| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
poolguy
USA
54 Posts |
 Posted - 04/04/2008 : 2:47:04 PM
|
This happened to a player on my team this week, and I couldn't find anything in the Team Manual to cover it.
He was lining up for an 8-ball and his side of the table was near the bar. A patron came around the end of the bar and bumped his stick, which caused him to strike and move the cue ball.
What happened was the other player replaced the cue ball where he thought it had been. Our player knew it was in the wrong position (an easier shot), so he took a bank instead, not wanting an advantage. He missed.
This *did not* affect the match, although our player lost that particular game. I thought the resolution was correct and gentlemenly, and was impressed that our player did not take advantage of a poorly replaced cue ball.
The question is this: what is the correct and true ruling in this case for the APA? As I said, I couldn't find it in the documentation. For reference, the international rules have this rule:
3.35 NON-PLAYER INTERFERENCE
If the balls are moved (or a player bumped such that play is directly affected) by a non-player during the
match, the balls shall be replaced as near as possible to their original positions immediately prior to the
incident, and play shall resume with no penalty on the player affected.
Before anybody complains about this not being an APA rule, I rully understand that. I was looking around for what other rules systems say about this situation.
I suspect the "official" answer will be that what happened was a foul, because the shooter should be in control of his/her cue at all times. I am curious for future situation. And, finally, nobody called the league office because what happened was reasonable and appropriate. Nobody was upset.
John
It only hurts if you miss. |
|
|
Kerry Randolph
USA
172 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2008 : 3:41:10 PM
|
What I have been told is that if the cue ball is moved for any reason it is a foul. The shooter and his/her team are responsible for the shooter's space. It is a situation that comes up occasionally because most of the places we play in are bars, and alcohol is served there. What you did was in good sportsmanship, and most people will not complain about it, but there will be teams that will call that a foul. Either way it was just unfortunate. What the shooter should have done was pick up the cue ball and hand it to his/her opponent. That keeps the other team from being in a difficult position, and having to decide what to do.
It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt |
Edited by - Kerry Randolph on 04/04/2008 3:56:27 PM |
 |
|
|
Jinny
36 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2008 : 08:33:41 AM
|
Taz,
I would like to nominate those players for the good sportsmanship award. Realizing of course it was a foul. I think they all displayed a true love of the game and respect for the opponent.
Jinny |
|
|
|
Torsten
USA
401 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 11:51:18 AM
|
While those players handled the situation in a gentlemanly manner, to shoot a shot that is more difficult just for the sake of not wanting an advantage is not the right thing to do, and can be construed as a form of sandbagging. Rather than taking the more difficult shot, the player shooting should have pointed out to his opponent that the white was indeed in a more difficult spot. That would have been the correct way to not gain an unfair advantage.
I think the worst time to have a heart attack would be during a game of charades... or during a game of fake heart attack. |
|
|
|
poolguy
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 4:56:58 PM
|
It doesn't look like I've gotten an official answer, but more than one person thinks what happened was a foul in the APA. Not finding it in the rulebook I can't disagree with that.
Now let me throw a curve at those who think it is or should be a foul.
Let's say I'm at the table and I go to the other end of the table to look at an angle. The cue ball is at the other end. A drunk walks by that end, is tipsy, loses his/her balance, and puts their hand out to steady themself ... and they move the cue ball. I don't see any difference. Is that also a foul? What if a drunk pushes another drunk and the second drunk falls against the table and that movement moves either the cue ball or all the balls? I've seen that happen, more than once.
So, what's the ruling?
John
It only hurts if you miss. |
|
|
|
Rick
65 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 5:03:58 PM
|
What if there's an earthquake ? It is California and I'm sure that must have come up at some point !  |
|
|
|
poolguy
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 5:43:21 PM
|
An earthquake is an act of God, and I think anybody who thinks about it would consider that to be equivalent to a replay of the game. All the balls would have moved.
Having had no answer to the question, I went back through 4 pages of topics in the Rules discussion and found at the very end this topic. The ruling according to Phil (no surprise) was that it is a foul.
