Revisiting "Cue ball fouls only"

NH Steve · Nov 8, 2010

One topic that came up at the Providence One Pocket tournament was the question of fouls. We played cue ball fouls only, with the opponent having option of replacing the ball moved or leaving them in their new location. One of the players approached me afterward (Jared Clowery) and made a very good point, that I had to agree with him, is especially significant for One Pocket. Jared's point was, if he locks up his opponent so it is tough to bridge over interfering balls, why should the incoming player be able to get away with bumping those balls in order to get his shot off? It takes away from the strength of the position that Jared put him in.

I generally have been in favor of the cue ball fouls only because it is too tough to police all balls without a referee, and too easy for an over eager opponent to see mysterious touch fouls, which creates nothing but fireworks.

So here are a couple of ideas (which may or may not be new at all):

1. If the ball disturbance happens prior to the release of the shot, then play stops and the usual "move the ball back" situation could take place.

2. If the ball disturbance happens on/after the release of the shot (without time for the shooter to stop and get the ball replaced), then it would be called a foul.

3. You could also limit the ball disturbance/replacement (prior to the shot) to one time, as a warning, so that if the shooter bumped/disturbed the balls a second time (even if he is still just getting down into his stance to get ready to shoot), then bumping the balls a second time would be a foul, but the first time (for any given shot -- not like once a game or anything) it would not.

This combination of rules would not quite be "all ball fouls" but it goes a good way toward that, only basically allowing for one disturbance/bump during the shooters preparations as a warning, then basically going to all ball fouls.

The idea behind this for One Pocket especially is that you have to consider that those interfering balls are truly a part of the shot -- they effect the shooters ability to bridge or stroke from where either they left themselves, or where their opponent left them -- that difficulty of bridging and stroking cleanly could definitely be part & parcel to the outcome of the shot.

I have to add that I am still a little concerned that certain players could still abuse the mysterious foul call, so I would like to hear what others think could be done to minimize that. Also, what about in "three fouls, loss of game" situations? A touch foul would be a real nasty way to lose an important game... maybe these touch fouls should not be considered the same as other fouls & pocket scratches. Any ideas on that?

What do you all think, or am I just slow to catch up with what is already being done or talked about elsewhere?

NH Steve · Nov 8, 2010

Here's Jared, possibly bridging over balls in just this kind of situation...

gbru · Nov 8, 2010

NH Steve said:
One topic that came up at the Providence One Pocket tournament was the question of fouls. We played cue ball fouls only, with the opponent having option of replacing the ball moved or leaving them in their new location. One of the players approached me afterward (Jared Clowery) and made a very good point, that I had to agree with him, is especially significant for One Pocket. Jared's point was, if he locks up his opponent so it is tough to bridge over interfering balls, why should the incoming player be able to get away with bumping those balls in order to get his shot off? It takes away from the strength of the position that Jared put him in.

I generally have been in favor of the cue ball fouls only because it is too tough to police all balls without a referee, and too easy for an over eager opponent to see mysterious touch fouls, which creates nothing but fireworks.

So here are a couple of ideas (which may or may not be new at all):

1. If the ball disturbance happens prior to the release of the shot, then play stops and the usual "move the ball back" situation could take place.

2. If the ball disturbance happens on/after the release of the shot (without time for the shooter to stop and get the ball replaced), then it would be called a foul.

3. You could also limit the ball disturbance/replacement (prior to the shot) to one time, as a warning, so that if the shooter bumped/disturbed the balls a second time (even if he is still just getting down into his stance to get ready to shoot), then bumping the balls a second time would be a foul, but the first time (for any given shot -- not like once a game or anything) it would not.

This combination of rules would not quite be "all ball fouls" but it goes a good way toward that, only basically allowing for one disturbance/bump during the shooters preparations as a warning, then basically going to all ball fouls.

The idea behind this for One Pocket especially is that you have to consider that those interfering balls are truly a part of the shot -- they effect the shooters ability to bridge or stroke from where either they left themselves, or where their opponent left them -- that difficulty of bridging and stroking cleanly could definitely be part & parcel to the outcome of the shot.

