Re: 3-Foul loss of game ruling. Anyone know how long ago the current iteration has been around?

[onepocketman]

This is all about settling a debate: As far back as I can recall, it has been the way it is, but my friend either is going on outdated old-school rules or is simply incorrect. As quoted above, the rules here and the last known BCA rules state they would still be on 2 fouls, when the offended player fails to warn them before their 3rd inning after 2 consecutive fouls. We are both 3+ decades old into the game.

------------------------
From BCA: (source Billiards.com because on the BCA's site I cannot even find them and they do not respond to messages from my past experience):

7. Three fouls in a row Three consecutive fouls is loss of game, however the opponent or tournament referee must notify the player that is on two fouls, prior to their third foul. Should no notice occur until after the shot resulting in the third foul is in motion, it is not immediate loss of game, but the player will be considered to be on two fouls for their next shot. The three fouls rule is often waived in after hours situations by agreement between the players.
-------------------------
From OnePocket.org:

7. Three fouls in a row
Three consecutive fouls is loss of game, however the opponent or tournament referee must notify the player that is on two fouls, prior to their third foul. Should no notice occur until after the shot resulting in the third foul is in motion, it is not immediate loss of game, but the player will be considered to be on two fouls for their next shot.
------------------------

I have a friend who believes adamantly that if you fail to give a warning before the 3rd foul is committed it is not a loss of game, AND that they would only be on 1 foul, so in other words, the chance to declare a 3 foul loss is reset to only being their first foul in a row for the loss of game purposes.

I have only known and seen it stated (as it is written now), that the incoming player not declared on 2 fouls would still be on 2 fouls if they foul a 3rd time, and are so declared as still being on 2 fouls at the start of their next inning. Basically, this is saying it is still a loss of game after 4 consecutive fouls if declared still on 2 fouls before they shoot their 4th inning.
As a matter of fact, the ruling does not even state they would have to be declared on 2 fouls again, but that is common sense that the offended player would be bringing it up so would definitely remember to declare it at the start of the offending player's next inning.

I also realize many do not even observe the 3-foul rule, but that is not what this query is about, We happen to play 3-foul.

 

[Jimmy B]

This is all about settling a debate: As far back as I can recall, it has been the way it is, but my friend either is going on outdated old-school rules or is simply incorrect. As quoted above, the rules here and the last known BCA rules state they would still be on 2 fouls, when the offended player fails to warn them before their 3rd inning after 2 consecutive fouls. We are both 3+ decades old into the game.

------------------------
From BCA: (source Billiards.com because on the BCA's site I cannot even find them and they do not respond to messages from my past experience):

7. Three fouls in a row Three consecutive fouls is loss of game, however the opponent or tournament referee must notify the player that is on two fouls, prior to their third foul. Should no notice occur until after the shot resulting in the third foul is in motion, it is not immediate loss of game, but the player will be considered to be on two fouls for their next shot. The three fouls rule is often waived in after hours situations by agreement between the players.
-------------------------
From OnePocket.org:

7. Three fouls in a row
Three consecutive fouls is loss of game, however the opponent or tournament referee must notify the player that is on two fouls, prior to their third foul. Should no notice occur until after the shot resulting in the third foul is in motion, it is not immediate loss of game, but the player will be considered to be on two fouls for their next shot.
------------------------

I have a friend who believes adamantly that if you fail to give a warning before the 3rd foul is committed it is not a loss of game, AND that they would only be on 1 foul, so in other words, the chance to declare a 3 foul loss is reset to only being their first foul in a row for the loss of game purposes.

I have only known and seen it stated (as it is written now), that the incoming player not declared on 2 fouls would still be on 2 fouls if they foul a 3rd time, and are so declared as still being on 2 fouls at the start of their next inning. Basically, this is saying it is still a loss of game after 4 consecutive fouls if declared still on 2 fouls before they shoot their 4th inning.
As a matter of fact, the ruling does not even state they would have to be declared on 2 fouls again, but that is common sense that the offended player would be bringing it up so would definitely remember to declare it at the start of the offending player's next inning.

