quote:

---

Originally posted by Taz

Tim,

As to your comments with regard to cheering and what is or is not offensive, I know few people that would be okay and not take offense when an observer, instead of yelling out "great shot" chooses to yell out F**K YEAH at the top of their voice because their teammate made a ball.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil

Tim,

I'm not sure how your commentary qualified as a reply to my post. I think you may have read some things into it that I did not write.

Nobody ever told anyone NOT to cheer for their teammates. Cheering is good, excitement is good, exuberance is good. Supporting your team is good. What is not good is making loud noises just for the sake of making loud noises. You can claim "I'm just cheering for my teammate" or "I'm only doing it when my teammate is at the table", but you can't say it's completely spontaneous and unplanned when, immediately after doing it, you look over at the guy who's been doing it at the next table and smile. No, you're not just excited for your teammate, you're not just trying to provide support, you are behaving that way simply to draw attention to yourself. I am 100% certain that Abales' teammates would not have barked once had they not noticed the attention the other guy was getting with his barks.

Have you ever been to a sporting event and been seated next to the guy with the air horn? The first time he uses it, it seems kinda cool. After a while, the air horn gets pretty annoying and you just want to rip it from him and shove it up down his throat. He doesn't need the air horn to be excited or exuberant. He doesn't need it to cheer. He just needs it to draw attention to himself. That's what was going on that day.

When I mentioned offensive behavior in my reply to Abales, I was referring to the profanity in some of the cheering. Profanity has been considered offensive by a great many people for a very long time. Again, it's not the excitement we're trying to curb, it's the way in which that excitement is conveyed. What's wrong with asking someone to shout "Great shot!" instead of "Great f___ing shot!". Or "YES!!!" instead of "F__ YEAH!"? Are you less excited if you don't use profanity?

Abales, don't EVER curb your enthusiasm! Yours is genuine and its expression is appropriate. Those whose expression of enthusiasm is not entirely genuine or appropriate need to work on channeling their exuberance into more positive forms of exclamation.

Phil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tfire

That being said, would you please explain how the change I proposed would provide more ambiguity or chances for disagreement than the current rule? I don't understand how there would more chance for disagreement than there presently is. Perhaps I'm missing something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil

quote:

---

Originally posted by tfire

That being said, would you please explain how the change I proposed would provide more ambiguity or chances for disagreement than the current rule? I don't understand how there would more chance for disagreement than there presently is. Perhaps I'm missing something.

---

I believe Matt gave a whole slew of potential ambiguity and chances for disagreement in his reply to you in the other thread. The current rule is very cut and dry - causing even the slightest movement of the cue ball is a foul. I also believe Matt is correct in proposing that captains use common sense in the application of the rule(s). This eliminates arguments AND provides the opportunity to be congenial.

Phil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tfire

Phil,

Did you read that thread to it's latest conclusion (Tom Hardinger and mine)?

It's a rule change that still allows for the use of "common sense". But it softens the rule (that does not allow for common sense)that calls for giving an advantage(BOH) to a sitting player in the event the cue ball is contacted as a result of outside interference. If it's not outside interference then it would still be a foul under the new rule. Seems to make sense, yes?

Remember, Taz pointed us all in the right direction when she quoted "Win at the table not from the chair...That's what this League is about" Isn't this proposed rule change consistent with that aim?

You obviously have a problem here or you would not insist that your captain's use "common sense" to contradict the existing rule. Let's face it, if you have to use "common sense" to go entirely against a rule, there is probably something wrong with the rule. How are you going to give someone an unsportsmanlike warning (or whatever) when they simply apply the rule as it's written? You really can't! We already know that people have taken BOH in these situations and it will happen again, so it is a problem that is obviously not being fixed with an application of common sense.

Please tell me why it would not be better to have the balls reset, just as it's done when the shooter bumps the object ball? Under Tom's added suggestion the sitting player would get to make the call anyway. So common sense is still applied in the same manner. If a player chooses to use a claim of outside interference as excuse the sitting player can dispute whether or not outside intererence played a part. The captains can use common sense to either agree with the shooting player(reset balls) or not(take the foul). It's really no different than any other case where there's a dispute. This rule change just makes it harder to give BOH to someone gain a significant advantage "from the chair".

As the rule is written now it's a done deal, the sitting player gets BOH, period. It's pretty difficult to argue with someone who has the rule book totally on their side. The rule just does not allow for the common sense you are advocating. Given Taz's quote and your insisting that common sense should take precedence over a "cut and dry" rule, I'm surprised you're not seeing it that way.

Thanks,
Tim

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil

quote:

---

Originally posted by tfire

Phil,

Did you read that thread to it's latest conclusion (Tom Hardinger and mine)?

It's a rule change that still allows for the use of "common sense". But it softens the rule (that does not allow for common sense)that calls for giving an advantage(BOH) to a sitting player in the event the cue ball is contacted as a result of outside interference. If it's not outside interference then it would still be a foul under the new rule. Seems to make sense, yes?

Remember, Taz pointed us all in the right direction when she quoted "Win at the table not from the chair...That's what this League is about" Isn't this proposed rule change consistent with that aim?