I have to add that I am still a little concerned that certain players could still abuse the mysterious foul call, so I would like to hear what others think could be done to minimize that. Also, what about in "three fouls, loss of game" situations? A touch foul would be a real nasty way to lose an important game... maybe these touch fouls should not be considered the same as other fouls & pocket scratches. Any ideas on that?

What do you all think, or am I just slow to catch up with what is already being done or talked about elsewhere?

I agree with your line of thinking Steve and I would also agree that if a person was on 2 fouls and he bumped the balls once (with a warning) then the next time should be a foul and loss of game.

That to me is one of the main points of advanced, strategical play....Not that I play any where near the Ghost's speed....

Also.....would you address or point me towards the interference of touched or moved balls in the path of the cue ball.

androd · Nov 8, 2010

Will there be any age waivers for old hackers like me.

Never mind I never play in tournaments anyway.

Rod.

gulfportdoc · Nov 8, 2010

I see the logic in trying to cover certain circumstances in 1P in which OB fouls should be limited. On the other hand, in what pool game is it NOT critical how the CB is left for the opponent?

If someone is trying to take advantage of the CB fouls only rule by "accidentally" moving OBs around in a tough lie situation, then other rules might come into effect; for example the "unsportsmanlike behavior" rule.

My concern is that we get too many isolated circumstance rules which would confuse the overall judgment of the game. There are already several rules which most players are not aware of.

It reminds me of a golf pro I met one time who told me that he beat many players by just knowing the rules!

Doc

gbru · Nov 8, 2010

gulfportdoc said:
I see the logic in trying to cover certain circumstances in 1P in which OB fouls should be limited. On the other hand, in what pool game is it NOT critical how the CB is left for the opponent?

If someone is trying to take advantage of the CB fouls only rule by "accidentally" moving OBs around in a tough lie situation, then other rules might come into effect; for example the "unsportsmanlike behavior" rule.

My concern is that we get too many isolated circumstance rules which would confuse the overall judgment of the game. There are already several rules which most players are not aware of.

It reminds me of a golf pro I met one time who told me that he beat many players by just knowing the rules!

Doc

Doc....Personally, I'm not referring to it being done intentionally....only accidentally.
My reasoning is that it would also force people to learn the kicking systems because they would be required to go a different direction fearing they may foul and (possibly) lose the game by trying to get their bridge to work in a touchy situation....ie...Warning....then Foul. That seems fair to me....

It's just like freezing a person to another ball....What good does it do if they can shoot through the ball and get easily out of the trap....Again....I think they should be required to go away from the ball towards another rail.

Of course again....The Ghost can give me easily.....10 to 6....so what do I know....?

twister · Nov 8, 2010

I like the CB only fouls and I think that it's a good rule for 95% of the situations that come up in one pocket. To me, if you touch a ball, but it doesn't affect or have the chance of affecting the outcome of the shot, I don't like it being called a foul for a few reasons. One, it's going to make everyone nits and it's going to cause a lot more problems when players are looking to see if the opponents shirt happens to brush a ball on one end of the table that has nothing to do with the balls in play. I hate that kind of petty $hit. You're going to get a lot more arguments and calls for refs to watch hits. Secondly, if it doesn't really affect the outcome, then I'm less inclined to think it should be a foul.

However, I do agree with some of the ideas being thrown around here. I think the idea of a warning for the first ball touched, and a foul for the next time has some merit. I agree with Jared that sticking the ball in the stack should have more power than it does if your opponent is just allowed to continually foul by touching balls while trying to bridge over balls in the stack. This came up in the DCC match this year between Clif and Tony Mougey (http://www.1vshop.com/Accu-Stats/st...67&PNAME=Cliff+Joyner+vs.+Tony+Mougey*+(DVD)). Tony stuck Clif in/near the stack and Clif kept touching balls while trying to bridge. Tony called the ref over and complained 'How many times can Clif keep touching the balls?' The ref basically explained that he could do it as many times as he wanted to as long as the balls he touched were allowed to be moved back into place by Tony and any balls touched during the act of shooting did not interfere with the shot. Tony wasn't happy to say the least.

