| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Torsten |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 11:29:05 AM
I've been meaning to post this for a while. I couldn't find a definitive answer in the rulebook specifically for these circumstances. In one instance last season, a bar patron (not an apa member) struck the back of my player's stick while passing behind him, causing my player to tap the cue ball. In another instance, another apa match was taking place on the table adjacent to ours. A player on the other table and my player inadvertently bumped sticks while simultaneosly preparing to shoot, again, causing an inadvertent touch of the cue ball. In the latter incident, our opponents laughed it off and were gracious enough to tell my player to simply replace the white ball where it was and continue his turn. In the case of the former, our opponents requested a ball in hand which we in turn granted to them. Is this a discretionary situation or is there a set precedent or rule applying to these situations. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| tfire |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 7:47:49 PM
That's sounds reasonable to me Tom. Thanks! To me it's all about maintaining a level playing field whenever possible - playing the game the way it should be played. I saw that playing field being tilted too to one side, unfairly, given the circumstances I laid out. I think it makes sense that the sitting player should be able to make the call. Unless I'm missing something(?). Matt might tell you that player will simply lie about it and take the Ball In Hand everytime. I don't believe that will be true in the vast majority of cases.
Now, if we can get Phil or Taz to sound off on this, whenever the Championships are complete.
Thanks for the contribution Tom! We'll see if we get anywhere by way of improving the rules.
quote:
Originally posted by trhxke
Tim,
I agree that rules are fine and should be followed and inforced in both spirit and to the letter as long as good common sense is not sacrificed. Rules are always subject to revision and improvement by those who made the rules to begin with...at least until you have a "PERFECT RULE"....that one should be left alone.
What about allowing the sitting player to make the call and he could choose to be a good sport by resetting the ball on an obvious "outside interference" but retaining the right to take "ball in hand" if the interference is not obvious to that sitting player.
Tom Hardinger
www.BigRigToys.com
Your Internet Source for pool cues, darts and colletibles.
|
| trhxke |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 4:28:30 PM
Tim,
I agree that rules are fine and should be followed and inforced in both spirit and to the letter as long as good common sense is not sacrificed. Rules are always subject to revision and improvement by those who made the rules to begin with...at least until you have a "PERFECT RULE"....that one should be left alone.
What about allowing the sitting player to make the call and he could choose to be a good sport by resetting the ball on an obvious "outside interference" but retaining the right to take "ball in hand" if the interference is not obvious to that sitting player.
Tom Hardinger
www.BigRigToys.com
Your Internet Source for pool cues, darts and colletibles. |
| tfire |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 3:38:38 PM
At some point captains have to provide leadership and be the checks and balances. Anyone can claim anything. Based on the history of APA play that I've witnessed your scenario would be rare or at least very uncommon. We have the same situation when you don't have a Third Party called and the sitting player claims a foul. If the shooter and his/her captain claim it's good then it goes in the shooters favor. If someone wants to lie there's not much you can do about in that situation either, right?
But nevermind all that, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic here at all. Just stop and think about what happens when a player is bumped into a foul. In your mind is it better to give the player who is sitting the significant advantage of Ball In Hand due to outside interference? Is that really what you want to see winning and losing games in that scenario? Or would you prefer we reset the balls just like it's a bump of the object balls? I don't know Matt, unless I'm missing something big it seems obvious to me.
Maybe somebody can come on here and give a better reason for giving the shooting player the advantage over leveling the playing field.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt
Tim, my point is simply this: if a rule was made that allowed the non-shooting player to replace the cue ball after outside interference had caused a foul, what's to stop the shooter who miscues (causing a foul) without any outside interference to claim that they were bumped in the act of shooting and point to the rulebook for support? The shooter would be allowed a redo instead of giving the other player ball-in-hand. It's way too hard of a rule to enforce.
Matt
|
| Matt |
Posted - 06/07/2005 : 09:24:10 AM
Tim, my point is simply this: if a rule was made that allowed the non-shooting player to replace the cue ball after outside interference had caused a foul, what's to stop the shooter who miscues (causing a foul) without any outside interference to claim that they were bumped in the act of shooting and point to the rulebook for support? The shooter would be allowed a redo instead of giving the other player ball-in-hand. It's way too hard of a rule to enforce.
