What's your call on this?

[lll]

The ref called it like the game both had started and hadn't started.

It must have started because Thorpe did something to lose his break. If the game hadn't started, he couldn't have done anything that I know of to lose his break. Plus, Hanes didn't have to rack his own by rule (he broke Thorpe's rack), as if the game had already started.

But then, as if the game hadn't started, Hanes got to select his pocket, which is the one Thorpe selected during the game that apparently started. Unless the ref also ruled a pocket hasn't been called until the rack is struck. I have never heard of that. I thought the pocket is called before the break either by pointing to it or by the convention of just choosing one side or the other to break from.

What a mess.

who’s on first?

 

[catkins]

clearly the game starts when the breaking player calls his pocket which needs to be before the cue ball is struck in my opinion

 

[cincy_kid]

maybe I just play with friendlier players but I think when this has come up before in gambling, the other one throws the CB back to the breaker and lets you break again...as long as no balls were disturbed that is...

 

[Billy Jackets]

maybe I just play with friendlier players but I think when this has come up before in gambling, the other one throws the CB back to the breaker and lets you break again...as long as no balls were disturbed that is...

You can do that with other honest players, you just can't give the cheaters any openings at all though .
Whoever coined the phrase cheaters never win , forgot to add , on judgement day,....... most other times , they take down the money.

 

[LSJohn]

The rule needs specificity for this rare occurrence. As it is, interpretation is required, and this situation has been played in some places and by some people as though the game did not start until the rack was contacted.

I'd suggest adding: If he cue ball doesn't contact another ball (as in a miscue) it is treated like any other foul where the cue ball is not pocketed or off the table.

 

[sorackem]

specificity for this rare occurrence

As a rather green OP player; I recognize that a foul has been committed merely by instinct. I know that something has to be hit. I also know that once the order of the break has been decided and placing the cue-ball behind the head-string: the cue tip touching the CB constitutes play.

As this was (was it not the DCC 2019) - there should be no side negotiation or agreement or local interpretations outside the rules of play at that venue. The Ref should have known the rules better - this seems too basic an eventuality to get wrong, much less compounded to this degree.

I'm sure I could have made it worse though, had I been the Ref.

 

[LSJohn]

I recognize that a foul has been committed merely by instinct.

It looked to me that the DCC ref ruled by instinct, so I'd prefer something a little more concrete.

 

[beatle]

efs

 

[Bob Jewett]

The rule needs specificity for this rare occurrence. As it is, interpretation is required, and this situation has been played in some places and by some people as though the game did not start until the rack was contacted.

I'd suggest adding: If he cue ball doesn't contact another ball (as in a miscue) it is treated like any other foul where the cue ball is not pocketed or off the table.

I think it goes beyond that. I think this is the way to play: "The break shot is in no way a special shot and has no special requirements except that the breaker must indicate his pocket explicitly or by placement of the cue ball. In the absence of an explicit pocket choice, the breaker is assigned the foot pocket on the side opposite to the side the cue ball starts from." Or something like that. There is no need to complicate. Eight ball has some horrible break shot rules.