Move one ball, Move Two balls, well you get the idea.

[wincardona]

Great thread and the tournament rules are confusing.

In the rooms I grew up in and played around Los Angeles, the shooter always took the worst of it when moving object balls, and they should.

Since you were the one who moved the ball(s), you could not complain much, even though the ball in question was usually placed by your opponent in an even tougher spot than the original location. I have seen balls placed several inches away from their starting point.

What can you do? Just grin and bear it. Your fault in the first place.

I was playing Reyes one pocket at Hard Times...I believe it was in the early 90's... and I wasn't careful when at the table inadvertently moving balls. This happened quite a few times, and to be really fair I was clumsy not only then but in prior matches playing him. Like I mentioned I was clumsy at the table, and everytime I moved a ball he would scream NO NO NO and threaten to charge me with a foul even though we weren't playing foul on all balls. I was actually embarassed how often this happened. I was shooting over a ball and moved the ball that I was shooting over so I got up after he said NO NO NO and gave him the option of leaving it where I moved it to or put it back as close as possible to the original position. So he opted to put it back and he placed the moved ball IN FRONT of the cue ball and snookered me from my shot. I contested and he wouldn't bend and refused to place it where I moved it from. lol. We were only playing for $50 a game.

Mike Lebron approached me a year or so later and said to me while we were having a casual conversation " Efren says to me you cheat and you always move ball and he no want to play you no more" I laughed and said that he was full of chit.

I'm really more careful now John, and i'll try not to move balls when we play.

Billy I.

 

[NH Steve]

<snip>
P.S. Bill, let me ask you your ruling on a situation that came up once in a game, gambling. The player was jacked up over an object ball which was frozen (and called frozen) to the cueball. Both players agreed it was frozen to the cueball. The player, on his backswing, moved the object ball away from the cueball and struck the cueball going forward for his shot. His opponent called a cueball foul. How would you rule on this? I was a spectator and both players asked me for my opinion. I said that as the cueball was frozen to the object ball they were to be treated as one ball. Since the object ball moved it was then a cueball foul. The shooter claimed that the cueball hadn't moved so it couldn't be a cueball foul. This was 25 years ago and I didn't really know the answer. I don't remember what they ended up doing but I have always wondered about it. Thanks for your reply.

[CUETABLE]http://CueTable.com/P/?@4MYxj4NbbR4PaHB4TaPF3plpW4hYxj4hYxO4ibbR4icpv4kaHB4kbbA2uClB@[/CUETABLE]

I might agree that it was cue ball foul anyway, just based on the principle that the movement of that object ball potentially effected the outcome of the shot, since the shooter had to stroke through the object ball to move it, right? They might well have not been able to execute the shot cleanly without moving that ball....

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

Great thread and the tournament rules are confusing.

In the rooms I grew up in and played around Los Angeles, the shooter always took the worst of it when moving object balls, and they should.

Since you were the one who moved the ball(s), you could not complain much, even though the ball in question was usually placed by your opponent in an even tougher spot than the original location. I have seen balls placed several inches away from their starting point.

What can you do? Just grin and bear it. Your fault in the first place.[/QUOTE

I played Bugs 25 times and we played you move a ball its a foul. And we never fouled once.

Why is the old rule not used. Its a better rule and if you make a mistake. How do you not get penalized for your mistake.

And The cue ball is just another ball. Excepte its the ball we shoot with.

The olsd rule was good for a hundred years. And the greatest players played with it and I didnt her no complaints. Like today with the new rule.

And Why is the rule changed that is a way better rule then today. What is wrong with the old rule John.

Should you pay for your mistake or not that is the real Qouistion. IF the answer is no then why have any rule for any mistake.

Can someone answer these qouistions I have asket them enough times.

I wouls like too have my qouistions answered so I can make some sense out off why the rule was changed too start with.

Theese are not hard qouistions. John you played the rule both ways. What rule would you vote for and Why?

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

Great thread and the tournament rules are confusing.

In the rooms I grew up in and played around Los Angeles, the shooter always took the worst of it when moving object balls, and they should.

Since you were the one who moved the ball(s), you could not complain much, even though the ball in question was usually placed by your opponent in an even tougher spot than the original location. I have seen balls placed several inches away from their starting point.

What can you do? Just grin and bear it. Your fault in the first place.[/QUOTE

I played Bugs 25 times and we played you move a ball its a foul. And we never fouled once.

Why is the old rule not used. Its a better rule and if you make a mistake. How do you not get penalized for your mistake.

