ball". i also think it is easier to see the edge of ball when you lay your cue stick across the diamonds or draw a string across the diamonds. Trying to see the base of the ball (which is a finite point) under the ball is for me more difficult. I assume you are gonna argue that it is not.

 

[darmoose]

In general I am in favor of keeping the basic rules the same as they have been forever as a general principle. So in the case of a ball made in the break I’m inclined to have them keep shooting. But maybe times are changing. A couple options are we could put the rerack rule right in place if players rack their own or we could place the rerack option in the alternate italics section. Or we could make the rerack rule standard, in which case I would put the keep shooting rule in the alternate text

Or we

Steve,

I believe this discussion all started due to "winner break nine ball" and "rack your own nine ball" and how the players were finnigeling the rack. Eventually OP players glommed on to "rack your own" for whatever reasons. I would resolve this problem by either requiring that the non-shooter racks the balls (just like we require alternate breaks, unlike nine ball or many other games). If that can't be swallowed by too many, then I would require a rerack if a ball is pocketed, and with NO other conditions whatsoever, like on the subsequent break. I think you do no service to anyone by publishing "alternate" rules. JMHO

 

[Bob Jewett]

It seems far easier to me, Bob, and that is true of most all the people I play with or discuss it with. Every time it comes up before a gambling match that i am involved in and I ask, the other guy always seems to say "edge of ball" or "whole ball". i also think it is easier to see the edge of ball when you lay your cue stick across the diamonds or draw a string across the diamonds. Trying to see the base of the ball (which is a finite point) under the ball is for me more difficult. I assume you are gonna argue that it is not.

If the headstring is marked, I think it is really hard to see whether the edge of the ball touches the line because it is easy to be not exactly above the ball looking down. If the headstring is not marked, it is really, really hard. On the other hand, I feel I can usually tell whether a ball is to the left or right of the line, and if the line is not marked, I can sight through the diamonds to see if the ball is to the left or right of that line. Alternatively, I can put a ball on the cushion at each head string diamond and see whether the questionable ball is to the left or right of their centers.

Every other cue sport game uses the center (base) of the ball to determine whether the ball is in or out of an area, and it is the standard for straight pool and always has been, with the exception of in/out of the rack area.

I assume the "edge of the ball" proponents are saying that the cue ball must be completely behind the line and any object ball must be completely over the line for a shot with BIH. Is that right?

 

[darmoose]

If the headstring is marked, I think it is really hard to see whether the edge of the ball touches the line because it is easy to be not exactly above the ball looking down. If the headstring is not marked, it is really, really hard. On the other hand, I feel I can usually tell whether a ball is to the left or right of the line, and if the line is not marked, I can sight through the diamonds to see if the ball is to the left or right of that line. Alternatively, I can put a ball on the cushion at each head string diamond and see whether the questionable ball is to the left or right of their centers.

Every other cue sport game uses the center (base) of the ball to determine whether the ball is in or out of an area, and it is the standard for straight pool and always has been, with the exception of in/out of the rack area.

I assume the "edge of the ball" proponents are saying that the cue ball must be completely behind the line and any object ball must be completely over the line for a shot with BIH. Is that right?

Yes, and you make a reasonable argument. None of the tables that I play on have the head string drawn on the table, and with the monkeys involved in covering and setting up the tables I don't think it could be trusted to be true if they were marked.

I can play either way, either base of ball or edge of ball. I really don't think it much matters, and I don't think it reaches the level of importance to deviate from all other games rules. I do think that if we were calling them by either method we would reach the identical decision about 99.999% of the time.

 

[BRLongArm]

I think this point is false. Can you explain why you think it is easier to tell edge versus base?

Most one pocket houses have a line on the headstring to clearly show where the kitchen begins. If you have problems seeing if a ball is over, you are REALLY going to have a problem seeing if the base is over.

 

[NH Steve]

Whole ball or base of the ball, I would be ok with a poll on those two options. Or we could simply address the "whole ball option" in the alternate section, the way we have addressed quite a few other regional or traditional variations.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Most one pocket houses have a line on the headstring to clearly show where the kitchen begins. If you have problems seeing if a ball is over, you are REALLY going to have a problem seeing if the base is over.