I also realize many do not even observe the 3-foul rule, but that is not what this query is about, We happen to play 3-foul.

I always thought and played that you remain on two and also had to be warned again that you were on two as you approached...

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

OPman,
Larry (lll) had a great find that he threaded awhile back, of which was the Jansco rules of '62, which is their 2nd year of their tournament. In it they adopted the 3 foul rule.
I believe many believe it was adopted because of Eugene 'Clem' Metz for he played so many intentionals. Eddie Taylor quit a match up with him because he knew what was in store for him after a few intentionals were taken.

We thank Steve for this inclusion tidbit in his Hall Of Fame inductee comments about the match up between the Knoxville Bear and Clem.

The rule: it is a consecutive foul rule per a game of OP, in which once you have acquired two consecutive fouls, then as your next inning starts or prior to your next shot, your opponent must warn you that you are on two fouls. A third foul is a loss of game.

If no proper warning occurs then you will remain on two fouls even though you may have fouled.

Now a proper warning is this; if you warn a player directly after they committed their 2nd foul, and then you take your inning, that warning is improper and will not count as a warning. The reasoning being, time has lapsed. So only a warning as the opponent's inning starts, or before they stroke a shot, is considered a legally time warning.

Now when does an inning start for a OP player. It is different than most other games, which are based upon when the balls stop rolling in the last inning.
In OP the inning starts when all the business of spotting balls, coins placed or removed, balls put in their collective area, and so forth is finalized.

thanks for the thread, good question!
Whitey

 

[sheldon]

I've heard it argued that the player on 2 MUST be notified when it is THEIR inning, and not during or before the other player is shooting theirs.
No way does it make sense for the fouls to "reset" if a player is not notified, if this happens I simply tell them they're on 3 when they come back to the table.

6. Fouls

If a player fouls three times without making an intervening legal shot, it is a serious foul. In games scored by the rack, such as nine ball, the fouls must be in a single rack. Some games such as eight ball do not include this rule.
The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on two fouls. Otherwise a possible third foul will be considered to be only the second.

 

[lll]

in the 1962 rules for the "hustlers jamboree" hosted by the jansco brothers as whitey mention it states 3 consecutive fouls is loss of game without mention of having to give a warning
see rule #8

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

For clarification for new members to the game of OP.
With an improperly timed or no warning then when a 3rd. consecutive foul is committed it is still a foul, and a scored ball is spotted or owed.
But, you are still on your 2nd. foul that still counts for a 3 consecutive foul loss.

The '62 Jansco rule writing I believe was published in the local newspaper, and most likely used as a handout for spectators so they can follow the game.
As far as the rules themselves as it changed from '61, off the top of my head; they dropped the wordage "14.1 rules apply", and they changed the break.
They may have dropped using 14.1 for there is no 3 consecutive foul rule is a loss of game in 14.1
So the new established Jansco rule, I believe had some effects upon their overall rules.

'61 Break; the winner of the lag had the option to break or pass, but maintained choice of pocket. In '67 BCA adopted this rule and it was the official rule of OP. I believe this rule was probably a rule that Hayden Lingo played by, conjecture of course. I really like this rule.
"62 Break: winner of the lag has option to break or not.

It is interesting that they included rule 10, pocketing the game winning ball in both the shooter's and the opponent's pocket, is a win for the shooter.
This can only happen in match up 'handicap'play, and not tournament play, so the spectator rules were also intended for the action play.

Rule 11 & 12 Shooting into the wrong pocket, I believe Steve develop the modern version, whereas only the first ball pocketed in error in the opponent's pocket, counts. Steve references a time when a guy is playing Ronnie Allen, and the guy shot in Ronnie's balls, and Ronnie states; "that is enough I'll take over now".
OP.org rule, basically:
When the error is once recognized then the first ball stays down for the opponent but all other balls pocketed in error during that inning are immediately spotted.
Pay attention to the fact that the rule states; "in that inning". Therefore if successive innings continue in error, then you cannot go back and spot other balls from previous innings.
This clarification is not quite so obvious, so good to know.