And The cue ball is just another ball. Excepte its the ball we shoot with.

The olsd rule was good for a hundred years. And the greatest players played with it and I didnt her no complaints. Like today with the new rule.

And Why is the rule changed that is a way better rule then today. What is wrong with the old rule John.

Should you pay for your mistake or not that is the real Qouistion. IF the answer is no then why have any rule for any mistake.

Can someone answer these qouistions I have asket them enough times.

I wouls like too have my qouistions answered so I can make some sense out off why the rule was changed too start with.

Theese are not hard qouistions. John you played the rule both ways. What rule would you vote for and Why?

I just rememberd that in all snooker and 3 coushion billiards uouching any ball is a foul. So why should pool be different . I dont get no answers for my qouistions.

Maybe they cant see them.

 

[wincardona]

only my opinion

only my opinion

I just rememberd that in all snooker and 3 coushion billiards uouching any ball is a foul. So why should pool be different . I dont get no answers for my qouistions.

Maybe they cant see them.

Artie, this is only my opinion.

I believe that most people playing pool would rather play, when a ball is moved their opponent has the choice to leave it there or position it back as close as possible from the moved position.

The reason I say this is because there are many more regular players than there are professional players. And foul on all balls is a rule that professional players should play by. Plus foul on all balls will breed more arguments than the alternative rule.

I will agree that when playing in a professional tournament we should play foul on all balls, providing we have a referee at each table. But a referee at each table is not economically feasible for most events. But in the finals I believe we should play foul on all balls.

But once again, this is just my opinion.

Billy I.

 

[wincardona]

I might agree that it was cue ball foul anyway, just based on the principle that the movement of that object ball potentially effected the outcome of the shot, since the shooter had to stroke through the object ball to move it, right? They might well have not been able to execute the shot cleanly without moving that ball....

I have actually been in this position many times and on my back stroke I moved the object ball away from the cue ball, why should this be a foul? Personally I don't believe that this should be a foul, unless your playing fouls on all balls. But I could be mistaken, but this is the way I have always understood this debate.

Billy I.

 

[John Brumback]

Artie, this is only my opinion.

I believe that most people playing pool would rather play, when a ball is moved their opponent has the choice to leave it there or position it back as close as possible from the moved position.

The reason I say this is because there are many more regular players than there are professional players. And foul on all balls is a rule that professional players should play by. Plus foul on all balls will breed more arguments than the alternative rule.

I will agree that when playing in a professional tournament we should play foul on all balls, providing we have a referee at each table. But a referee at each table is not economically feasible for most events. But in the finals I believe we should play foul on all balls.

But once again, this is just my opinion.

Billy I.

I have read every post on this and this Is the way I think It should be.IMO
Yeah IF we could have a ref for every match then you could play any ball moved It would be a foul. IMO that's really the way the game should be played But It just won't work without a ref watching every shot.

Here's what happened to me In a tourny one time.....They were playing If you move any ball..no matter what with,It was a foul. They didn't have a ref at every table either. Well I was down on a shot getting ready to pull the trigger when out of the blue (this girl who was helping run the tourny) jumps up and said foul! You just touched that ball with your sweater!! (I was from way out of town and the guy I was playing was from around there).Well ok.. I had to give him ball In hand.So after a couple games later the guy I was playing touched a ball with his shirt,(moved It about 2 In ) Well I call a foul..
Guess what the girl told me? I couldn't call a foul like that because she didn't see It happen.She didn't see It cause the guy had his back to her and she was setting In a chair about 30 ft away!! By the way, this was an IPT qualifier
that I ended up winning right before It went down the tubes.We still haven't got our $ back from It.2000.00$ entry.

Just trying to throw an example out there of some things that can happen with those rules. I like what Billy I. thinks about this. John B.

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

I have read every post on this and this Is the way I think It should be.IMO
Yeah IF we could have a ref for every match then you could play any ball moved It would be a foul. IMO that's really the way the game should be played But It just won't work without a ref watching every shot.

Here's what happened to me In a tourny one time.....They were playing If you move any ball..no matter what with,It was a foul. They didn't have a ref at every table either. Well I was down on a shot getting ready to pull the trigger when out of the blue (this girl who was helping run the tourny) jumps up and said foul! You just touched that ball with your sweater!! (I was from way out of town and the guy I was playing was from around there).Well ok.. I had to give him ball In hand.So after a couple games later the guy I was playing touched a ball with his shirt,(moved It about 2 In ) Well I call a foul..
Guess what the girl told me? I couldn't call a foul like that because she didn't see It happen.She didn't see It cause the guy had his back to her and she was setting In a chair about 30 ft away!! By the way, this was an IPT qualifier
that I ended up winning right before It went down the tubes.We still haven't got our $ back from It.2000.00$ entry.