I think it is easier to see whether the cue ball is to the left or right of the line.

 

[gulfportdoc]

In my opinion the issue is not what position makes the ball easier to gauge, but WHERE IS the ball? To my thinking a ball is where it rests; and it rests where it touches the table bed.

If you're going to judge where a ball is by its facing, then when a ball is sitting on the edge of the bed hanging in a pocket, why wouldn't the ball be considered IN the pocket? Part of the ball is in the pocket.

~Doc

 

[darmoose]

In my opinion the issue is not what position makes the ball easier to gauge, but WHERE IS the ball? To my thinking a ball is where it rests; and it rests where it touches the table bed.

If you're going to judge where a ball is by its facing, then when a ball is sitting on the edge of the bed hanging in a pocket, why wouldn't the ball be considered IN the pocket? Part of the ball is in the pocket.

~Doc

Doc,

That's cute. Would that mean that if you are gonna use "base of ball" to determine the balls location, that two balls that might otherwise be considered frozen, are actually 2.25 inches apart? Or, is it impossible to freeze a ball on a rail because it is actually 1.125" from the rail?

 

[sappo]

give it up guys!!!

 

[Scrzbill]

I think this point is false. Can you explain why you think it is easier to tell edge versus base?

‘For me Bob it is easier to ascertain from the top with a straight edge from diamond to diamond. You cannot do that with tables that have no line. If a table has a line, then it is six of one and a half a dozen of the other.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Hi Guys, I've been so involved in the development of your guys rules I did not even know this thread had been started. I just want to say; " it is an honor for me to participate", and I am not forgetting all our forum threads on rule ?'s, and I'll represent the consensus of all those threads as best as I can. Remember I am a time capsule for I played from '69-73, so I am pro historically how the game was played.
We deliberated 1. object of the game. I wanted the results of the lag to be this, and I think it is very cool, and it is how it is written in my '68 BCA rule Book. The winner of the lag has choice of pocket, and option to break.
Think about it and let it sink in! When I think of this, I think of Beatle, for if there is a way to get an edge, he'll do it!
It means; you can pass the break, but maintain the choice of pocket! So if I am playing a guy that is known to be prone to sell out the break, I might pass the break. Beatle will like this, if I playing a guy a set and he is selling out the break and loses the set, but wants to play another set. I will pass him the break if I win the lag.
I hope this winner of lag writing goes up for a poll. It is fun, and actually gives a reason to pass the break, where otherwise their is not reason and it just does not happen.

We are rapping up 2. the break: I am pushing for making the rule complete. Which means; all scenarios related to the break are covered. Such as; illegally stroking the cb (double clutch) and contacting the rack, illegally contacting the cb and then stopping it from hitting the rack- i'll address in BIH-BTL, not contacting the rack at all - result. The breaking of your own rack and making a ball, so far this is being addressed as an alternative rule, Larry will like this, and if scratch occurs the opponent receives BIH-BTL. I believe this is the consensus of the many threads we have had on this.

We have discussed base of ball vs. whole ball. I do know whole ball is the historical way OP was played, and at the 2018 MOT players meeting it was voted hands down for whole ball, and no one even mentioned base of ball. At this meeting I further suggested a warning be given if the cb is not placed correctly, and that was agreed upon. WPA does not have this warning in BIH-BTL, so I will be pushing for this.

On Close Proximity Shots. CB very close to the OB. I have done a complete thread on this explaining the foul criteria for these shots when using draw & follow, and it was accompanied with slow motion videos. On draw the cb can not go past the contact point, on follow it must pause before going forward. This is a very important rule for us to adopt!

There is much more I am going to address, thwarting the use of an intentional, working in proper procedure, more clarification on illegally trapping/wedging, and ob frozen to cb when spotting, of which I had to prove that it is historically correct.