One interesting rule that would also apply to OP at that time is the ball jumped off the table is not a foul, and spots up immediately, and if the shooter also scores the inning continues.
So if you are jumping a ball off the table by the opponent's scoring pocket, then only that ball will spot, and the cue ball is played as lies.
This rule applied to all games including 14.1. 14.1 game rules at that time were also the general rules for all games, unless a specific game rule supersede. I do not know when jumping a ball off the table become a foul, but you can know see how it effected the game of OP.
Whitey

 

[onepocketman]

Yesterday, my friend said that since we had the discussion that he asked Jeremy Jones, who agreed with my friend that one would no longer be on 2 fouls if not properly warned and commits a 3rd consecutive foul, so they would only be on their first foul in a row in respect to loss of game. Essentially requiring notice again if a 4th consecutive foul is committed- before they shoot their 5th inning in order to apply the loss of game ruling, should they foul then.

Every place and potentially every player you meet can vary in their perspectives on things, so I am easy to match up with whatever we agree on.

Does anyone here have a direct link to BCA rules on their site?
They won't reply to my question for a link to their rules or a pdf of them.

I can only find other sources saying they are quoting BCA rules. My friend has a valid point that they are not the BCA. Some sources have truncated or changed what they are calling the BCA OP rules too. I don't understand how anyone is quoting them when I cannot find the rules on their own site??

P.S.
I for one really appreciate OP.org stepping up in the absence of any other governing organization I can find with revising and posting their version of the rules. which I can find answers to most questions that come up. Some people just don't feel the same about OP.org's standing to make or update the rules for this classic game. I know no matter what source I could quote, there will always be room for debate and stress.

 

[cincy_kid]

Yesterday, my friend said that since we had the discussion that he asked Jeremy Jones, who agreed with my friend that one would no longer be on 2 fouls if not properly warned and commits a 3rd consecutive foul, so they would only be on their first foul in a row in respect to loss of game. Essentially requiring notice again if a 4th consecutive foul is committed- before they shoot their 5th inning in order to apply the loss of game ruling, should they foul then.

Every place and potentially every player you meet can vary in their perspectives on things, so I am easy to match up with whatever we agree on.

Does anyone here have a direct link to BCA rules on their site?
They won't reply to my question for a link to their rules or a pdf of them.

I can only find other sources saying they are quoting BCA rules. My friend has a valid point that they are not the BCA. Some sources have truncated or changed what they are calling the BCA OP rules too. I don't understand how anyone is quoting them when I cannot find the rules on their own site??

P.S.
I for one really appreciate OP.org stepping up in the absence of any other governing organization I can find with revising and posting their version of the rules. which I can find answers to most questions that come up. Some people just don't feel the same about OP.org's standing to make or update the rules for this classic game. I know no matter what source I could quote, there will always be room for debate and stress.

BCA says this:

6.14 Three Consecutive Fouls

If a player fouls three times without making an intervening legal shot, it is a serious foul. In
games scored by the rack, such as nine ball, the fouls must be in a single rack. Some games
such as eight ball do not include this rule.

The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on
two fouls. Otherwise a possible third foul will be considered to be only the second.

Here is the link: https://wpapool.com/rules-of-play/#614Three-Consecutive-Fouls

 

[onepocketman]

BCA says this:

6.14 Three Consecutive Fouls

If a player fouls three times without making an intervening legal shot, it is a serious foul. In
games scored by the rack, such as nine ball, the fouls must be in a single rack. Some games
such as eight ball do not include this rule.

The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on
two fouls. Otherwise a possible third foul will be considered to be only the second.

Here is the link: https://wpapool.com/rules-of-play/#614Three-Consecutive-Fouls

Hey Cinci, thanks for that. BTW, that link is to the WPA, not the BCA. I will ask my buddy if he considers that a good source. The more data, the better. So far no source has contradicted this (in writing).

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Official BCA rules are now one and the same as WPA for BCA has joined WPA. The rules are the same accept for game rules that BCA recognizes and WPA does not, such as OP.

