Rules Question -- Jacked up

[LSJohn]

I know I heard a tournament director somewhere say that if you were jacked up over a ball and on your shot you moved the ball that had you jacked up, it was automatically a foul, even when playing CB fouls only. The rationale was that this results in too many "too close to call" situations where it is impossible to be sure whether the cue tip struck the OB before the CB.

Is that a standard rule or was that a house rule or special for the tournament?

 

[youngstown]

Rules Question -- Jacked up

Not sue. I’ve heard people say that if it’s moved during the stroke it’s a foul but if before or after it’s not.

 

[LSJohn]

Not sue. I’ve heard people say that if it’s moved during the stroke it’s a foul but if before or after it’s not.

I wasn't clear, but that's what I meant.

 

[lll]

Not sue. I’ve heard people say that if it’s moved during the stroke it’s a foul but if before or after it’s not.

i couldnt find the rule but thats how i understand it too

 

[darmoose]

I think that is "empractible" and would never work well in my experience. What are ya gonna do, call a ref every time your jacked up?

The whole purpose of CB fouls only is to minimize arguments on the theory of "no harm no foul". This takes several steps backwards.:frus

Rules have to be kept to a minimum, and have to be written to avoid "subjective" interpretation. Better to let a guilty, no good, cheatin SOB get away with a minor inconsequential infraction than to penalize an innocent.

 

[gulfportdoc]

I can't find the pertinent rule either. But I seem to recall a rule that stated something to the effect that if a shooter is jacked up, or when using a masse technique, if he miscues it's an automatic foul. Not 100% sure on that.

~Doc

 

[Island Drive]

I know I heard a tournament director somewhere say that if you were jacked up over a ball and on your shot you moved the ball that had you jacked up, it was automatically a foul, even when playing CB fouls only. The rationale was that this results in too many "too close to call" situations where it is impossible to be sure whether the cue tip struck the OB before the CB.

Is that a standard rule or was that a house rule or special for the tournament?

That was old school thinking...........but.

I reffed a 200 player event a couple years back the new BCA rulebook was used. Read it thru four times, this came up.

The rule was very specific.
When your shooting over a ball, during execution the shaft touches and moves/drags ''one'' ball forward it's not a foul if the moved ball was not able to effect play by it's forward motion. If two balls are moved/foul.

This is one of those rules that has changed over time.

 

[Red Shoes]

First of course....if you can "get a caller"....a foul can be committed in that situation but....it does not have to be one even if an object ball moves....If the cue tip touches the interfering ball AND that ball touches the cue ball it is of course a foul. Most of the time the execution of the stroke/shot happens pretty fast. It is difficult to tell "IF BALL TO BALL" contact made (making it a FOUL). Without a "judge" (caller) the "shot goes to the PLAYER". Otherwise anytime a player is "jacked up" over a ball the opponent can CALL A FOUL upon completion of the shot saying they saw the INTERFERING BALL MOVE. That is why I say "get a caller" otherwise the "shot goes to the player". This should keep bloodshed to a minimum.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

LS John, to touch a ball either prior or after the cue ball is contacted is not a foul under WPA or BCAPL Cue Ball Foul Only rules, unless the disturbed object ball has an effect upon the shot. For instance; I am shooting over a ball and contact it, rolling it forward, now I drew the cb backwards into the ob, or into an area the ob would have been in if not moved, this is a foul. By memory, I believe bcapl has a diagram of this scenario in their AR's. under Disturbed Balls 1.33.

But a director of a tournament could make it a rule that if you contact a ball when shooting over a ball and you proceed to contact the cb it is a foul, but it would be ill advised in todays Cue Ball Foul Only rules.

Hustler's Way: Butch the owner of the Palace explained to me that this is how we play for money, and he said; "If you move a ball it is not a foul as long as you do not continue to contact the cb, but if you do contact the cb it is then a foul". In other words you have to give the opponent a chance to move the ob back or not, otherwise it is a foul. I always played the hustler's way, after that. It is always good practice that if you know you have disturbed a ball then stop and acknowledge it, for otherwise the shot may result in a foul if the disturbed ball inadvertently has an effect upon the shot.

We played our local weekly league at one time by "all ball fouls", and each game was watched by the other team's captain. The problem was they would get so close to the table, and then get right down there on eye level to see if a ball was touched or not, that it just made it unbearably annoying. And a lot of times a foul was called and the player honestly and truly never even realized they touch a ball, and yes they did foul, but it is hard to accept when you do not even realize it.

