Rules ruling

PreacherRonn

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
71
From
Mesa, AZ
Steve,

If you could help us out with a ruling it would be great. Shooter "A" disturbs a ball with his cue that rolls up to and freezes against another ball. Shooter "B" calls a foul. Shooter "A" say's that the object ball that the disturbed ball froze to did not move and therefore he only moved one ball. Shooter "B" says that because the ball came in contact with another ball regardless of whether it could be determined that the second ball moved it is still a foul.

Help us out. Thanks,

Preacher Ronn
 

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
Steve,

If you could help us out with a ruling it would be great. Shooter "A" disturbs a ball with his cue that rolls up to and freezes against another ball. Shooter "B" calls a foul. Shooter "A" say's that the object ball that the disturbed ball froze to did not move and therefore he only moved one ball. Shooter "B" says that because the ball came in contact with another ball regardless of whether it could be determined that the second ball moved it is still a foul.

Help us out. Thanks,

Preacher Ronn

If all of what shooter B says is true and shooter A agrees that the first OB touched the second then it is indeed a foul. Without a ref. these kinds of issues will always be arguable. If player B has the best of it, I say let it go.

Tom
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
19,057
From
vero beach fl
ronn this from derby city rules
,,,

Cue Ball Fouls Only: Accidentally touching or disturbing a single object ball is not a foul unless the disturbed ball has an effect on the outcome of the shot. See a referee for advice if you think this has happened. Otherwise, the opponent has the option to restore the disturbed ball or leave it in position. If the offending player attempts to restore the disturbed ball without giving their opponent the restoration option, it is a foul.



Accidentally touching or disturbing 2 or more object balls is a foul, and there is no restoration option for the disturbed balls.

,,,
to me the issue is if the second object ball wasnt disturbed
(ie moved)) there is no foul
if the second ball was disturbed (ie moved)
there was a foul
i did not find an answer in our one pocket rules
(could have miised it)
 

straightback

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
1,851
From
owensboro, ky
If indeed the disturbed ball rolled and then "became tangent" to another ball, that is technically a multiple ball disturbance foul.

In these situations, I think most of us try to do about what is fair as opposed to mechanical adherence to the rules. Maybe have a look around and if the disturbing player didn't do it purposefully and didn't gain an unfair advantage by his clumsiness, let it go and just replace the first ball as best you can.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
Illogical argument?

Illogical argument?

ronn this from derby city rules
,,,

Cue Ball Fouls Only: Accidentally touching or disturbing a single object ball is not a foul unless the disturbed ball has an effect on the outcome of the shot. See a referee for advice if you think this has happened. Otherwise, the opponent has the option to restore the disturbed ball or leave it in position. If the offending player attempts to restore the disturbed ball without giving their opponent the restoration option, it is a foul.



Accidentally touching or disturbing 2 or more object balls is a foul, and there is no restoration option for the disturbed balls.


to me the issue is if the second object ball wasnt disturbed
(ie moved)) there is no foul
if the second ball was disturbed (ie moved)
there was a foul
i did not find an answer in our one pocket rules
(could have miised it)

If it is agreed that the two object balls in question here are indeed touching, why would anyone argue that the second ball did not move? What part of "touching" is not understood?:frus
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,654
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
No foul, unless the OB movement affected the outcome of the shot-- if it was during the course of the shot. The opponent gets to move the ball back to where he believed it was, and the shooter continues his inning.

Doc
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
Un Understandable

Un Understandable

No foul, unless the OB movement affected the outcome of the shot-- if it was during the course of the shot. The opponent gets to move the ball back to where he believed it was, and the shooter continues his inning.

Doc

How can anyone read the rule as quoted earlier in this thread and then declare that under the agreed upon circumstances that no foul was committed??:frus

This rule, like many rules is poorly written. There is no need to include the phrase "or disturbed" when referring to the second ball. It is hardly possible to disturb the ball without touching it.