BCAPl / CSI rules are basically WPA with some preference changes and language. WPA rules are more geared for their trained referee guidance, thus for the player they are full of ambiguity. Whereas BCAPL / CSI tries to clarify WPA rules for players understanding, but still are plagued with ambiguity.

BCAPL / CSI reason for their ambiguity is this, and I call it slick writing, for the author knows what they are portraying and if you are slick enough or know rules enough, then yes it is possible to figure out their intent, So it gives them a sense of superiority when a player or a referee cannot figure out their intent, but what a poor reason to have writings like that.

Where both WPA and BCAPL / CSI have gone wrong, is that you have to search the entire text to find the complete meaning of a rule, at times. Instead of completing all of the disciplines of a rule within the rule. As with WPA their title of a rule is different than what we are used to so that makes it hard to look up. All of this lends to what could be very time consuming endeavor.

Well I hope this makes for some understanding of the relationship between governing powers. If rules are hard to understand, your not alone!
Whitey

 

[cincy_kid]

Hey Cinci, thanks for that. BTW, that link is to the WPA, not the BCA. I will ask my buddy if he considers that a good source. The more data, the better. So far no source has contradicted this (in writing).

No prob!

That was the link from BCA so they must be joined as Whitey mentions above.

 

[onepocketman]

No prob!

That was the link from BCA so they must be joined as Whitey mentions above.

Pretty please link me to the page on BCA's site where they gave you that link to show my friend it came from BCA.

 

[lll]

Pretty please link me to the page on BCA's site where they gave you that link to show my friend it came from BCA.

do you want me to shoot for you too
click on download fouls
Rules and Specifications - Billiards Congress of America (bca-pool.com)

 

[gulfportdoc]

BCA says this:

6.14 Three Consecutive Fouls
...
The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on
two fouls. Otherwise a possible third foul will be considered to be only the second.

That's interesting that the shooter would still be on 2 fouls in contrast to "...he asked Jeremy Jones, who agreed with my friend that one would no longer be on 2 fouls if not properly warned and commits a 3rd consecutive foul, so they would only be on their first foul in a row in respect to loss of game."

I've always assumed that without a warning, if a player shoots, he'd still be on 2 fouls.

 

[lll]

To me if you slept telling him he was on two
and he fouls on the next shot
he would still be on two seems reasonable
your brain fart should not reset the clock to zero
jmho

 

[vapros]

Sure. You are on two fouls until you make a legal shot or receive the prescribed warning. That's how I read it.

 

[onepocketman]

do you want me to shoot for you too
click on download fouls
Rules and Specifications - Billiards Congress of America (bca-pool.com)

Version 21.12.2007 from WPA as linked from BCA.

6.14 Three Consecutive Fouls If a player fouls three times without making an intervening legal shot, it is a serious foul. In games scored by the rack, such as nine ball, the fouls must be in a single rack. Some games such as eight ball do not include this rule. The referee must warn a shooter who is on two fouls when he comes to the table that he is on two fouls. Otherwise a possible third foul will be considered to be only the second.
------------------------------------------------
Thanks. Not exactly what I was hoping for as that is general 3-foul rules, but I hope it is persuasive enough. My friend still can and likely will say that is not in the "one pocket category of rules" per see.

It is definitely great progress in my quest. It does state "in games scored by the rack, such as nine ball. I can imagine my friend now saying, "But that still doesn't say One Pocket". Change is bad in his eyes and actually I would love to find a written source for his information also, if one exists.

All he really needs to say is okay I accept that is the rule, but if you play with me let's do it my way to make me comfortable because I do not want to change the rules as I understand them. He is a great guy and is one of my mentors. Like I have said, I have no issues working house rules or specific player preferences out as long as it does not come up in the heat of battle.

So Cinci Kid gave me a link he said is from the BCA (wording is different form the "download fouls" document), but which is actually to the WPA site, to which he replied that link came from the BCA, to which I asked if he could pretty please link me to the place on the BCA site where that link is as the source of it. Maybe he will update where he found that later, as it must not have been what you advised.

