I haven't misquoted anything. It is you who are being contentious on this subject, right from your very first post.
The 1p.o rules stand as a complete set, with the provision that anything not covered in those rules will defer to the WPA rules. Here is how that is written, right at the top of the rules page:
"Unless clearly contradicted below, general pocket billiards rules of play and etiquette apply to One Pocket, and complete General Rules are available from the World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA)." (emphasis added) That does not mean that WPA rules supersede the 1p.o rules. It means that the WPA rules can be used as a secondary source when a situation comes up that is not covered in the 1p.o rules.
The WPA rules state in their section 6.6 the following, which covers touched balls:
"6.6 Touched Ball
It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of any object ball except by the normal ball-to-ball contacts during shots. It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot. The shooter is responsible for the equipment he controls at the table, such as chalk, bridges, clothing, his hair, parts of his body, and the cue ball when it is in hand, that may be involved in such fouls. If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct."
My purpose in listing 3-4 various rule sets by major entities was to show the differences in addressing this issue.
You're personally entitled to play with any rules you like, unless you're playing in an event which uses one of these rule sets.
Doc
I think it would be better if you (we, to be polite) refrained from name calling in order to focus on where you are missing some finer points of this rule.
I was not being contentious in my first post, I was quoting lll who was reciting his version of the DCC rule that said that "touching or disturbing" a second ball was a foul. And then he went on to explain that if the second ball did not move it wasn't a foul, totally ignoring the touching part. I was drawing his attention to the word "touching"
Now, to 1P.org rules, I don't disagree with you that WPA rules are secondary except where clearly and specifically called on to be primary, or to cover situations not addressed in the 1P.org rules.
Only rule 6.1 of the 1P.org rules, none (not one) of the other 1P.org rules starts with the statement "one pocket is played by the WPA rule in section 20 of the regulations entitled cueball fouls only". This is obviously and clearly a calling out for the WPA rule to become the primary on the subject of cueball only fouls, a provision which you are apparently totally ignoring.
I will give you that it is potentially confusing that rule 6.1 of the 1P.org goes on to explain what should happen when a single ball is disturbed. It is to be replaced with no foul having been committed regardless of the path traveled by any OB or the Cueball. This would mean that even if an OB or the Cueball traveled through the area where the ball was moved, still no foul. One could shoot a straightback bank shot, while accidently moving an OB that was in the path, and make the bank and have it count. Is this your intent?
The verbage in 6.1 of the 1P.org also fails to address a second ball being moved at all, and so by omission calls the WPA rule into primary position with regard to a second ball being touched or disturbed.
Finally, your reference to WPA rule 6.6 is a rule intended to address accidental or intentional touching or moving of an OB or the CB with objects other than the tip of your cue stick, (i.e. rakes, chalk, clothing, etc. ) and has nothing to do with "cueball only fouls" which are addressed in WPA Regulations, number 20. I don't understand your purpose in referencing WPA rule 6.6, but if it was to somehow apply it to this discussion, it certainly makes it a foul to touch any ball inadvertently, and as I said it is not intended to be the rule that covers "cueball fouls only".
It is bad enough, as you are implying, and I agree, the numerous ways this rule is addressed by the various rulemaking organizations. It is further confounding for one to misinterpret or omit to try to make a rule say what one might like it to say, rather than what it does actually say.