I prefer to think of our game like golf. The rules are there for a purpose, they need to be straightforward and suscinct, and for the integrity of the game, followed. I don't believe anyone posting here would argue that moving a ball in golf should be ignored or is not a foul (penalty)

Even worse to agree that the circumstances warrant that a foul was committed but let's just ignore it. Somewhere down the line the situation will happen that the other player will commit a foul and then he may look at his opponent like,"you wouldn't now call that on me would you?"

Best to have clear rules and play by them, and certainly not advocate that its ok to just ignore them on occasion.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
Our One Pocket rules defer to the "general pocket billiards rules" for many questions like this. The general rules have changed a bit over the years since our rules for One Pocket were originally adopted in 2005, as the BCA began to defer to the World Pool-Billiard Association (different from the DCC rules that lll referenced). The world rules still have a "Cue ball fouls only" section under their "Regulations" section that would apply in this case: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations#20

Which reads (I added the emphasis):
20. 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 way I interpret that sentence, for an accidental movement of a ball like this to be called a foul -- even if more than one object ball is involved -- it would have to at least have a pretense of "changing the outcome of the shot" either directly or indirectly. It does not sound to me like it changed the outcome of the shot in the situation Preacher Ronn described -- unless there was more to it than what he posted. For it to be a foul, either the cue ball or other object balls set in motion by the shot itself would have to have passed through (or near) where the balls were disturbed. If not, then they simply get restored.
 

petie

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
3,314
From
Citrus Springs, FL
No foul, unless the OB movement affected the outcome of the shot-- if it was during the course of the shot. The opponent gets to move the ball back to where he believed it was, and the shooter continues his inning.

Doc

This is what I would say. I'm pretty sure Saint Grady and Saint Freddy would agree.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
Our One Pocket rules defer to the "general pocket billiards rules" for many questions like this. The general rules have changed a bit over the years since our rules for One Pocket were originally adopted in 2005, as the BCA began to defer to the World Pool-Billiard Association (different from the DCC rules that lll referenced). The world rules still have a "Cue ball fouls only" section under their "Regulations" section that would apply in this case: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_regulations#20

Which reads (I added the emphasis):


The way I interpret that sentence, for an accidental movement of a ball like this to be called a foul -- even if more than one object ball is involved -- it would have to at least have a pretense of "changing the outcome of the shot" either directly or indirectly. It does not sound to me like it changed the outcome of the shot in the situation Preacher Ronn described -- unless there was more to it than what he posted. For it to be a foul, either the cue ball or other object balls set in motion by the shot itself would have to have passed through (or near) where the balls were disturbed. If not, then they simply get restored.


Steve

Your interpretation is generally the one offered up, however, it requires the parties to agree on a subjective analysis of the shot, rather than a factual occurance (like touching a ball or touching a rail) and therefore is a poorly written rule. The fact that you have to interpret, and the fact that posters already in this relatively new thread disagree supports this.

I would even submit that your interpretation is questionable based on the words used in the rule. The rule itself gives us two events that are deemed to have changed the outcome of the shot. The first is the touching of another ball, and the second is having any ball go through the area previously occupied by the ball moved. These two possibilities are separated by the word "or" which means they are separate and either is deemed to have changed the outcome of the shot.

So, what this rule really says is that if only one ball is moved, a ball, any ball, would need to travel through the area previously occupied by the moved ball in order for a foul to have been committed...OR, that if a second ball is touched or moved, that is also a foul.

For me, to accept your interpretation, I would have to ask why even mention a second ball in the rule, it has no relevance at all. The only thing that matters is the path of the balls. I do not believe this was the original intent or the reference to a second ball would not be there.
 

