What's your call on this?

[Skin]

Opening break by Thorpe v. Hanes - DCC 2019.

One Pocket dot Org Rules

2.2 The opening break begins with ball in hand behind the head string. On the break, the cue ball may contact either a cushion or any ball in the rack first, but in either case, after contacting at least one ball, an object ball must be pocketed, or the cue ball or at least one object ball must contact a rail, otherwise it is a one foul penalty. As long as a legal stroke is employed from behind the head string on the break, the incoming player must play the balls where they lie – there are no re-racks for a pocket scratch or failure to contact a cushion or pocket a ball on the break.

Keep watching to about 3:00 to see how the ref called it.

 

[lll]

I would have called foul and play from where the cue ball stopped

 

[gulfportdoc]

Larry is correct. Since it wasn't a legal break, it's a foul. Since the CB did not scratch or jump off the table, it plays from where it came to rest. The DCC rules are the same as ours in this case.

It was such a shocking mishap that no one seemed to know what to do. The ruling was incorrect. Thorpe should have received a penalty, and the opponent should have shot from where the CB laid. Some might argue that it's penalty enough that the shooter loses the advantage of the break. But I haven't seen any special rule in that regard.

Puts me in mind of the time that Jack Nicklaus, in his prime, shanked a 3-wood in the fairway. People were dumbfounded..

~Doc

 

[hankh]

Howdy All;

Still new to all the 1P stuff so I most likely got this wrong (?). But in the Rules it mentions;
" after contacting at least one ball, " yadda yadda yadda ... Thorpe never hit a ball. That changes
things doesn't it??? Just asking so go easy on the tar & feathers please. Thinkin' that this
is the why behind the OP's question.

hank

 

[lll]

Since there was a legal stroke and break Criteria not met it’s a foul ( to me)
hank read the rule again

 

[sorackem]

after contacting at least one ball, an object ball must be pocketed, or the cue ball or at least one object ball must contact a rail

(re;hankh)
The 'after' requires further conditions to be a legal break. The 'an'/'or'/'or' are the only conditions which can meet the criteria for a legal break.
Otherwise it is a 1-point foul and played as lies.

In a DCC such as exampled, would the two players just agree to switch breakers and have the ref's sanction?
What trouble might that cause the ref from the sponsor or sanctioning body?

 

[Skin]

Larry is correct. Since it wasn't a legal break, it's a foul. Since the CB did not scratch or jump off the table, it plays from where it came to rest. The DCC rules are the same as ours in this case.

It was such a shocking mishap that no one seemed to know what to do. The ruling was incorrect. Thorpe should have received a penalty, and the opponent should have shot from where the CB laid. Some might argue that it's penalty enough that the shooter loses the advantage of the break. But I haven't seen any special rule in that regard.

Puts me in mind of the time that Jack Nicklaus, in his prime, shanked a 3-wood in the fairway. People were dumbfounded..

~Doc

I'm with you and Larry, doc. The way it played out, though, made me wonder if Hanes also could have re-racked had he wanted to. He took Thorpe's designated pocket, which also would not have happened under our rules. Seems, as you say, the ref was caught off guard.

 

[sorackem]

"For games that follow, the break alternates back and forth between the players, regardless of who wins each game. " -

This does not say 'intended position' or which won the lag and had a right to break - but that the break alternates.

 

[Skin]

"For games that follow, the break alternates back and forth between the players, regardless of who wins each game. " -

This does not say 'intended position' or which won the lag and had a right to break - but that the break alternates.

Yeah, sorackem, not only did Hanes get Thorpe's break for that 1st game, he also broke during his scheduled turn for the 2nd game. Heckuva penalty imposed on Thorpe by that decision. Imagine if Thorpe's opponent had been a top tier guy like himself.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

