rules question for whitey and anyone else

you are jacked up over a ball
when you stroke you move the ball you are jacked over
even tho you are playing cue ball only fouls
in my mind i think thats a foul
i cant find the rule
if yes
a link to the rule would be great
here is another scenario
you are using the bridge to shoot over a ball to reach the cue ball
if you hit the ball with your stick as you shoot it would be like the scenario above...i assume (yes i know what happens when you assume..)
but what happens if as you lift the bridge you hit the ball you are shooting over?
thanks for the help

I play that rule when gambling. I bought it up at the Memphis Memorial but it was considered no foul. The theory behind it being a foul, is that you are moving a ball before striking the que ball with your cue tip, which is a foul. The que ball must be struck first with the tip of your cue stick. Any other contact with any other object ball first is a foul.

rules question for whitey and anyone else

If hit with the tip of the cue, it’s a foul. If hit with a hand or another part, it’s not a foul as long as only one ball is moved. The opponent has their choice to leave or put it back if they prefer.

rules question for whitey and anyone else

If the balls are frozen then it has to be a foul...

rules question for whitey and anyone else

youngstownkid said:

If the balls are frozen then it has to be a foul...

Click to expand...

True. But there was no mention of being frozen in this instance. You are right though. If they (cue and OB) were frozen it’s a foul.

Mkbtank said:

If hit with the tip of the cue, it’s a foul. If hit with a hand or another part, it’s not a foul as long as only one ball is moved. The opponent has their choice to leave or put it back if they prefer.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. CB fouls only is exactly this, with everybody i have played. And, when shooting over a ball, frozen or not, whether you hit the ball with your tip or your shaft is very hard to tell. That's why we have the CB fouls only rule, to hold down disagreements. It's when the path of the CB is interfered with that a foul has occurred, or when more than one ball is moved is my understanding.

Today I played one of our newer members, and he prefers to play all ball fouls when gambling. I would rather not because I do tend to bump balls inadvertently sometimes. Instead I suggested all ball fouls with a one touch warning. He agreed to that. We played about 6 hours and I believe I was the only one to touch an object ball, which I called on myself for the warning So there were no fouls.

I like all ball fouls with a one touch warning. What I mean by that is that if you bump a ball prior to releasing your stroke then it is a warning only, and opponent has the option of putting the ball back or leaving it where it lies. If you touch a second time that's a foul. If you contact a ball during or following your stroke that is always a foul. So it is not quite as stringent as all ball fouls and hopefully less prone to arguments and phantom foul calls. My own feeling is all ball fouls kind of needs a referee. In fact, that is exactly why the general rules went to cue ball fouls only -- when there is no referee. But I think "all ball fouls with a one touch warning" is a pretty good compromise...

Larry,

I played in a 9-ball tourney several years ago and this happened in one of my games. We handled it but I was curious so I asked the head ref what the rule was when shooting over a ball: He said that if the balls were frozen it was a foul, if they were not frozen it was not a foul. I guess this is an easy way to minimize arguments and it makes sense. I have played this rule ever since. (Of course if there is a ref and it is clear that the cue/tip hit the blocking ball first they should and could call a foul, but with no ref...).

And yes, both of your scenarios would be handled the same in my opinion.

Personally, I think it should always be a foul when moving the blocking object ball when shooting over it because it allows you to change your stroke and get an unfair advantage when shooting from a tough spot allowing the shooter to dig down on the cue ball. This was the rule us old timers played forever, not sure when it changed but I guess it did.

Dave

21. Cue ball fouls only
If there is no referee presiding over a match, it may be played using cue ball fouls only. That is, touching or moving any ball other than the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the shot by either touching another ball or having any ball, including the cue ball, going through the area originally occupied by the moved ball. If this does not happen, then the opposing player must be given the option of either leaving the ball where it lies or replacing the ball as near as possible to its original position to the agreement of both players. If a player shoots without giving his opponent the option to replace, it will be a foul resulting in cue ball in hand for the opponent.