Matt |
| tfire |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 9:30:45 PM
This appears to be more evidence that the rule should be changed to replacing the balls on the table just like it's applied to accidentally bumping the object balls (non foul). Games should not be lost because of outside intereference. But people are coming forward to say that it's happening.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Casino
I would just like to say that happened to me during a BCA match and I was allowed to replace balls as close as possible. It then happened to my teammate in an APA match and We lost the game due to the foul. That is why I moved to a location where booze is served in an adjacent room next door and the pool room area is "dry". Now we dont have those problems but now several teams have complained about not having booze while shooting. I know drinks are apealing but this is a pool league not a beer chugging contest. --Jay
Jason P Moser
|
| tfire |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 9:24:21 PM
Matt,
I'm sorry but I have to ask you to reread the thread. Under the suggestion that was offered here for a rule improvement the new rule would be similar to the rule that currently covers non-foul-object-ball-replacement by the non-shooting player. There is no advantage given to the shooter when he/she accidentally bumps an object ball. The balls are simply replaced at the behest of the non-shooting player. If there were any kind of advantage given then you would have seen players doing this intentionally for the past ten+ years that rule has been in effect. It hasn't happened and as far as I can tell this is a perfect fit as a fix for a bad rule. With all due respect to you Matt, I may have not thought this through completely, but I believe it's you that hasn't read the thread.
Tim
quote:
Originally posted by Matt
Tim, I agree with you in principle, but I don't think you've thought it through all the way. If anything should be done in regards to the rules, captains should be encouraged to use their best judgement in those situations instead of relying on the rulebook 100%.
It's pretty obvious if some drunk dude stumbles into your shooter causing a foul, and I think the majority of the captains in this league would not penalize the shooter. If they do, then they have to deal with their own bad karma.
To change the rules would encourage the shooter to start bending the rules in their favor. It would be very easy in a crowded bar for a shooter to claim interference on any miscue. In fact, on any missed shot at all the shooter could claim somebody walking behind them brushed up against them causing them to miss. Maybe somebody actually did bump them but it was before the shot or after the shot, or what about if somebody breaks a glass on the floor across the room, which could certainly break your concentration. Maybe someone steps on your back foot as you're shooting and you miscue, should that count if they don't actually bump the stick? I think the shooter should bear the responsibility of making sure they have a clean shot. Asking people to move out of the way is part of the game everybody has to deal with.
It's the same reason we use a physical object to mark pockets on the eight ball instead of just calling the pocket. In a loud bar, it would be too easy for the shooter to just waive their stick in the general direction of two pockets and claim they called it wherever it goes.
Dealing with the environment is part of the challenge of our league in a lot of establishments but I think the rules are correct as is, especially if team captains use them in conjunction with a little common sense...
Matt
|
| Big Casino |
Posted - 06/04/2005 : 6:34:20 PM
I would just like to say that happened to me during a BCA match and I was allowed to replace balls as close as possible. It then happened to my teammate in an APA match and We lost the game due to the foul. That is why I moved to a location where booze is served in an adjacent room next door and the pool room area is "dry". Now we dont have those problems but now several teams have complained about not having booze while shooting. I know drinks are apealing but this is a pool league not a beer chugging contest. --Jay
Jason P Moser |
| Matt |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 9:39:56 PM
Tim, I agree with you in principle, but I don't think you've thought it through all the way. If anything should be done in regards to the rules, captains should be encouraged to use their best judgement in those situations instead of relying on the rulebook 100%.
It's pretty obvious if some drunk dude stumbles into your shooter causing a foul, and I think the majority of the captains in this league would not penalize the shooter. If they do, then they have to deal with their own bad karma.
To change the rules would encourage the shooter to start bending the rules in their favor. It would be very easy in a crowded bar for a shooter to claim interference on any miscue. In fact, on any missed shot at all the shooter could claim somebody walking behind them brushed up against them causing them to miss. Maybe somebody actually did bump them but it was before the shot or after the shot, or what about if somebody breaks a glass on the floor across the room, which could certainly break your concentration. Maybe someone steps on your back foot as you're shooting and you miscue, should that count if they don't actually bump the stick? I think the shooter should bear the responsibility of making sure they have a clean shot. Asking people to move out of the way is part of the game everybody has to deal with.
It's the same reason we use a physical object to mark pockets on the eight ball instead of just calling the pocket. In a loud bar, it would be too easy for the shooter to just waive their stick in the general direction of two pockets and claim they called it wherever it goes.
Dealing with the environment is part of the challenge of our league in a lot of establishments but I think the rules are correct as is, especially if team captains use them in conjunction with a little common sense...
Matt |
| tfire |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 8:35:36 PM
Taz,
I never said you should not enforce a rule. In fact I'm in favor of enforcing the rules as strictly as possible so the guesswork is taken out of the equation and actually made easier for us all. I've indicated this in a previous post and and repeated it (in the prior message board format). I'm not advocating poking holes in the rules. I'm advocating improving them.
If you feel a certain way about a rule, strongly enough to want to encourage people to not use it, then I would submit to you that even you know the rule is flawed and probably needs to be changed. I know rules aren't perfect and most won't ever be. But can they be improved upon? Yes. Taz, you're instinct is correct in wanting to give that player a good sportsmanship award. It's the rule that's not correct.