Something like one warning and then a foul is called and/or moving MORE than one ball at a time is an automatic foul seem like a few possibilities to help solve this issue.

twister · Nov 8, 2010

gbru said:
It's just like freezing a person to another ball....What good does it do if they can shoot through the ball and get easily out of the trap....Again....I think they should be required to go away from the ball towards another rail.

This actually bothers me more than someone touching a ball or two while bridging. To me, there is way too much deference given to the shooter so they can simply double hit the ball or stroke right through it to get out of being frozen to a ball. I still don't like nor do I agree with being able to shoot through a ball. There's no way your average player can execute that shot without double hitting it, yet everyone does it and almost no one even bats an eye. Drives me nuts.

lll · Nov 8, 2010

grady tells a story about a player whose name i forgot was in a big money match and got called on an object ball foul
his reply"if you are gonna call that a foul than call this one too.!!" as he took his hand and pushed all the balls around the table!!!!!

gbru · Nov 8, 2010

twister said:
...(snip)...Tony stuck Clif in/near the stack and Clif kept touching balls while trying to bridge. Tony called the ref over and complained 'How many times can Clif keep touching the balls?' The ref basically explained that he could do it as many times as he wanted to as long as the balls he touched were allowed to be moved back into place by Tony and any balls touched during the act of shooting did not interfere with the shot. Tony wasn't happen to say the least....(snip)

If I recall correctly...I remember seeing Cliff do that in other situations more than any other player....Makes you wonder if it is intentional....

fred bentivegna · Nov 8, 2010

I woulda told you...

I woulda told you...

lll said:
grady tells a story about a player whose name i forgot was in a big money match and got called on an object ball foul
his reply"if you are gonna call that a foul than call this one too.!!" as he took his hand and pushed all the balls around the table!!!!!

...that it was UJ Puckett that did that at Johnston City during a tournament match, but I am afraid I will be accused of name dropping.

Beard

gulfportdoc · Nov 8, 2010

twister said:
This actually bothers me more than someone touching a ball or two while bridging. To me, there is way too much deference given to the shooter so they can simply double hit the ball or stroke right through it to get out of being frozen to a ball. I still don't like nor do I agree with being able to shoot through a ball. There's no way your average player can execute that shot without double hitting it, yet everyone does it and almost no one even bats an eye. Drives me nuts.

Twister, there's been a lot of High Speed Video analysis demonstrating shots where the CB is frozen to the OB. With a normal stroke, there is no double hit. Here is a Dr. Dave HSV from his website through the Univ. of Colorado:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-96.htm

As you can see, irrespective of what type of english is used, there is no double hit. The cuetip hits the CB only once. Bob Jewett has another HSV of these type shots which show the same thing. His is accompanied by a logical explanation. It's probably on his SF Billiard Academy website.

It is possible to double hit a shot of that type only if one uses a highly exaggerated follow through. It is also likely if the CB and OB are nearly touching.

Doc

gbru · Nov 8, 2010

gulfportdoc said:
Twister, there's been a lot of High Speed Video analysis demonstrating shots where the CB is frozen to the OB. With a normal stroke, there is no double hit. Here is a Dr. Dave HSV from his website through the Univ. of Colorado:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-96.htm

Doc

That's pretty impressive Doc....Thanks...!

SJDinPHX · Nov 9, 2010

fred bentivegna said:
...that it was UJ Puckett that did that at Johnston City during a tournament match, but I am afraid I will be accused of name dropping.

Beard

Note to self;...Self, ask Fred to please grow up...(before its too late !!!)

Besotted Duck, <---My whiney-cat, little sister took teasing better than him...(much better)..

NH Steve · Nov 9, 2010

hijack back to topic

hijack back to topic

Would it be simple and clear enough to enforce a rule like this with a minimum of controversy?