The above is the WPA rule. I wish it were divided into two paragraphs w/ the 1st paragraph dealing with the foul aspect of the shot, and the 2nd paragraph starting with; 'If this does not happen'. Meaning when a foul does not happen within the above guidelines.

The final sentence, starting w/; 'If a player'! This is 'not' dealing with the initial shot, but the next shot to be taken. Note: we can not take this as meaning the initial shot, for then it would be a foul to shoot and to move a ball, because you can not give the opponent the option to re-place the ball. The writing is a little ambiguous.
----------------------------------
So the key to answering Larry's question of shooting over a ball lies within the first two sentences, and deals with a disturbed ball contacting another ball and entering the space of another ball that also has been disturbed.
***With shooting over a ball when frozen to the cue ball and that ball is disturbed on the forward stroke then it is a foul***. The reason being; the disturbed ball illegally disturbed another ball, in this case 'the cue ball', plus it has entered the space of the cue ball, which is now an illegally disturbed ball.
But, if you disturb the ball on the back stroke 'only', thus the contact is after the cue ball is contacted, and thus moving the ball back away from the cue ball then it is not a foul.
Note: you could make it a foul if the object ball is disturbed period, but you would have to make it a written rule, for there is no official rule pertaining to this.
--------------
***Shooting over a ball that is 'not frozen' to the cue ball: It is not a foul to disturb that ball if that the ball does not contact the cue ball, and is also not a foul if it is rolled forward into the space the cue ball once occupied***. There is no effect upon the shot in this scenario.
-------------
In BCAPL official rules they have great diagrams of the above scenarios on pages 94 & 95. But of course that does not apply to our rules. But, it does not cover when the cue ball is frozen to the object ball.
--------------
I wish the WPA cue ball foul only rule was better written. It is slightly ambiguous, plus it is not detailed enough. For instance, we all know that it is a foul for the shooter to replace a disturbed ball without first getting permission from the opponent, so why not just come out and say it! Further, we know that it is the opponent who actually restores the ball. It is always better to be more detailed within the general rules. Whitey

Move 2 foul

Move 2 foul

This falls under the old adage during the shot, move one ball, leave it or opponent moves it back. Move TWO foul. This up/over with the shaft moving/touching an obstructing obj. ball ''during the shot'' is not a foul (unless the moved ball could effect play) this situation can/does cause arguments unless players talk about rules before play starts. I reffed a 200 player event using the BCA rule book. I think it was the 2016 edition. I think the rule was 86.7??? something or on page 86 or 87. The only player in the event that could of caused a problem, I told him to ''sit down''. I later handed him the rule book and told him the page to read, he said ''I didn't know that rule''. I told him, that's why I told you to sit down, the rules clearly said you were wrong. This man was easily my age and a Good player, it was a somewhat normal pool confrontation, but I ended it quickly and ended it with the rule book. I already had this rule highlighted in yellow, as I've seen this come up many times over the years. I read that rule book 4 times before I went to the event. Had 10% of that book highlighted.

darmoose said:

One Pocket is hard enough without increasing minutia rules that will accomplish nothing determinative as far as winning or losing a game. More rules, more tediousness, more subjectiveness and disagreements between players, whether gambling or playing in tournaments.:frus

Matching up today is difficult enough without having to come to agreement on dozens of "alternative" rules in an environment where losing $20 dollars is devastating to all too many.

The CB only fouls rule was created to minimize the tediousness and subjectiveness of calling fouls for no determinative reason. It is clear that with this rule, as we play it, that accidentally touching an OB whether with your tip or otherwise, whether before, during, or after your stroke only becomes a foul if the path of the CB is interfered with, or two or more balls are moved, or if the CB moves through an area where it would have contacted an OB if not for it being moved out of the way illegally.

The only rational I can see for making an exception when the CB and OB are frozen and you are shooting over the OB is if you feel that by accidentally touching the OB during your stroke the CB was moved and it's path was technically interfered with. But, to attribute any intended advantage to the shooter by his intentionally doing this is, I think, absurd.:sorry

We would be far better served by considering rules that can fix problems of consequence, like eliminating "tapping" style intentionals that favor one player over another, by implementing the rule giving the incoming player an option to shoot or return the shot following any foul.