I believe in Steve's rule conversation he posted his deliberated writing on the 2.2 Break requirements. I believe it resulted in the opponent have the option to accept the table as is, or require the breaker to re-break, the 1 pt. penalty still applies for 'not' meeting the legal break requirements. It may be put up to a poll or not, at Steve's discretion.
But, in an alternating break format it is really tough to let the opponent break, for now it is possible that the opponent could break 3 consecutive racks, and in a race to 3 it is in our opinion just to much of an advantage for just a simple miscue, and the cue ball just does not contact the rack of balls. Bret Baker the DCC-TD probably made a decision on the fly! I got to LOL!
I am so glad you posted this, for this was a concern of mine a number of months ago, and I believe I did a thread on it back when. Thanks for the thread, it could not have been posted at a more appropriate time, for we are on rule deliberations and it includes this very seldom occurrence but possible break scenario!
During the previous discussion on this I did some breaks purposely miscuing to see where the cb ends up, and it is usually ended up either the foot rail or close to the bottom of the rack on the favorable side of the breaker, unlike this miscue break which ended up on the favorable side of the rack for the incoming opponent. Thanks again, Whitey

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Yeah, sorackem, not only did Hanes get Thorpe's break for that 1st game, he also broke during his scheduled turn for the 2nd game. Heckuva penalty imposed on Thorpe by that decision. Imagine if Thorpe's opponent had been a top tier guy like himself.

Skin, sorackem; your right on! It was actually lucky it was on the opening match break, otherwise it would of been 3 consecutive breaks for the opponent. Very observent, thanks, Whitey

 

[Billy Jackets]

Ok , this is not a good rule for the situation for a very simple fact , what if the ball had ended up in the corner snookered on the tit on Hanes side? Now he is kicking at the stack and knocking balls to Thorpes side if he shoots or he has to take an intentional! Not a very good scenario when the other guy made the mistake. Then where would he take the intentional to? if he leaves him on the same side it's on now , Thorpe kicks 1 rail into the pack and sticks him on it BAD!!! Or if he rolls over to the other side , Thorpe gets to break again from a bit lesser position BAD! So, now , you just gave the benefit to the guy that made the mistake . I know it won't happen that often , but how would you like to be playing for the world championship, and be hill hill in the final, and have that happen? Am I wrong?

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Ok , this is not a good rule for the situation for a very simple fact , what if the ball had ended up in the corner snookered on the tit on Hanes side? Now he is kicking at the stack and knocking balls to Thorpes side if he shoots or he has to take an intentional! Not a very good scenario when the other guy made the mistake. Then where would he take the intentional to? if he leaves him on the same side it's on now , Thorpe kicks 1 rail into the pack and sticks him on it BAD!!! Or if he rolls over to the other side , Thorpe gets to break again from a bit lesser position BAD! So, now , you just gave the benefit to the guy that made the mistake . I know it won't happen that often , but how would you like to be playing for the world championship, and be hill hill in the final, and have that happen? Am I wrong?

Billy Jackets, I believe you comment is directed towards my comment, is it not? If so OK, but what is the rule you would like to see imposed if on the break the rack is not contacted? thanks, Whitey

 

[Billy Jackets]

Billy Jackets, I believe you comment is directed towards my comment, is it not? If so OK, but what is the rule you would like to see imposed if on the break the rack is not contacted? thanks, Whitey

Absolutely not Whitey , sorry if it came out that way, My meaning was that shoot from where it ends up is goofy, I just saw a potential for someone who did not do anything wrong to get the absolute worst of it.

You lose a ball and break again is probably fairest.

 

[gulfportdoc]

Yeah, sorackem, not only did Hanes get Thorpe's break for that 1st game, he also broke during his scheduled turn for the 2nd game. Heckuva penalty imposed on Thorpe by that decision. Imagine if Thorpe's opponent had been a top tier guy like himself.

So there were 3 glaring mistakes by the referee. I don't understand how the ref dreamed up the responses...

 

[beatle]

xxxxz

 

[beatle]

tf

 

[lll]

stupid ref call there for sure. what if a player bumped the cue ball and inch when addressing it. now the other player gets the break shot with ball in hand and gets to choose his pocket as well.
seems neither player understands even the simplest aspects of the game so maybe they deserve each other.

when the first shooter calls his pocket
even if he fouls
isnt that still his pocket??

 

[gulfportdoc]

when the first shooter calls his pocket
even if he fouls
isnt that still his pocket??

That's true Larry. And that question would never come up with the correct ruling.

 

[Skin]

when the first shooter calls his pocket
even if he fouls
isnt that still his pocket??

That's true Larry. And that question would never come up with the correct ruling.

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.