Just trying to throw an example out there of some things that can happen with those rules. I like what Billy I. thinks about this. John B.[/QUOT

John If your playing a creep and thier is no reff. He can say the same thing. He can call a foul on you with the cue ball aith out the reff to over rule him.

If some body whats too claim something even with a reff he can call a foul or say you moved 2 or 3 balls. Ading too the rule makes it more complicated. By were the ball or balls were. It can give a player a good shot or good edge that you cannot get with the other rule.

As far as a reff not being thier. Either rule can be abused. And even with the reff they make a lot off bad calls too. Like I went through in Milwakiee when Corn Bread Was watchung me play eight ball.

The old rule is way better because thier are less options to cheat on and manover. I say it just the way it is. I do not hold back. Or defend something that ie wrong.

And Moving object balls puts nothing but more larsoney in the game. Weather you belive it or not.


Maybe you never realy looket at it. Because a lot off people take things for granted.

And If someone ask me for a decision. I would give the fairest decision. I could give. Talk too the people who are running the tournement.

And tell them the player you are playing is not a ethical player. And you would like too have a refere for your game.

If not then can we get a player or some one reliable to watch the game and call the game the way. Its suppose too be played.

And run a honest tournement. And dont let nobody take no creepy shots on anpther player.

And all games need to be run legeley. And The can come up with a refferee for your game.

And all the players no who the creeps are that will take a shot in a game. Im sure you no who they are too. You dont have too give any names.

But thier is no reason to let someone gst away with that. And tell them point blank why you want a reff.

And if they dont do it. Then I recomend you call a foul on the creep on the first shot.

I promise you you will get a reff. Because the no the game wont go anyfurther. And they will have more claims and argguments to settle.

And they dont want too keep gitting bothered. But you are intitled to a fair game.

But with a dishonest person and no reff no rule is any good.

 

[Tramp Steamer]

A couple of weeks ago I banked a ball off the short rail towards my hole and as I was raising my cue I accidentally knocked an intervening ball out of the way allowing the banked ball to go in. It went so smoothly that the guys thought it was intentional and the razzing lasted a good five minutes.
What would, or should, have been done had it been a more serious game than it was?
Also, as Joey mentioned, what about an unusually large number of balls rather than one, or two?

 

[gulfportdoc]

A couple of weeks ago I banked a ball off the short rail towards my hole and as I was raising my cue I accidentally knocked an intervening ball out of the way allowing the banked ball to go in. It went so smoothly that the guys thought it was intentional and the razzing lasted a good five minutes.
What would, or should, have been done had it been a more serious game than it was?
Also, as Joey mentioned, what about an unusually large number of balls rather than one, or two?

During tournament play, in your example, you would receive a foul, and owe a ball. The ball you pocketed would spot up. The ball you unintentionally moved could be placed back to it's original position, or left where it was at your opponent's discretion. Also, had any ball(s) been pocketed in your opponent's pocket, it would score for him.

It's extremely rare to have more than one or two balls accidentally moved. But if there were many balls moved, then the penalty would depend upon the circumstances. If a guy intentionally shoved the balls, say, in anger, then at the very least it would be loss of game. It could also be loss of match or ejection from the event.

On the other hand, if a guy accidentally fell into the balls, for example, scattering them so widely that replacement would be impossible, if I were refereeing, I'd probably rule for a re-rack, and the offending player would be penalized a ball. If the non-offending player had enjoyed a substantial lead, I'd probably award the game to him.

Doc

 

[John Brumback]

During tournament play, in your example, you would receive a foul, and owe a ball. The ball you pocketed would spot up. The ball you unintentionally moved could be placed back to it's original position, or left where it was at your opponent's discretion. Also, had any ball(s) been pocketed in your opponent's pocket, it would score for him.

It's extremely rare to have more than one or two balls accidentally moved. But if there were many balls moved, then the penalty would depend upon the circumstances. If a guy intentionally shoved the balls, say, in anger, then at the very least it would be loss of game. It could also be loss of match or ejection from the event.

