| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
rhaydt
USA
109 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2005 : 1:32:11 PM
|
In our local league marking the table for a bank or kick shot is not allowed, but to my surprise it was OK for a player or coach to place a marker on a rail at the National Championships. I would like to play with one set of rules and I think allowing markers on the rail would help shorten timeouts. As the coach on my team I know that it would make my life easier. Here is the email I sent to the main office and their response.
Coaching 11.f, states that the coach may not mark the playing surface. Our league operators have interpreted that to mean neither a coach or player may set a marker on the rail to indicate where the shooter should aim for a bank or kick shot. During this year’s national championships a director on the floor (blue jacket) indicated that this only means that you cannot physically draw on the table and that placing a marker on the rail was OK. Is it OK for a coach to place a marker on the rail? If not, is it OK for the player to set a marker on the rail?
First of all thank you for your participation in the APA. Secondly in regards to your question; In Vegas you were told how the National Office views that rule, so you were informed correctly by the floor manager last year at NTC. However the rules are at the discretion and interpretation of your League Operators at a local level. In the league you participate in aiming devices are not allowed. Please feel free to contact me with any future questions or concerns.
Walter Burkart
American Poolplayers Assoc.
636-625-8611 ext 5214
|
|
|
Phil
USA
829 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 3:50:36 PM
|
I was going to wait a while to respond, to see what some of our other members have to say on this issue. However, it occurred to me that perhaps my response itself would spur some discussion, so here goes.
First and foremost, there is only one set of rules, interpreted differently by different authorities. This is the same as in any sport. Different umpires in baseball have different strike zones, different NBA referees call fouls differently, different NFL officials call things like the end of a play differently. Some are quick with the whistle, others let the play go for a while. Yet in each of these sports there is only one set of rules, and I'm pretty comfortable stating that their rules are quite a bit more technical than ours, so there should be less variance in interpretation. Yet the variances exist.
Different authorities have different philosophies from which they interpret the rules. Locally, we base interpretations on the spirit of the rules. Our goal is to provide an environment that is conducive to fun and camaraderie, and we encourage our teams not to try to win on technicalities. The authorities at the National Championships are working under a completely different set of conditions. They are in charge of a tournament with hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money and camaraderie is an afterthought to them. They must rule within the letter of the rules, and let teams take advantage of loopholes, the kind of thing we discourage here.
Now, with respect to the rule you mention, the only restrictions it puts on the coach are physically marking the playing surface with chalk or saliva, and remaining in the playing area while the shot is attempted. In another section the use of laser aiming devices is prohibited. All of these items have to do with the use of an aiming device (the coach must leave so he/she may not stand across from the player and say "shoot at my finger"). In this case, we interpret the spirit of the rule to mean "no aiming devices", and accordingly we do not allow any aiming devices, even those not specifically mentioned in the book. At the National Championships, on the other hand, they can't make that broad of an interpretation because it's a much more competitive environment.
Let me ask you this - if a coach told the player to lick his finger and touch the felt ***here***, would that be legal? Should it be? Nothing in the rules says the player can't mark the playing surface. It's completely within the written rule, yet I have a hard time believing anyone would consider it within the spirit of the rules.
There will always be differences between the way the rules are interpreted locally and the way they are interpreted at the National Championships. They are two completely separate environments requiring completely different approaches to the interpretations.