You obviously have a problem here or you would not insist that your captain's use "common sense" to contradict the existing rule. Let's face it, if you have to use "common sense" to go entirely against a rule, there is probably something wrong with the rule. How are you going to give someone an unsportsmanlike warning (or whatever) when they simply apply the rule as it's written? You really can't! We already know that people have taken BOH in these situations and it will happen again, so it is a problem that is obviously not being fixed with an application of common sense.

Please tell me why it would not be better to have the balls reset, just as it's done when the shooter bumps the object ball? Under Tom's added suggestion the sitting player would get to make the call anyway. So common sense is still applied in the same manner. If a player chooses to use a claim of outside interference as excuse the sitting player can dispute whether or not outside intererence played a part. The captains can use common sense to either agree with the shooting player(reset balls) or not(take the foul). It's really no different than any other case where there's a dispute. This rule change just makes it harder to give BOH to someone gain a significant advantage "from the chair".

As the rule is written now it's a done deal, the sitting player gets BOH, period. It's pretty difficult to argue with someone who has the rule book totally on their side. The rule just does not allow for the common sense you are advocating. Given Taz's quote and your insisting that common sense should take precedence over a "cut and dry" rule, I'm surprised you're not seeing it that way.

Thanks,
Tim

---

You asked:

"...please explain how the change I proposed would provide more ambiguity or chances for disagreement than the current rule? I don't understand how there would more chance for disagreement than there presently is. Perhaps I'm missing something."

Didn't you answer your own question in your last post?

I suppose we could just publish a rule book with one rule - "Do what you think is right." That would allow, no, promote the use of common sense in every situation, but it would be pretty useless. Rather, we use rules that are specific enough to cover most situations yet general enough to allow some interpretation in the unusual cases. We then issue a blanket statement "Use common sense in the application of these rules" at the beginning of the manual. It seems like a good balance to me.

Phil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tfire

Phil,

With all due respect, you still did not answer the question. Maybe you're busy with all the championships & top shooter stuff.

Nothing in these posts so far (mine included) has shown how there would be MORE chance for disagreement with the proposed rule in effect than currently exists.

So, when you've had a better chance to look at it, please tell why this proposed rule is bad.

Thanks,
Tim

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil

quote:

---

Originally posted by tfire

Phil,

With all due respect, you still did not answer the question. Maybe you're busy with all the championships & top shooter stuff.

Nothing in these posts so far (mine included) has shown how there would be MORE chance for disagreement with the proposed rule in effect than currently exists.

So, when you've had a better chance to look at it, please tell why this proposed rule is bad.

Thanks,
Tim

---

Tim, I think it's time you invest in a color monitor. They make some good ones these days...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Torsten

To my understanding, the captains are not forced to enforce the rule. I like to think that the majority of us (captains) would do the prudent thing in the case of outside interference affecting a foul. While I agree the rule is imperfect, the captains still have discretion. (unless I am mistaken) Look at it this way, if someone wants to throw the rulebook at you, fine. Chances are they take liberties with some rules themselves. Last season, an opposing captain (who will not be mentioned but I'm sure you can use your imagination and figure it out) wanted to charge my team a time-out because i used the words "Bring it home, baby!" before my player broke for a hill-hill match. Their argument was that it was coaching because it could affect my player's decision making process as far as playing safeties taking into account both player's skill levels. (both were 3s by the way) This same captain had anywhere between two and four people from his team approach the table during his team's timeouts. Anyone see where I'm going with this? To make a long story even longer, there are always going to be people who are rule-nazis. The majority, however, (I hope) are not. I think we all have fun in this league. I know I certainly would not spend as much time as I do being involved in the league if it wasn't a major source of enjoyment for me during my otherwise rather blase week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tfire

I would like to ask Phil and Taz when the last time they suggested a change in the National Rulebook was. It would be interesting to see when and exactly what changes they proposed. Rule books are not meant to be static, they should change, maybe not very frequently, but they should change to reflect the conditions of the game. Without our willingness to offer suggestions up to the national level, we contribute nothing towards progress in this regard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil

Some rules exist simply to avoid/prevent arguments. Mark the pocket on the 8, slop counts, etc. This rule, as currently written, serves that purpose. It is also consistent with the other rules concerning cue ball fouls - that is, the cue ball is always alive. Interfere with a moving cue ball, foul. Bump another ball while placing the cue ball, foul. Cause even the slightest movement of the cue ball, even by accident, foul. No arguments.

Your proposed change, at first glance, would also seem very clear. Upon further examination, however, there exists a question that must be answered before the rule can even be applied. Namely, what constitutes outside interference? You can't really list everything, as you are sure to leave something out. If you try to define outside interference in terms of what it is not, you will inevitably arrive at one place - what was the shooter's intention? Then you must answer the question of what is obvious and what is not (if you want to go with Tom's suggestion). Again, what is obvious to one person may not be obvious to the next person. Better yet, maybe "obvious" depends on who you're playing and what the stakes are. So, before you even apply the rule you have areas where debate and argument can arise.

Now consider, in each case, what would happen were teams to deviate from literal interpretation of the rule. With the current rule, there is no form of deviation that would meet resistance from the shooter. Again, no arguments. With your proposed change, well, what would it mean to deviate from literal interpretation? I haven't seen any proposed wording. Anybody want to take a crack at that?

Phil

---