While you may think my example might put the thought of cheating into some people's heads, believe me if those people are that willing to take unfair advantages to win they will do so regardless of what I say or write. In fact you've just had a reply from "rhaydt" where he says it's actually already been done before. I've been playing in this league for over ten years as a lot of other players have. I've seen quite a variety of players and personalities in that decade. I would not bring something to your attention if I didn't feel it was necessary. This potential problem may in fact be a rare one, but then again so are the instances where shooters are bumped into a foul to begin with.
Please don't view this as nit picking. I only want to improve our orgnanization and the structure under which we all play in hopes that we can all improve under the most competitive environment, for the sake of the game. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, and that's fine.
So what's wrong with simply changing this rule as "Calcwby4u" suggests, by having ball positions reset when outside interference occurs just as is done when object balls are inadvertantly bumped? The same rules can apply to when the shooter fouls the cue ball, but with a caveat about interference inflicted upon a shooter, the table or any balls on the table. It seems to me that this change would help balance the contest when outside interference occurs, instead of providing a shooter who is not even at the table the unjustified advantage of Ball In Hand. It would also be consistent with the rule that says an inadvertant movement of the object balls will be remedied by replacing them to their original positions [paraphrasing].
I'm open to why this is not a good solution.
Thank you
quote:
Originally posted by Taz
Tim, just because I feel (on a personal level) that being a good sport should be rewarded, that does not change the rules. Were this situation to happen and someone called the office for a ruling, the rule would be enforced (ball-in-hand foul) just as it is in the case where someone wants to call loss of game for failure to mark a pocket even when the shot is as obvious as the nose on their face.
If you take the time to do so, you can poke holes at every single rule there is. That does not mean that the rules need to be changed. While your "evil" scenario is interesting, I don't believe there are many out there who would be that low (though perhaps you just put the thought in their heads to try this).
|
| Calcwby4u |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 09:39:41 AM
Maybe it's time that APA adopt a rule similar to our sister organizations, BCA & ACS, regarding outside influence. In such situations the balls are replaced as close as possible to original location and play continues. If original position cannot be determined, rerack and replay the original player breaking.
|
| rhaydt |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 08:58:12 AM
I had a situation in regular league play where an opponent bumped my player and caused a foul. And insisted on ball-in-hand. This is how low people can get. It was a crucial situation and we lost the game and match. |
| Taz |
Posted - 06/03/2005 : 07:42:22 AM
Tim, just because I feel (on a personal level) that being a good sport should be rewarded, that does not change the rules. Were this situation to happen and someone called the office for a ruling, the rule would be enforced (ball-in-hand foul) just as it is in the case where someone wants to call loss of game for failure to mark a pocket even when the shot is as obvious as the nose on their face.
If you take the time to do so, you can poke holes at every single rule there is. That does not mean that the rules need to be changed. While your "evil" scenario is interesting, I don't believe there are many out there who would be that low (though perhaps you just put the thought in their heads to try this). |
| tfire |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 9:47:29 PM
Wow, Torsten brings up a great topic for discussion. Here's a few things from your local peanut gallery:
1) What if the player IS aware of his/her surroundings and makes every reasonable attempt to shoot at the right moment but still gets bumped, then what? They have met the criteria Taz has said we should meet, yet the shooting player cannot control or predict the actions of others, nor can anyone at times. Is the shooting player who did everything reasonable he/she could do still to blame? I have personally seen this happen before and, generally speaking this situation is not uncommon.
2) If a player deserves a sportsmanship award (according to Taz) for allowing their opponent to replace a ball after their opponent was bumped into committing a foul, then doesn't it stand to reason that the player using a rule to gain an advantage by taking the foul instead, should'nt he/she be awarded an unsportsmanlike penalty? Shouldn't we apply the same standard on the other side of the issue? Why not the carrot AND the stick?
3) It seems to me that an evil opponent (and there are a few out there) could bribe someone (perhaps a few Newcastles would do) into casually and strategically bumping the opponent into a foul, thereby giving Mr. or Mrs. Evil the advantage of Ball In Hand. But it would be silly for a shooting player to make this same bribe, as he/she would gain nothing other than the time and distraction it takes to replace a ball(s) back into previous position(s) according to where the player not shooting says they were.
Seems to me "hard luck" shouldn't be one-sided.
I don't know, another rule that has holes maybe? Perhaps we need a change? |
| Torsten |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 11:51:05 AM
Thanks guys. That being said however, assuming good relations with the opposing team, does the player have the option of allowing the shooter to replace the cue ball and continue his or her turn? |
| Taz |
Posted - 06/02/2005 : 11:50:13 AM
Shawn, you are correct. It is up to each and every individual player to be aware of their surroundings. Ball-in-hand to the opponent. Having said that, "KUDOS"  to the team that was gracious enough to allow Torsten's player to move the ball back and continue shooting. Had I been notified at the time, the player in question would have received a "sportsmanship award".
Hey, where is the spell check |
|
|