John Brumback

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
1,747
If it is agreed that the two object balls in question here are indeed touching, why would anyone argue that the second ball did not move? What part of "touching" is not understood?:frus

Me too.If that aint a foul.... then what is?????:eek: Hell...let's just make em up as we go along. John B.
PS: pool's rules are so lame:frus
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,283
From
New Hampshire
Steve

Your interpretation is generally the one offered up, however, it requires the parties to agree on a subjective analysis of the shot, rather than a factual occurance (like touching a ball or touching a rail) and therefore is a poorly written rule. The fact that you have to interpret, and the fact that posters already in this relatively new thread disagree supports this.

I would even submit that your interpretation is questionable based on the words used in the rule. The rule itself gives us two events that are deemed to have changed the outcome of the shot. The first is the touching of another ball, and the second is having any ball go through the area previously occupied by the ball moved. These two possibilities are separated by the word "or" which means they are separate and either is deemed to have changed the outcome of the shot.

So, what this rule really says is that if only one ball is moved, a ball, any ball, would need to travel through the area previously occupied by the moved ball in order for a foul to have been committed...OR, that if a second ball is touched or moved, that is also a foul.

For me, to accept your interpretation, I would have to ask why even mention a second ball in the rule, it has no relevance at all. The only thing that matters is the path of the balls. I do not believe this was the original intent or the reference to a second ball would not be there.
I know what you mean about that sentence -- it can indeed be interpreted either way. I can at least take solace in the fact that I had nothing to do with writing the WPBA general rule in question :D

Personally, I have been promoting what I call All ball fouls, with "One touch warning" -- That is, if you foul in stroke by moving a ball, it is always a foul, but if you foul prior to your shot there is one warning, and balls are restored, but if you touch again, whether in stroke or not, it is a foul. Like getting someone to "watch the hit" it is the responsibility of the opponent to get a neutral party to observe if it looks like a close play, otherwise you have to give some benefit of the doubt to the shooter. I just don't like total all ball fouls if there is no referee because some opponents can "see things" that are not there when they find themselves in a tough game.
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
if its a tournament then it should be a foul. in cash games never unless the players agree to whatever book of rules they will play by.

if you move balls before shooting then you just put them back with the opponent making the final decision on just where they go.
 

tylerdurden

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,959
Stop the presses, a confusing rule in pool.

I'll tell you what.... somebody, anybody.... make some good arguments that aren't totally rebuffed by "stop being a little girl" against the fact that we should just play foul on all balls. One decent argument. It can't happen. If your argument is "we don't want a huge game decided by a guy touching a ball", well then believe me, the players will learn real quick how to not touch balls after they have been bitten, and that'll be over in no time. If your argument is "what about all the bangers who touch balls all the time?".... really?

And let's take a look at this aspect; what will the rule book look like.... the ultimate in wordiness and confusion -- "it is a foul if a player contacts any ball on an active playing surface". Done. lol.

We as pool players, should know more than anybody that once a ball is touched/moved, it can never be put back to exact location, and this can and will have huge potential impacts on the game in question. To deny this makes us look less than competent imo, and the rule as it is makes us look as if we don't respect the game (ie the game IS the layout of the balls). I think the logic behind the rule that it is not a foul to touch a ball is based in the fact that moving a ball slightly will not be an advantage to one player over the other necessarily. While that is true for the most part, I don't really understand why it isn't punished when somebody drastically alters the course of a game. A foul on all balls rule would not really be an advantage to any one player anyway, in the same way, so that is a knock on that aspect anyway.

Golfers do seem to have this down. If a guy accidentally kicks his golf ball, its over. There is no "let's put it back guys, it'll be the same". I am sorry, but it is just absurd, it really is.

And why the preferential treatment to the CB??? Can't one argue that the placement of certain ob are actually more important during the course of a game? Of course you can. The object ball vs cb thing is just totally weird in itself.

Lastly, why wouldn't we want to punish players for not having control of their hands? Note: when was the last time you saw efren touch a ball?

It is another case of not getting strict with the rules from the get go, and having to forever live with the ambiguities.

To the op, this is a foul all day. It is actually a very clear case as you have the proof just sitting there for all to see, no arguing if it touched or not.