One warning on touch fouls, then a foul if you touch or move a ball prior to your shot; always a foul if you obviously touch or move a ball in the act of shooting. If it is not an obvious touch/movement then I think you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. The opponent can always ask for for a ref or neutral party to watch a close shot if they see the need developing. Of course it would be a good idea for the opponent to always do that if they've already warned the shooter once on a shot.

bernie p · Nov 9, 2010

NH Steve said:
Would it be simple and clear enough to enforce a rule like this with a minimum of controversy?

One warning on touch fouls, then a foul if you touch or move a ball prior to your shot; always a foul if you obviously touch or move a ball in the act of shooting. If it is not an obvious touch/movement then I think you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. The opponent can always ask for for a ref or neutral party to watch a close shot if they see the need developing. Of course it would be a good idea for the opponent to always do that if they've already warned the shooter once on a shot.

Steve,

Congrats on you New England performance!

Regarding cue ball fouls.......it's becoming pretty apparant that most pool rooms have their own set of 1p rules (or their specific interpretation of rules), to the point where it is almost as bad as 8 ball.

I am a firm believer that if the current house rules are the same for both players then all is fair, but it appears that those rules can be "manipulated" by less than ethical opponents.

It would seem to be the easiest solution would be to play all ball fouls, including the cue ball. When playing without a referee you would still obviously have arguments, but probably less than we do now anyway.

In tournament matches I'm surprised that tournament directors don't ask for volunteer refs. Unfortunately I've played in too many higher end matches where the so called "pros" simply deny the foul knowing that the unwitnessed infraction always goes to the shooter.

I think in that regard the world snooker scene has got it right and our rules "system" is somewhat broken.

What do you think?

Thanks.

Bernie.

SactownTom · Nov 9, 2010

Bernie,

Good observations about pool halls and the 'accepted' house rules. It has been my experience that the 'house rules' were provided by a player or players that told the owner what they considered to be the rules.

As a TD I have always asked for observations from the rail when the two players cannot agree on a foul. 'call goes to the shooter' is not a rule. You look at a lot of rule books or even Texas Express pdf. No such rule.

As a TD I have never asked for volunteers to be refs. Sadly, there are less players that know how to make a legal hit call than know how to avoid it.

I would like for all players to be able to call shots and be refs. I will go as far as saying that to be able to play in a tournament you have to know the rules and pass a test validating your skill as a ref.

But, that probably won't happen in my life time. After playing the game for 15 or 20 years.. Johnny Archer jumps up out of his chair in a tournament while his opponent is at the table down on a shot and asks "What is the rule here?" an apparent unsportsmanlike rule being broken and JA thinks he is right in asking the question.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-LHP6hm9Eg[/ame]

bernie p said:
Steve,

In tournament matches I'm surprised that tournament directors don't ask for volunteer refs. Unfortunately I've played in too many higher end matches where the so called "pros" simply deny the foul knowing that the unwitnessed infraction always goes to the shooter.

What do you think?

Thanks.

Bernie.

SactownTom · Nov 9, 2010

All ball fouls can eliminate a lot of arguements and/or questions about moved balls. Moved ball versus Touched balls could be discussed.

This is interesting, the shooter gets one chance to set up and accidently moves the impeding ball or balls and play stops, the ball(s) get restored? or are they left in place (an option?) (even may make the shot even more difficult?)

Seems like this might be giving the none shooter too much control while they are in the chair. (scrathing the head here)

Cue ball only fouls have always had the exceptions of balls being restored if moved prior to the shot, and if balls are moved during or after the shot they still can be restored unless there is a foul.. the moved balls stay in place.

I have to think more on this...

Revisiting "Cue ball fouls only"

NH Steve

Administrator

NH Steve

Administrator

gbru

Verified Member

androd

Verified Member

gulfportdoc

Verified Member

gbru

Verified Member

twister

Verified Member

twister

Verified Member

lll

Verified Member

gbru

Verified Member

fred bentivegna

Verified Member

gulfportdoc

Verified Member

gbru

Verified Member

SJDinPHX

Suspended

NH Steve

Administrator

bernie p

Verified Member

SactownTom

Moderator

SactownTom

Moderator