| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Torsten |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 10:56:36 AM
I was speaking about this anecdotally to a fellow APA member last night who, to my surprise, did not know this rule. In a ball in hand situation, the coach may place the ball for the player, move it around or whatever for the duration of the timeout, and using a cue show the player where to strike the white ball WITHOUT ACTUALLY CONTACTING IT. However, if the coach while showing the player how to address the white ball actually contacts it with the cue, it is a foul, the same way it would be if the player accidentally contacted the cue while addressing it. Please confirm that this is correct, or embarrass the heck out of me and make me hide my face in shame in the event I am somehow mistaken. The other reason I bring this up is because it is not specifically mentioned in that section of the rule book. It says (paraphrased) that if another ball is contacted by the cue or the hand holding the cue during the placing of it a foul has occurred. I guess the aforementioned falls under failing to contact an object ball and a rail but perhaps we could be a tad more specific. Sorry to waste everyone's time with this but apparently there is still some debate. 
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a bathroom makes you a toilet. |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Phil |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 5:21:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Torsten
I completely understand, and agree for that matter, with the rule as you explain it. Not to be completely unrealistic here, but with the current rule the way it's written, what would stop a coach from doing the following. Lets say only the 8 remains on the table. Since english or spin is ambitious for many new or lower ranked players, pace is crucial to keep from scratching. Better yet, it's the final object ball before the 8 and pace is crucial to get decent position on the 8. How come the coach can't actually hit the cue ball to demonstrate what speed it should be travelling and then stop it before it contacts the object ball to keep it from being a foul. I honestly am not trying to be a pain in your behinds (okay, maybe a little) but there are players and teams out there who like to exploit anything that might be seen as a loophole or grey area in the rules. Trust me, I agree with the rule as you guys put it. The player shouldn't suffer because his/her coach made a very minor, albeit careless, infraction on the white ball. My point is that I think the rule could be articulated a bit differently in the rule book to discourage shenanigans (sp?) and also to make sure everybody understands the rule. Nobody will ever confuse me with Einstein but I know I wasn't the only one who improperly interpreted the wording in the rule book. And you're right about the touchdown analogy. But if, during a timeout, a Steeler gets his facemask pulled on by a Patriot, it's still a personal foul resulting in a 15 yard ball in hand....er... penalty. 
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a bathroom makes you a toilet.
There's nothing to stop the coach from demonstrating speed during a time out. They don't have to shoot toward the object ball either. I've seen coaches roll the cue ball with their hand to show the shooter how fast it should go, and it's not a foul. The shooter still has to hit the shot and replicate the speed.
Phil
|
| Torsten |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 4:25:03 PM
I completely understand, and agree for that matter, with the rule as you explain it. Not to be completely unrealistic here, but with the current rule the way it's written, what would stop a coach from doing the following. Lets say only the 8 remains on the table. Since english or spin is ambitious for many new or lower ranked players, pace is crucial to keep from scratching. Better yet, it's the final object ball before the 8 and pace is crucial to get decent position on the 8. How come the coach can't actually hit the cue ball to demonstrate what speed it should be travelling and then stop it before it contacts the object ball to keep it from being a foul. I honestly am not trying to be a pain in your behinds (okay, maybe a little) but there are players and teams out there who like to exploit anything that might be seen as a loophole or grey area in the rules. Trust me, I agree with the rule as you guys put it. The player shouldn't suffer because his/her coach made a very minor, albeit careless, infraction on the white ball. My point is that I think the rule could be articulated a bit differently in the rule book to discourage shenanigans (sp?) and also to make sure everybody understands the rule. Nobody will ever confuse me with Einstein but I know I wasn't the only one who improperly interpreted the wording in the rule book. And you're right about the touchdown analogy. But if, during a timeout, a Steeler gets his facemask pulled on by a Patriot, it's still a personal foul resulting in a 15 yard ball in hand....er... penalty.
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a bathroom makes you a toilet. |
| Taz |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 3:04:51 PM
Torsten, let me get this straight. Patriots are playing the Steelers and there is a time-out on the field during which one of the players (must be a Patriot, as Steelers would know better) picks up the ball and runs down the field crossing the goal line, did he just score a touchdown?
There is a difference between General Rules and Game Rules. The rule you are referring to applies to situations during a game or while placing the cue ball during a time out. You are taking it out of context.
General Rules - Page 26, 11.f "...coach must leave the playing area before the shooter attempts the shot." If my coach is addressing the cueball with a cue DURING A TIME-OUT (in order to show me where to hit it) and he touches the cueball, nothing has happened, unless the cueball makes contact with another ball.
|
| Phil |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 2:52:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Torsten
Damn you! Go Patriots!!! Seriously, thank you for the correction. I think a clarification of the book could be used though. It says clearly on the rules page, "Causing any movement of the cueball, even accidental, is a foul." It also says on that same page "The same rules apply to a coach when placing the cue ball." It doesn't say anything at all about a coach accidentally causing the white ball to move with a stick... but it does say the "cue ball is always alive." I'm not arguing with the rule. If you say I'm incorrect, it is so. However, I can't find this instance accounted for in the rulebook. If I have missed it, please tell me where I can find it. If it's not in there, can we put it in there? From experience and from stories, this apparently happens often enough to be covered. Thanks Phil.
P.S. I was kidding about the Patriot thing...
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a bathroom makes you a toilet.
If we follow that logic, then the act of doing anything with the cue ball during a ball-in-hand situation would be a foul, right? The manual doesn't say "causing any movement of the cue ball when you don't have ball-in-hand...", but everyone understands it that way because it's silly to interpret it any other way.
The instances where a coach can commit a foul are covered in the manual. Anything else is incidental, unless the dentures hit the cue ball and an object ball at the same time (but you'd need a third party to call that one)...
Phil
|
| Torsten |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 2:19:23 PM
Damn you! Go Patriots!!! Seriously, thank you for the correction. I think a clarification of the book could be used though. It says clearly on the rules page, "Causing any movement of the cueball, even accidental, is a foul." It also says on that same page "The same rules apply to a coach when placing the cue ball." It doesn't say anything at all about a coach accidentally causing the white ball to move with a stick... but it does say the "cue ball is always alive." I'm not arguing with the rule. If you say I'm incorrect, it is so. However, I can't find this instance accounted for in the rulebook. If I have missed it, please tell me where I can find it. If it's not in there, can we put it in there? From experience and from stories, this apparently happens often enough to be covered. Thanks Phil.
P.S. I was kidding about the Patriot thing...
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a bathroom makes you a toilet. |
| Phil |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 11:52:39 AM
Ok, you asked for it. During a time out with ball-in-hand, the coach can do anything he/she wants with the cue ball (yes, that does include hiding it in your coke), as long as he/she does not cause contact with any of the other balls on the table.
This is different from the situation where the shooter addressing the cue ball accidentally contacts it. In the case of the shooter, you must determine the intent - was the shooter addressing the cue ball to take the shot, or were they simply positioning the cue ball? In the case of the coach, it is obvious that the coach does not intend to take the shot. Therefore, any accidental movement of the cue ball, whether caused by the tip of the cue or something else, like the coach sneezing his dentures onto the table, is considered incidental and is only a foul if another ball is contacted.
By the way, if the coach sneezes his dentures onto the table and they hit the cue ball, then carom off the cue ball and hit another ball, it is not a foul since the coach was not in contact with both balls at the same time.
Phil
|
|
|