So, what if the guy would have grabbed the ob before it froze to the other ob? I take it that is a foul too? I know it should be but wondered if it is covered in our rules.
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
I know what you mean about that sentence -- it can indeed be interpreted either way. I can at least take solace in the fact that I had nothing to do with writing the WPBA general rule in question :D

Personally, I have been promoting what I call All ball fouls, with "One touch warning" -- That is, if you foul in stroke by moving a ball, it is always a foul, but if you foul prior to your shot there is one warning, and balls are restored, but if you touch again, whether in stroke or not, it is a foul. Like getting someone to "watch the hit" it is the responsibility of the opponent to get a neutral party to observe if it looks like a close play, otherwise you have to give some benefit of the doubt to the shooter. I just don't like total all ball fouls if there is no referee because some opponents can "see things" that are not there when they find themselves in a tough game.

I appreciate your recognizing that there is another legitimate viewpoint other than your earlier interpretation. I also think your "one touch warning" rule makes more sense than what we are playing with today.

To those that keep saying that the rules are whatever two gamblers agree to prior to the game, you are missing the point completely, and simply restating the obvious while being irrelavent to this discussion.

I have to believe that this rule has simply evolved over time and suffers from somewhat poorly drafted wording, but also players oversimplification for convenience sake. Also, perhaps a little failure to understand the English language.

As to your interpretation vs mine, let me say this. Yours makes completely irrelavent the reference to touching a second ball, while mine takes into account both ways to commit a foul, and recognizes the use of the word "OR" as I believe was the original intent.

I would love to hear from you or anyone a reasoned argument for the existence of the phrase ("by either touching another ball, or" ) if it doesn't mean that this is one of two ways to commit a foul under this rule.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,654
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
The onepocket.org rules state that balls moved can be replaced by the opponent with no foul, providing that the accidental movement would not affect the outcome of the shot.

The DCC rules state that moving/disturbing two or more object balls is a foul. The CueSports International rules say essentially the same thing (Mark Griffin and Greg Diamond agree).

The WPA rules (int'l competition) state that it is a foul to touch any ball with anything except the cue tip in the course of a normal shot.

In tournament play my inclination is to follow the onepocket.org rules, which I have done as a T.D. The players almost always accept the proposition that the opponent can be allowed to replace a ball or two.

However in the extremely rare event that many balls have been moved, the T.D. or ref has no choice but to award the game to the non shooter. If there has been no score then they can re-rack and play over.

In refereed matches, such as in the WPA events, then all touch fouls can reasonably be used.

In private matches, guys are on their own. They ought to confirm which rules they're using prior to play, although few do. I still prefer the 1p.o rules.

~Doc
 

jtompilot

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
5,797
From
New Orleans
How's this"..............

You put a shitty stroke on the CB and scratch, that's a foul.
You have a shitty stroke and move two balls, that's a foul.

If you don't play by the rules or want to make them up as you go, you can always play by yourself
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
The onepocket.org rules state that balls moved can be replaced by the opponent with no foul, providing that the accidental movement would not affect the outcome of the shot.

The DCC rules state that moving/disturbing two or more object balls is a foul. The CueSports International rules say essentially the same thing (Mark Griffin and Greg Diamond agree).

The WPA rules (int'l competition) state that it is a foul to touch any ball with anything except the cue tip in the course of a normal shot.

In tournament play my inclination is to follow the onepocket.org rules, which I have done as a T.D. The players almost always accept the proposition that the opponent can be allowed to replace a ball or two.

However in the extremely rare event that many balls have been moved, the T.D. or ref has no choice but to award the game to the non shooter. If there has been no score then they can re-rack and play over.

In refereed matches, such as in the WPA events, then all touch fouls can reasonably be used.

In private matches, guys are on their own. They ought to confirm which rules they're using prior to play, although few do. I still prefer the 1p.o rules.