Phil
|
 |
|
|
Torsten
USA
401 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 4:57:57 PM
|
Personally, I like the rule the way it is. I have had a combination of very skilled and completely unskilled players on my teams. If I take my finger, place it on the rail where I want the object ball to hit, and tell my player that is where they need to aim, they should be able to remember that location for the three seconds it takes me to get away from the table. What many people forget is that the slightest bit of accidental side english on the cue is going to alter the shot enough to affect the outcome, and that is something very hard to control as a coach. You can tell your player, "dead center on the cue ball" and they still might give it a millimeter of side inadvertently. That is chalked up to nervousness and inexperience in most cases. The people who would require markers on the table to see where to hit are usually the lower ranked players. The coach should simply do his/her best to show the player where to hit the ball. If that strategy fails, take a few minutes after league night or before the next one to demonstrate how in the coach's opinion the ball should be struck. Then, the player can practice it until they feel comfortable with at least the application of the shot or the concept behind it. The perfect example is slow roll safeties. You can tell someone to hit a ball slow as heck and they'll still whack the snot out of it. A tactic I use to teach slow pace to my players is DURING PRACTICE, I put a coin on the table, three feet in front of the cue ball and tell them to try and make the cue ball stop on the coin. Inevitably they fail, as well as I would, but that's how they learn what dead slow pace is. Skillwise, my SL2 on Tuesday night is very VERY poor, but manages to gut out some victories because he is very good at following mine or Big Casino's advice when we coach him. Bottom line, the coach can try to help but the player has to take his own shot. Players eventually improve at their own pace, dependent on how often they work on their games. Do we want all of our low players to improve? Of course! But if they were all 7s after three weeks, nobody could make the 23 point rule. Am I rambling? Sorry....
"Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." Adlai Stevenson |
|
|
|
rhaydt
USA
109 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2005 : 5:41:56 PM
|
Phil, I agree with what you are saying. Until the APA I never played by any rules that allowed marking the table in any way. But the APA allows a coach, which in itself could be considered an aiming device.
I think physically marking the table is bad just out of respect for the equipment. And I was told in Vegas that that was the reason behind the coaching rule. In a bar it is not too difficult to find a close reference point outside of the table area to have the player aim at, such as the leg of a stool. Or when we play at Akrey's the coach can easily point to a piece of dirt near the rail. But in Vegas there are no close reference points but then we are allowed to use a piece of chalk. But in our regional tournaments we may have neither. I thought it would be nice to be consistent. And since we already have coaches marking a spot with their finger until the player is ready to shoot, why not just let the coach or player set down a piece of chalk on the rail. |
|
|
|
Doug Gill
USA
92 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 07:22:31 AM
|
I can't speak for everyone, but one of the main reasons I play in the APA is that I LOVE to play pool and all the good (and bad) things that go along with it. Every sport must have rules, otherwise you end up with a mess. I think what Phil was trying to say is that if you go by the "strict" interpretation of the rules, "marking" the shot with a chalk is allowed. South Coast APA discourages (I believe) this practice as it skirts the edges of the intent of the rule.
Phil and Taz have never wanted anyone to win or lose strictly because of the rules. They, as well as all of us players, want that decided on the table, but..........push comes to shove, we all have to abide by the national rules and our local by-laws. I feel that to win this way or be forced to lose this way by someone being petty, is chicken sh*t.
Good Shooting all! |
|
|
|
BigSi
New Zealand
16 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 08:00:51 AM
|
| I must agree with RH on this one. Most of us play with the hope of making it to the National Events, it does not make much sense to have differences between local and national play. I wonder if other area's adopt the national interpretations? It's tough enough to play at the local level with out the added presure at the national level. If our byelaws should differ then atleast inform us of any differences (a head of time) to the National rules. I would like to see a change with more of a focus on the bigger picture (National Events). And as Richard said "But the APA allows a coach, which in itself could be considered an aiming device" is more than a valid point. Sorry Doug, but having a different interpretation of a said rule is a MESS and will leed to problems. Just take a look at the bible ( sorry for going there but it sums up my point) the end result is the same but the path travelled is very much different depending on the interpretation. Simon |
Edited by - BigSi on 12/15/2005 4:14:42 PM |
|
|
|
Taz
USA
555 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 08:28:35 AM
|
Actually, the league operators are in the process of discussing this exact rule/situation and pushing for the National Office to change its stance on the application and wording of this rule. The vast majority of league operators want this changed to no aiming devices at all. Several have it spelled-out in their bylaws, so there is no question as to the INTENT of the rule. Almost every rule can be shredded and interpreted differently. Our local league area will continue to work (and rule) keeping the "intent" and "spirit" of the rules in mind.
Si, do you remember a National tournament where one of our teams found a so called "loop hole" to a rule and blatantly cheated? Several of our league members were there and watched it happen and could not believe it (Shooter moved a ball and opponent asked shooter to place it back -- the shooter took the ball and placed it in a position where it tied up the opponent's balls, not where it had been. The shooter said "hey, the rules say replace the ball, but it doesn't say where"). Needless to say, when that shooter bragged about finding the "loop hole" I gave the shooter (our player) a piece of my mind. It wasn't pretty.