That discussion has some very well thought out opinions that this "rule" should be changed. I really couldn't agree more, and my example, above, was an attempt to show that as the shooter I cannot prevent non-player interference on the cue ball ... which would be a foul according to today's rules and interpretations.
Phil, any comment? And, trust me, while I now understand the ramifications of this scenario, I would never call this a foul on an opponent. I don't want to ever win by applying what I consider to be a stupid (I'm being transparent here) interpretation of the APA rules.
John
It only hurts if you miss. |
|
|
|
Phil
USA
829 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 10:23:06 PM
|
Yep, it is technically a foul. Everyone should read the entire thread to which poolguy refers, as it contains a good discussion of this situation.
Now, with any rule, there will be a myriad of gray areas that may be interpreted differently by different people or abused by unscrupulous people. There will also be those who want an exact interpretation of the rule, which is almost always impossible. For instance, if the rules were changed to address "outside interference", these same people would need an exact definition of "outside interference". In the above-mentioned thread, this is discussed. Can outside interference include audible interference? How about visual interference?
In this specific case, we use item (g) on page 50 of the current Team Manual, which states that causing even the slightest movement of the cue ball, even accidentally, is a foul. Now, the technically inclined will argue the meaning of the word "causing". When we make a call in this specific circumstance, "causing" means being a part of the physical chain reaction that eventually affects the cue ball. So, if you are bumped and you ACCIDENTALLY bump the cue ball as a result, you have caused the cue ball to move. If a drunk walks by and moves the cue ball himself, you did not cause the motion of the cue ball, therefore no foul. If you are chalking your stick and a drunk bumps you, causing you to drop the chalk onto the point of the rail, and it bounces halfway down the table and hits the cue ball, you have caused the cue ball to move (I've seen this one myself).
Interpreting the rule the way we do allows us to make the call in a deterministic way, no matter what happened. I do not believe that would be the case if we were to change the rules to mention "outside interference". Even the wording mentioned in the first post on this topic is seriously lacking. What happens when the drunk walks behind the shooter and does what drunks often do when they think they're being funny, grabs the butt-end of the cue just as the player strokes? This is not covered by the wording in that first post. The drunk did not move any balls and did not bump the shooter. Technically, this would be a foul.
My point is this - in these situations the spirit of the rules should prevail, because the technical interpretation of the rules may defy common sense, regardless of what rules are in place. However, playing within the spirit of the rules cannot be mandated, due to the insistence of the technically inclined to have an exact definition of the word "spirit". Without that, any time we make a ruling that is inconsistent with the technical interpretation, we are accused by the technically inclined of not enforcing the written rules. So, when we are called in these situations, we provide a technical interpretation of the rule, then put whatever pressure we can on the parties involved to "do the right thing". Note that doing the right thing doesn't change no matter what rules are in place.
So, should the current rule be changed? I don't think that would accomplish anything. There will be issues regarding the spirit of the rule, no matter how it's worded. Since we have a way to interpret the current rule technically and the common sense solutions don't change, what would be the point of changing the rules?
Phil
|
|
|
|
poolguy
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2008 : 12:15:35 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Phil[/i]
[br]Yep, it is technically a foul. Everyone should read the entire thread to which poolguy refers, as it contains a good discussion of this situation.
Now, with any rule, there will be a myriad of gray areas that may be interpreted differently by different people or abused by unscrupulous people. There will also be those who want an exact interpretation of the rule, which is almost always impossible. For instance, if the rules were changed to address "outside interference", these same people would need an exact definition of "outside interference". In the above-mentioned thread, this is discussed. Can outside interference include audible interference? How about visual interference?