On this rule, Dr. Bill agreed with me that this makes way more sense than leaving a gap. The reason is; as we know when the cb is frozen to an ob we can stroke into it, this means we can do a lot with it, but when there is a gap, now it is darn near a trap, not much you can do with it.

Well I have given you guys more to talk about than just whole ball or base and cb close to ob. Whitey

 

[BRLongArm]

In the recent Busty/Deuel match in rack 39 Busty made a ball on the break and reracked and on the rebreak he scratched. Deuel went on to win that game. This obviously had no impact on the games outcome because of the large lead Busty had BUT if the match was a close it could have been the deciding factor as far as who won the entire match.

I believe a ball pocketed on the break should count and that the breaker should continue shooting. Many of us work hard trying to perfect a good break and there is no reason a pocketed ball should not count. As previously discussed the opposition has every right to inspect the rack and question anything that is not right. If the pool powers deem a repack is the correct action then anytime a breaker scratches there should also be a rerack. It should also be noted that in the above match I believe that rack 39 was the only time a ball was made on the break during the 3 day event, its not like they are dropping in at a frequent rate.

One last point Ive heard the argument that a ball on the break is just luck and that the game should not be determined by luck, well Im willing to bet there is much, much more luck in the way balls roll and carom off each other in almost every game played than when one goes in on a break. Keith

You would agree if I rack for you there is a higher chance of a dispute then if you rack your own, right? But if someone racks his own, there is a chance that he can be a mechanic and set the rack so he has a good chance at making a ball, right? If you have any doubt, just watch the nine ball and ten ball rack your own tournaments. It's a joke how often the breaker makes a ball on the break...the same ball. It has ruined the game. To prevent that, we allow the breaker to rack his own (to eliminate disputes about the rack), but if the breaker does make a ball, we call for a rerack. This practice of reracking on a made ball has become standard practice in the major pro tournaments, including Derby, Buffalo's, Scotty Townsend, pro gambling events, and others. It has become the default rule. We should embrace it for all the reasons above.

 

[sappo]

You would agree if I rack for you there is a higher chance of a dispute then if you rack your own, right? But if someone racks his own, there is a chance that he can be a mechanic and set the rack so he has a good chance at making a ball, right? If you have any doubt, just watch the nine ball and ten ball rack your own tournaments. It's a joke how often the breaker makes a ball on the break...the same ball. It has ruined the game. To prevent that, we allow the breaker to rack his own (to eliminate disputes about the rack), but if the breaker does make a ball, we call for a rerack. This practice of reracking on a made ball has become standard practice in the major pro tournaments, including Derby, Buffalo's, Scotty Townsend, pro gambling events, and others. It has become the default rule. We should embrace it for all the reasons above.

I don't care if you rack for me as long as I have the right to inspect the rack and if Im not satisfied with the rack I can have it redone until Im satisfied. I also don't care what the major tournaments do, its their events and their right to do as they please. Ive already stated my opinion as a member here, thats all. Keith

 

[darmoose]

I don't care if you rack for me as long as I have the right to inspect the rack and if Im not satisfied with the rack I can have it redone until Im satisfied. I also don't care what the major tournaments do, its their events and their right to do as they please. Ive already stated my opinion as a member here, thats all. Keith

Keith,

I agree with you on this wholeheartedly. While the rerack rule does offer some relief from mechanic's move, it does not negate it completely for if the ball does not fall, it may just be a hanger, which also can be to the breakers great advantage.

I agree with your thought that you can rack for me all day, so long as I can inspect the rack, and you don't get your nose out of joint if I ask you to do it again and point out its shortcoming. Too many people today, if you ask them to adjust the rack, they get insulted and bark out "rack your own, dammit". When that happens, if I feel that they are not making an honest effort I go ahead and rack my own and they are even more unhappy after that.

 

[Island Drive]

I think this point is false. Can you explain why you think it is easier to tell edge versus base?

The base of the ball is in the shadows. when its NOT, it allows BOTH players to CLEARLY see ball positions with an EDGE. No different than a ref calling a tie on a break lag. They never determine the lag winner by BASE. It's always the outside edge closest to the head rail.