Richard, don't forget the coach must leave the playing area prior to the shooter attempting their shot; therefore, the coach is not a visual aiming device. |
Edited by - Taz on 12/15/2005 10:18:20 AM |
|
|
|
Phil
USA
829 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 10:28:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigSi
I must agree with RH on this one. Most of us are play with the hope of making it to the National Events, it does not make much sense to have differences between local and national play. I wonder if other area's adopt the national interpretations? It's tough enough to play at the local level with out the added presure at the national level. If our byelaws should differ then atleast inform us of any differences (a head of time) to the National rules. I would like to see a change with more of a focus on the bigger picture (National Events). And as Richard said "But the APA allows a coach, which in itself could be considered an aiming device" is more than a valid point. Sorry Doug, but having a different interpretation of a said rule is a MESS and will leed to problems. Just take a look at the bible ( sorry for going there but it sums up my point) the end result is the same but the path travelled is very much different depending on the interpretation. Simon
Ah, we have a big difference of philosophy, Simon. I agree that the National Championships are the goal of the majority of teams, but I do not agree that this is why they play in our leagues. Most of them play because they enjoy it. The vast majority of teams have never made it to nationals, and (I'll probably regret saying this) most of them never will. Every team has a chance and we've set it up to even out the odds as much as we can, but when you think about the numbers, the average team will make it to nationals once every 32 years. That's why it's such a big deal when they make it, and why it's such an amazing feat when a team goes more than once. But it's not why they play. They play because it's fun, and technicalities detract from the enjoyment most players get from the league. To that end, we will always discourage our members from taking advantage of technicalities. Sometimes our hands are tied (marking the pocket, for example), but in other cases such as this we have the flexibility to let the spirit of the rule guide our calls and that's what we do.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Phil
USA
829 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 10:38:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigSi
I must agree with RH on this one. Most of us are play with the hope of making it to the National Events, it does not make much sense to have differences between local and national play. I wonder if other area's adopt the national interpretations? It's tough enough to play at the local level with out the added presure at the national level. If our byelaws should differ then atleast inform us of any differences (a head of time) to the National rules. I would like to see a change with more of a focus on the bigger picture (National Events). And as Richard said "But the APA allows a coach, which in itself could be considered an aiming device" is more than a valid point. Sorry Doug, but having a different interpretation of a said rule is a MESS and will leed to problems. Just take a look at the bible ( sorry for going there but it sums up my point) the end result is the same but the path travelled is very much different depending on the interpretation. Simon
One more comment. While our rulings may at times differ from those of the national tournament staff, we can at least point out some of those differences in our bylaws. Maybe we should add a section to the bylaws called "Areas that differ from national rules". I can think of at least three things that would go in there at this time. First, we allow the coach to refuse a time out if the player asks for it. Second, we do not rule in favor of a double-hit foul if it wasn't called by a third party asked to watch the shot, and third, we do not allow the use of aiming devices. What others can people think of?
Phil
|
|
|
|
rhaydt
USA
109 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 2:32:46 PM
|
I would just like to see consistentcy and this is the main point that I am trying to make. And the same goes for all of the rules. Changing the national office's interpretation of the aiming device rule would actually be my preference. But knowing how the APA likes to cater to the low skill level player I felt that they would be firm on their interpretation.
Now how about a push-out rule in 9-ball, any chance? |
|
|
|
Phil
USA
829 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2005 : 2:58:31 PM
|
When you play in the Master's division, we will let you push out.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Phil
USA
829 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2005 : 12:54:07 PM
|
I changed my mind. It occurred to me that one of the main purposes of the Local Bylaws is to call out those areas where local rules differ from national rules. If it's listed in the bylaws you can assume it's different from the Team Manual. Therefore, it is not necessary to explicitly point out bylaws that differ from the national rules. They all do.
We are adding a section prohibiting the use of any physical aiming device to the Local Bylaws. If you can think of other areas where we rule differently that are not already in the bylaws, let us know and we'll be sure to add them.
Phil
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Marking the Table