~Doc

I am aware that you are a long standing and respected member on this site, and that your opinions seem to carry a lot of weight here, DOC. As such, and as a TD, I am puzzled that you would misquote 1P.org rules as well as WPA rules.

Your first statement above seems to be wrong. 1P.org rules say that WPA rules will apply, then go on to misquote those rules. WPA rules, as I read them in section 20 entitled Cueball fouls only ,in the Regulations clearly states what I and others have stated earlier. That the touching of a second ball is a foul without regard to any pathway traveled.

Please check this out and tell us what you read in section 20 of the Regulations?
 
Last edited:

John Brumback

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
1,747
Stop the presses, a confusing rule in pool.

I'll tell you what.... somebody, anybody.... make some good arguments that aren't totally rebuffed by "stop being a little girl" against the fact that we should just play foul on all balls. One decent argument. It can't happen. If your argument is "we don't want a huge game decided by a guy touching a ball", well then believe me, the players will learn real quick how to not touch balls after they have been bitten, and that'll be over in no time. If your argument is "what about all the bangers who touch balls all the time?".... really?

And let's take a look at this aspect; what will the rule book look like.... the ultimate in wordiness and confusion -- "it is a foul if a player contacts any ball on an active playing surface". Done. lol.

We as pool players, should know more than anybody that once a ball is touched/moved, it can never be put back to exact location, and this can and will have huge potential impacts on the game in question. To deny this makes us look less than competent imo, and the rule as it is makes us look as if we don't respect the game (ie the game IS the layout of the balls). I think the logic behind the rule that it is not a foul to touch a ball is based in the fact that moving a ball slightly will not be an advantage to one player over the other necessarily. While that is true for the most part, I don't really understand why it isn't punished when somebody drastically alters the course of a game. A foul on all balls rule would not really be an advantage to any one player anyway, in the same way, so that is a knock on that aspect anyway.

Golfers do seem to have this down. If a guy accidentally kicks his golf ball, its over. There is no "let's put it back guys, it'll be the same". I am sorry, but it is just absurd, it really is.

And why the preferential treatment to the CB??? Can't one argue that the placement of certain ob are actually more important during the course of a game? Of course you can. The object ball vs cb thing is just totally weird in itself.

Lastly, why wouldn't we want to punish players for not having control of their hands? Note: when was the last time you saw efren touch a ball?

It is another case of not getting strict with the rules from the get go, and having to forever live with the ambiguities.

To the op, this is a foul all day. It is actually a very clear case as you have the proof just sitting there for all to see, no arguing if it touched or not.

So, what if the guy would have grabbed the ob before it froze to the other ob? I take it that is a foul too? I know it should be but wondered if it is covered in our rules.

Good stuff right there,imo. And yes it is a foul when the opp grabs the moved ball before asking you first!!!!! :lol Surely everyone knows that ol rule by now....but maybe not:D JB

Oh and hey,the thing is..with golfers I think you have a higher% that you don't have to worry about vs pool players. But I think if everyone played by the same damn rules might be a good start.

I played golf every day for about 15 or 20 years...alot of tourneys and up to 2 k a hole gambling ,so I got a good idea about the golfers vs the pool players. I do however think pool players have come along way tho in the past 20 or 30 years or so;) JB
 

tucson9ball

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
260
From
Tucson Arizona
I would call that a FOUL.

Accidentally moving one ball is not a foul, opponent gets option of moving it back.

If the first ball comes into contact with another ball it would be a foul. Spot a ball and opponent is shooting. Should not matter if the 2nd ball moves 1/32 of an inch or 3 ft. A foul is a foul.

Although this reminds me of a funny story I heard. Shooter A is froze to the stack and shoots through, obviously fouling(double hit). Shooter B calls him on it and shooter A swears he didn't foul. A long argument goes on between the shooters.
Very frustrated, shooter B gets up and rakes all the balls to his pocket and says, "that is a foul". With all balls now in front of his pocket, he then spots one penalty ball. LOL
 
Top