So now we play that if a ball is touched and there is absolutely no effect upon the shot whatsoever then it is not a foul. Whitey

 

[12squared]

This is an interesting question, that I too was curious what the "today" rule is on this. Years back it was always a foul when shooting over a ball that's close to the cueball, but today it gets more complicated. Here is the rule that a tournament director told me that makes perfect sense although I have not seen it in print:

If the 2 balls are frozen to each other, i.e. cueball and object ball you're shooting over, and the object ball moves it is a foul. If they are not frozen it would not be a foul unless a ref was present and it was a clear foul.

This saves a lot of arguments when ref is not present: if frozen, foul; if not, no foul.

Dave

 

[LSJohn]

Rules have to be kept to a minimum, and have to be written to avoid "subjective" interpretation. Better to let a guilty, no good, cheatin SOB get away with a minor inconsequential infraction than to penalize an innocent.

It's strange how two well-meaning people can look at something and come to opposite conclusions for the same reason.

It really seems to me that "if it moves it is a foul" is simplest and least subjective.

I don't have a real preference which way rules treat the situation, I just want to be sure I know what that is.

From the discussion here it looks like this might be one of the things best clarified before a match. It does come up quite often, and we see some clearly differing opinions among us.

 

[Tobermory]

This is an interesting question, that I too was curious what the "today" rule is on this. Years back it was always a foul when shooting over a ball that's close to the cueball, but today it gets more complicated. Here is the rule that a tournament director told me that makes perfect sense although I have not seen it in print:

If the 2 balls are frozen to each other, i.e. cueball and object ball you're shooting over, and the object ball moves it is a foul. If they are not frozen it would not be a foul unless a ref was present and it was a clear foul.

This saves a lot of arguments when ref is not present: if frozen, foul; if not, no foul.

Dave

This is exactly how I understand the rule. Whether the object ball is touched, of course, can still be a matter of opinion, but at least the rule is clear this way

 

[darmoose]

It's strange how two well-meaning people can look at something and come to opposite conclusions for the same reason.

It really seems to me that "if it moves it is a foul" is simplest and least subjective.

I don't have a real preference which way rules treat the situation, I just want to be sure I know what that is.

From the discussion here it looks like this might be one of the things best clarified before a match. It does come up quite often, and we see some clearly differing opinions among us.

John,

I just don't see how I could play "cue ball fouls only" which seems to be the way everyone wants to play today, and then call a foul when the OB the shooter is shooting over gets moved a millimeter with no consequence on the outcome.

Why do you think the "cue ball fouls only rule" does not cover this situation?

 

[youngstown]

Rules Question -- Jacked up

You could sweats dimplify it and play all ball fouls

 

[LSJohn]

John,


Why do you think the "cue ball fouls only rule" does not cover this situation?

It can cover it, but it doesn't have to if there's an exception carved out for it. Apparently some people thought, and still think, there's good enough reason for it.

As I said, I don't care much either way. I only responded because I found it interesting that what you thought was more subjective, I thought was less so.

 

[crabbcatjohn]

Another rules question. Just wanted make sure as I was asked today. Object ball is froze to the rail. You double kiss it into the rail hitting the same rail it's on. Cue ball doesn't hit a rail. Should be a foul? Right?

 

[Island Drive]

It's strange how two well-meaning people can look at something and come to opposite conclusions for the same reason.

It really seems to me that "if it moves it is a foul" is simplest and least subjective.

I don't have a real preference which way rules treat the situation, I just want to be sure I know what that is.

From the discussion here it looks like this might be one of the things best clarified before a match. It does come up quite often, and we see some clearly differing opinions among us.

Long ago, made a rule with another when gambling. If/When we don't agree on a call/ruling, then we'll flip a coin. Whomever wins the flip makes the rule. If this situation comes up again, then the other player automatically makes the ruling.

 

[12squared]

Another rules question. Just wanted make sure as I was asked today. Object ball is froze to the rail. You double kiss it into the rail hitting the same rail it's on. Cue ball doesn't hit a rail. Should be a foul? Right?

Right...Foul

 

[beatle]

simple ref. present you can play all fouls and rules you want.
no ref. the cue balls fouls only or you have arguments.

the rules work out and break even for both sides so why have lots of complicated ones and ruin the bad players fun..

 

[El Chapo]

I have played under this rule.

I like this rule. It makes sense to me because as the tip comes down there is no way to tell if the tip hits the ob first or whatever other scenario that can happen.