Click to expand...

I think the point of all rules are to:

1. maintain fair competition
2. establish basic standards of acceptable play
3. avoid conflicts
4. keep the players focused on the game itself, not the rules

If a rule simplifies and improves one of those issues, it's worth looking at. But it is kind of ironic, the better the rules, the less they come into play lol

lll said:

you are jacked up over a ball
when you stroke you move the ball you are jacked over
even tho you are playing cue ball only fouls
in my mind i think thats a foul
i cant find the rule
if yes
a link to the rule would be great
...

Click to expand...

Larry, you may be recalling the BCA (and others) rule regarding masse shots, where it is a foul during set up to move an impeding ball. This is an instance where it's a foul by moving an object ball:

5. JUMP AND MASSE SHOT FOUL. While cue ball fouls only is the rule of play when a match is not presided over by a referee, a player should be aware that it will be considered a cue ball foul if during an attempt to jump, curve or masse the cue ball over or around an impeding numbered ball that is not a legal object ball, the impeding ball moves, regardless of whether it was moved by a hand, cue stick follow through or bridge.

~Doc

darmoose said:

One Pocket is hard enough without increasing minutia rules that will accomplish nothing determinative as far as winning or losing a game. More rules, more tediousness, more subjectiveness and disagreements between players, whether gambling or playing in tournaments.:frus

Matching up today is difficult enough without having to come to agreement on dozens of "alternative" rules in an environment where losing $20 dollars is devastating to all too many.

The CB only fouls rule was created to minimize the tediousness and subjectiveness of calling fouls for no determinative reason. It is clear that with this rule, as we play it, that accidentally touching an OB whether with your tip or otherwise, whether before, during, or after your stroke only becomes a foul if the path of the CB is interfered with, or two or more balls are moved, or if the CB moves through an area where it would have contacted an OB if not for it being moved out of the way illegally.

The only rational I can see for making an exception when the CB and OB are frozen and you are shooting over the OB is if you feel that by accidentally touching the OB during your stroke the CB was moved and it's path was technically interfered with. But, to attribute any intended advantage to the shooter by his intentionally doing this is, I think, absurd.:sorry

We would be far better served by considering rules that can fix problems of consequence, like eliminating "tapping" style intentionals that favor one player over another, by implementing the rule giving the incoming player an option to shoot or return the shot following any foul.

Click to expand...

As usual, I am in complete agreement with everything Darmoose says.

Tobermory said:

As usual, I am in complete agreement with everything Darmoose says.

Click to expand...

:lol:lol That made me laugh out loud, Tob's. Good sense of humor there.:lol:lol

gulfportdoc said:

Larry, you may be recalling the BCA (and others) rule regarding masse shots, where it is a foul during set up to move an impeding ball. This is an instance where it's a foul by moving an object ball:

5. JUMP AND MASSE SHOT FOUL. While cue ball fouls only is the rule of play when a match is not presided over by a referee, a player should be aware that it will be considered a cue ball foul if during an attempt to jump, curve or masse the cue ball over or around an impeding numbered ball that is not a legal object ball, the impeding ball moves, regardless of whether it was moved by a hand, cue stick follow through or bridge.

~Doc

Click to expand...

Doc, I use to submit rule suggestions to bcapl, which they asked for but really do not want. On your above rule, I offered up a couple of suggestions.
There are two things wrong with this writing:
1. an impeding ball by definition is an illegal ball that impedes the direct line to the intended object ball. Well, at times you either jump over or masse' around a ball that is not on a direct line to the intended object ball. Example: I am jumping over an illegal object ball to come off of a rail and then to my intended object ball. A jump kick shot! * Therefore the use of 'impeding ball' should just be simply changed to; 'any illegal object ball'.
2. In shooting past an illegal object without jumping it or masse' around it, and if the illegal object ball moves then it should be a foul as to whether or not it was contacted by the cue stick, body parts, or bridge.