On the other hand, if a guy accidentally fell into the balls, for example, scattering them so widely that replacement would be impossible, if I were refereeing, I'd probably rule for a re-rack, and the offending player would be penalized a ball. If the non-offending player had enjoyed a substantial lead, I'd probably award the game to him.

Doc

Hey Doc,you could get a job as a great ref! I really like all your Ideas here about the things you just mentioned. You just might be the man who rewrites some new rules,or could help for sure. IMO I like just how you think. John B.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

I have actually been in this position many times and on my back stroke I moved the object ball away from the cue ball, why should this be a foul? Personally I don't believe that this should be a foul, unless your playing fouls on all balls. But I could be mistaken, but this is the way I have always understood this debate.

Billy I.

Bill,

The entire purpose of calling the object ball frozen to the cueball in this situation is to make the shooter aware that if he touches the object ball it is a cueball foul. You cannot move the object ball away from the cueball without touching it first. As soon as you touch it, it is a cueball foul.

At least that's my interpretation of it and my opinion.

[CUETABLE]http://CueTable.com/P/?@4MYxj4NbbR4PaHB4TaPF3plpW4hYxj4hYxO4ibbR4icpv4kaHB4kbbA2uClB@[/CUETABLE]

 

[NH Steve]

I have actually been in this position many times and on my back stroke I moved the object ball away from the cue ball, why should this be a foul? Personally I don't believe that this should be a foul, unless your playing fouls on all balls. But I could be mistaken, but this is the way I have always understood this debate.

Billy I.

By our current "cue ball ball foul only" rules, it would not be a foul to move the ball on your back stroke, but I think it gets a little iffy when instead of stopping to give opponent a chance to replace the ball before you shoot, you follow through with the shot. The reason is, to my mind, you clearly needed to move that interfering object ball in order to shoot the shot the way you did -- that is, moving that ball had an effect on the outcome of the shot because it allowed you to stroke at your shot more freely than the lie of the balls offered if you had to really shoot it clean. Maybe that's not what the general rules intend, but here is the "cue ball fouls only" rule in the BCA:

1.16.1 CUE BALL FOULS ONLY
When a referee is presiding over a match, it is a foul for a player to touch any ball (cue ball or object ball) with the cue, clothing, body, mechanical bridge or chalk, before, during or after a shot. However, when a referee is not presiding over a game, it is not a foul to accidentally touch stationary balls located between the cue ball and the shooter while in the act of shooting. If such an accident occurs, the player should allow the Tournament Director to restore the object balls to their correct positions. If the player does not allow such a restoration, and a ball set in motion as a normal part of the shot touches such an unrestored ball, or passes partly into a region originally occupied by a disturbed ball, the shot is a foul. In short, if the accident has any effect on the outcome of the shot, it is a foul. In any case, the Tournament Director must be called upon to restore the positions of the disturbed balls as soon as possible, but not during the shot. It is a foul to play another shot before the Tournament Director has restored any accidentally moved balls. At the non-shooting player’s option, the disturbed balls will be left in their new positions. In this case, the balls are considered restored, and subsequent contact on them is not a foul. It is still a foul to make any contact with the cue ball whatsoever while it is in play, except for the normal tip-to-ball contact during a shot.

Interesting, I do not remember noticing the qualifying phrase "located between the cue ball and the shooter" in this rule before. Is this new or did I just overlook it? And since it is a qualifying phrase, what happens if you move an object ball that is not "between the cue ball and the shooter"?

I was not intending to have this represent a comment on situations where the object ball is frozen to the cue ball. That adds another element.

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

A couple of weeks ago I banked a ball off the short rail towards my hole and as I was raising my cue I accidentally knocked an intervening ball out of the way allowing the banked ball to go in. It went so smoothly that the guys thought it was intentional and the razzing lasted a good five minutes.
What would, or should, have been done had it been a more serious game than it was?
Also, as Joey mentioned, what about an unusually large number of balls rather than one, or two?

TS,

I've seen this happen only a couple of times in gambling games and I think I was the offender one time. The pocketed ball was spotted up and the moved ball was replaced as close to where it was as possible and your inning would end. That's what I recall. No foul on the shot when gambling, at least not when I saw it happen. Maybe now they would play it different.