P.S. I am always looking for a pinch shooter if you are available. So many shots I do not want to risk taking that you can make easily.
Thanks

 

[onepocketman]

Sure. You are on two fouls until you make a legal shot or receive the prescribed warning. That's how I read it.

Thanks. Yes that is exactly how it reads. Most believe you still must properly warn them next shot before the game losing 3rd (4th, 5th whatever reality is vs the proper warning) consecutive foul is stroked, even though that additional stipulation is not written for when someone was not properly warned before their 3rd consecutive foul.
It just states they are still on 2 fouls.

My friend disputes that ruling (which is the same everywhere I have looked) from his ages of experience and his knowledge of the rules, so my thread is to find out when that was implemented by the BCA rules, which are not found on their actual site by me.

Meanwhile, I will be explaining the BCA has now joined the WPL, and show him the WPL link above. Maybe that will persuade him to accept it. Either way, I am content to play however we agree to (currently that means his way because I am flexible, while he is adamant).

We like to play that if you rack your own and make a ball you can continue shooting without a re-rack (old-school). I like that mostly because the breaker cannot feel like someone screwed up the rack on him or feel like he needs to be the guy/girl to tell the racker it needs re-racked when it is not a good rack upon inspection. That can become irksome to always be having to inspect and have to speak up about it to the racker. I would rather rack my own and accept if my rack acts strange because it was not perfect.
I have not often been on a table that racks perfectly very easily* if at all, and Michael's has good tables here in Cinci. I know thee reason behind the new rule is because people can rack them in their favor to avoid scratching but with lines drawn down the spotting string and trusting my opponents, I am willing to take that risk with only a casual glance at the centering. If I was gambling I would be looking pretty closely before they break, as is my right and obligation.

*Other than new cloth, which has issues of its own.

 

[NH Steve]

It is also right there clearly in our rules, and despite any naysayers that pop up here and there, our rules have been the basis for pretty near all serious One Pocket events for quite a while. There are other rules in recent years, such as CSI, but if you read them, you can see they got the bones right down to most of the details from our rules here. Like DCC, they sometimes add little specific variations to suit their needs, but the basic rules are still ours.

It was indeed the Jansco's that came up with the 3 foul rule in the early 60's for their tournaments. Many people do not realize they also came up with BIH anywhere for a foul in 9-Ball -- way before "Texas Express". They were very innovative.

BTW, often very experienced pros are wrong about some rules. Most of them do not study them, and when they go just by their experience, who knows what creeps in lol.

The way rules work is, well written ones stand as a backdrop, so that when a situation comes up AND PLAYERS DO NOT AGREE, then you can fall back to arbitration using the well written rules. WHEN PLAYERS AGREE, they do not need any additional rules. And most of the time, players are pretty agreeable -- the backdrop of well written rules is just there "in case" they are needed for arbitration. Of course, in tournament play rules are also there for consistency from match to match throughout the tournament.

Our rules:

​

7. Three fouls in a row​

Three consecutive fouls is loss of game, however the opponent or tournament referee must notify the player that is on two fouls, prior to their third foul. Should no notice occur until after the shot resulting in the third foul is in motion, it is not immediate loss of game, but the player will be considered to be on two fouls for their next shot.​

 

[onepocketman]

Thanks Steve, this is my exact sentiment. I just wish I could either confirm from some source my friend's belief or convince him of the current findings everywhere I check. I prefer things settled and agreed upon, but it is just against my grain in such overwhelming evidence just to capitulate when I feel I have so much data on my side, and virtually nothing for his case.

I will repeat that I value the play much more than this sticking point. I have learned some good things here, so thanks to all who chimed in!

I once lost a sparring buddy because he shoved through the cueball and OB when they were close (maybe 1/8th inch) but not frozen in a normal level forward hard stroke, causing the CB to run with the OB instead of hesitating and following. He vehemently denied that he fouled with a double hit. We all know the hand is quicker than the eye. The double click sound was obvious. After that little debate trying to explain the laws of physics to him, he would never play me again. I learned to win the battle is not always worthwhile. We were playing for $10 a game. Sad that he was either ignorant of what he'd done and/or offended by my call, and took it so personally.