I've had players pull this trick on me! It is tight to pass by an illegal object with the cue ball, and the cue ball hits it, and then they say; "I hit it with my stick". cheaters!

So the rule should also include; when shooting past an illegal object ball!

But there was a few other of my suggestions that bcapl did adopt, such as; rewriting the double hit rule (man was it ever poorly written in 2008), simultaneous hit, a ball in motion interfered with is a foul ( they did not have this rule at all), and a person down on the shot that is interfered with by the opponent is a foul. But they never gave me credit or a thank you. The really important suggestions I made were ignored.

Don't you just love it when the cue ball just does not quite pass the an object ball and the player asks the ref. to clean the ball. We have to laugh!!! So the WPA cleaning a ball rule needs a re-write. Which I have re-wrote it! If I am refereeing, I am telling him; "after this shot I'll clean the ball, Shoot"! Whitey

NH Steve said:

Today I played one of our newer members, and he prefers to play all ball fouls when gambling. I would rather not because I do tend to bump balls inadvertently sometimes. Instead I suggested all ball fouls with a one touch warning. He agreed to that. We played about 6 hours and I believe I was the only one to touch an object ball, which I called on myself for the warning So there were no fouls.

I like all ball fouls with a one touch warning. What I mean by that is that if you bump a ball prior to releasing your stroke then it is a warning only, and opponent has the option of putting the ball back or leaving it where it lies. If you touch a second time that's a foul. If you contact a ball during or following your stroke that is always a foul. So it is not quite as stringent as all ball fouls and hopefully less prone to arguments and phantom foul calls. My own feeling is all ball fouls kind of needs a referee. In fact, that is exactly why the general rules went to cue ball fouls only -- when there is no referee. But I think "all ball fouls with a one touch warning" is a pretty good compromise...

Click to expand...

I like your idea, and it is well thought out! Back in day when I was playing for real, I could play clean without disturbing balls. And have recently thought about how OP should be played as 'All Ball Fouls'. Such a magnificent game plus keeping the players playing a clean game, that is a good combination. But, now days, not so easy for me to shoot clean, but I would be more than willing to play that way.

In the MOT against Kentucky I had to double up bridges and stroke over the stack. Not sure what Kentucky would of called if I would of disturbed a ball, but he sure has good sportsmanship, but if you foul by the rules, he sure will call it, as he should! Whitey

I’m not sure of youse guys saying cue (que)ball fouls only can justify hitting an object ball with your tip first can not be a foul. What ever you say I’m for it. As far as obscure rules being a problem, being a nit some might say. My view of it is, THIS IS ONE POCKET, a intellectually challenging game that has with it, intellectually challenging rules. It’s not nine ball. How many of you were unhappy when they changed the rules of one shot push out to Texass express? Did you bitch and moan as much because you knew how to play it one way but had to learn a new way? I’m going to have to dream up a scenario where hit an object ball first, then the que ball, then the que ball. Who could be chosen to do it when playing someone? Who could I do that too, I wonder....
And Whitey, you can be assured I was watching you closely on the two level shot, with all four eyes.

even if not frozen I would say that if the ball you move with your cue travels forward it likely has crossed the path of the cue ball and is thus a foul!

Steve, to get back to your 'All Ball Foul' suggestion. I believe in your MOT it would work fine, for we are all playing against verified members. I trust their honesty in only calling a foul when actually a ball is disturbed.

Thusly, you Official Rules could incorporate this, since it is basically regulating OnePocket.org events. Playing a clean game of pool is always desired!

Playing with a 'one disturbed ball warning' gives the player time to clean up their act and stroke straight. Of course in OP it is not BIH but a penalty of a ball, the biggest part of the penalty is loss of turn.

Here is where I find it gets tricky; sometimes the shooter actually does not know they have touched a ball. But with a first warning pass, I think this works itself out.

This is something well worth discussing, IMO. It would be very interesting to know when the 'cue ball foul only rule' first came into being, and in what tournament it was first used. Whitey