Dennis

 

[Cowboy Dennis]

By our current "cue ball ball foul only" rules, it would not be a foul to move the ball on your back stroke, but I think it gets a little iffy when instead of stopping to give opponent a chance to replace the ball before you shoot, you follow through with the shot. The reason is, to my mind, you clearly needed to move that interfering object ball in order to shoot the shot the way you did -- that is, moving that ball had an effect on the outcome of the shot because it allowed you to stroke at your shot more freely than the lie of the balls offered if you had to really shoot it clean. Maybe that's not what the general rules intend, but here is the "cue ball fouls only" rule in the BCA:

Interesting, I do not remember noticing the qualifying phrase "located between the cue ball and the shooter" in this rule before. Is this new or did I just overlook it? And since it is a qualifying phrase, what happens if you move an object ball that is not "between the cue ball and the shooter"?

I was not intending to have this represent a comment on situations where the object ball is frozen to the cue ball. That adds another element.

Steve,

Actually you did cover it: It is still a foul to make any contact with the cue ball whatsoever while it is in play, except for the normal tip-to-ball contact during a shot.

By definition, if you call the cueball and object ball frozen, if you touch the object ball then you have touched the cueball. That's why every player in the world would call the cueball frozen to the object ball in this situation.

Dennis

 

[androd]

By our current "cue ball ball foul only" rules, it would not be a foul to move the ball on your back stroke, but I think it gets a little iffy when instead of stopping to give opponent a chance to replace the ball

Steve, If your opponent puts it back where it was that would be a foul on him.

 

[John Brumback]

Bill,

The entire purpose of calling the object ball frozen to the cueball in this situation is to make the shooter aware that if he touches the object ball it is a cueball foul. You cannot move the object ball away from the cueball without touching it first. As soon as you touch it, it is a cueball foul.

At least that's my interpretation of it and my opinion.

[CUETABLE]http://CueTable.com/P/?@4MYxj4NbbR4PaHB4TaPF3plpW4hYxj4hYxO4ibbR4icpv4kaHB4kbbA2uClB@[/CUETABLE]

About this shot..I remember when this used to be a foul.That Is..If the ball your jacked up over moves when you shoot, It was a foul. IMO that's the right call on this shot. John B.

 

[wincardona]

By our current "cue ball ball foul only" rules, it would not be a foul to move the ball on your back stroke, but I think it gets a little iffy when instead of stopping to give opponent a chance to replace the ball before you shoot, you follow through with the shot. The reason is, to my mind, you clearly needed to move that interfering object ball in order to shoot the shot the way you did -- that is, moving that ball had an effect on the outcome of the shot because it allowed you to stroke at your shot more freely than the lie of the balls offered if you had to really shoot it clean. Maybe that's not what the general rules intend, but here is the "cue ball fouls only" rule in the BCA:

Interesting, I do not remember noticing the qualifying phrase "located between the cue ball and the shooter" in this rule before. Is this new or did I just overlook it? And since it is a qualifying phrase, what happens if you move an object ball that is not "between the cue ball and the shooter"?

I was not intending to have this represent a comment on situations where the object ball is frozen to the cue ball. That adds another element.

Steve, I agree with your assessment of why it should be a foul, not only that but if the shooter should move the object ball on his back stroke and continue to shoot his shot, how is his opponent, or a referee going to be able to determine if the moved ball interfered with the cue ball? For that reason alone it should be determined a foul. But your explanation of why the shot should be deemed illegal makes perfect sense.

Steve, your shot choices are very well thought out, as is your explanation of why and how things happen. You have a good mind on figuring things out, maybe that's why you're such a good moderator. You have only one weakness as a moderator... your too nice a guy...


Billy I.

 

[Artie Bodendorfer]

About this shot..I remember when this used to be a foul.That Is..If the ball your jacked up over moves when you shoot, It was a foul. IMO that's the right call on this shot. John B.[/QUOTE

Her is your problem again . If thier is no refere and the player says he never touched the object ball . Then a decision has too be made. Or you stop the game tell someone can call the shot.

 

[John Brumback]

About this shot..I remember when this used to be a foul.That Is..If the ball your jacked up over moves when you shoot, It was a foul. IMO that's the right call on this shot. John B.[/QUOTE

Her is your problem again . If thier is no refere and the player says he never touched the object ball . Then a decision has too be made. Or you stop the game tell someone can call the shot.

Artie,If every player called a ref over every time someone "THOUGHT" something "MIGHT" happen the tourny might not ever end. IMO there Is but one and only one way not to have promblems like this....Have a ref watching each and every match. BUT, how would that ever be possible? It's not. I just don't know what the answer Is.do you? If you do lets here It because I must have missed your answer.It's not only MY problem..It's everybodys. Thank you, John B.