In this specific case, we use item (g) on page 50 of the current Team Manual, which states that causing even the slightest movement of the cue ball, even accidentally, is a foul. Now, the technically inclined will argue the meaning of the word "causing". When we make a call in this specific circumstance, "causing" means being a part of the physical chain reaction that eventually affects the cue ball. So, if you are bumped and you ACCIDENTALLY bump the cue ball as a result, you have caused the cue ball to move. If a drunk walks by and moves the cue ball himself, you did not cause the motion of the cue ball, therefore no foul. If you are chalking your stick and a drunk bumps you, causing you to drop the chalk onto the point of the rail, and it bounces halfway down the table and hits the cue ball, you have caused the cue ball to move (I've seen this one myself).
Interpreting the rule the way we do allows us to make the call in a deterministic way, no matter what happened. I do not believe that would be the case if we were to change the rules to mention "outside interference". Even the wording mentioned in the first post on this topic is seriously lacking. What happens when the drunk walks behind the shooter and does what drunks often do when they think they're being funny, grabs the butt-end of the cue just as the player strokes? This is not covered by the wording in that first post. The drunk did not move any balls and did not bump the shooter. Technically, this would be a foul.
My point is this - in these situations the spirit of the rules should prevail, because the technical interpretation of the rules may defy common sense, regardless of what rules are in place. However, playing within the spirit of the rules cannot be mandated, due to the insistence of the technically inclined to have an exact definition of the word "spirit". Without that, any time we make a ruling that is inconsistent with the technical interpretation, we are accused by the technically inclined of not enforcing the written rules. So, when we are called in these situations, we provide a technical interpretation of the rule, then put whatever pressure we can on the parties involved to "do the right thing". Note that doing the right thing doesn't change no matter what rules are in place.
So, should the current rule be changed? I don't think that would accomplish anything. There will be issues regarding the spirit of the rule, no matter how it's worded. Since we have a way to interpret the current rule technically and the common sense solutions don't change, what would be the point of changing the rules?
Phil
OK, I'm going to be transparent and blunt.
This answer seems to say that the spirit of the rule is to not have this be a ball in hand foul. That tells me that the rule is flat out wrong ... or the interpretation is wrong. It would be very simple to add the "non-player interference" rule to clarify exactly what would happen in this situation.
I don't think anybody would ask what a "non-player" was. As to "interference", that is hardly open to debate. In a league where the players are in bars, sometimes jammed with drunks near tables, this probably happens a lot (players getting bumped into a foul). Changing the rule would resolve this and resolve it completely.
We're not talking about loud noises here, or flash photography, or anything else that is disruptive. We're talking about non-player interference, which means someone who is not playing interfering with the balls on the table ... whether it be jostled cues, touching balls, etc.
If anybody thinks the correct thing to do in this case is penalize the shooter, I'd be very surprised. Given that, why not put it into the rules so that the player is *not* penalized?
Now, let's test this one out to the extreme. Who here would claim a win if the player were jostled and his cue not only struck the cue ball (while shooting on the 8-ball) but the cue ball went into the pocket? That would be the ultimate penalty and be absolutely totally wrong ... in total violation of any reasonable spirit of any rule book.
John
It only hurts if you miss. |
|
|
|
wisdom
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2008 : 12:58:13 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by poolguy[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Phil[/i]
[br]Yep, it is technically a foul. Everyone should read the entire thread to which poolguy refers, as it contains a good discussion of this situation.
Now, with any rule, there will be a myriad of gray areas that may be interpreted differently by different people or abused by unscrupulous people. There will also be those who want an exact interpretation of the rule, which is almost always impossible. For instance, if the rules were changed to address "outside interference", these same people would need an exact definition of "outside interference". In the above-mentioned thread, this is discussed. Can outside interference include audible interference? How about visual interference?
In this specific case, we use item (g) on page 50 of the current Team Manual, which states that causing even the slightest movement of the cue ball, even accidentally, is a foul. Now, the technically inclined will argue the meaning of the word "causing". When we make a call in this specific circumstance, "causing" means being a part of the physical chain reaction that eventually affects the cue ball. So, if you are bumped and you ACCIDENTALLY bump the cue ball as a result, you have caused the cue ball to move. If a drunk walks by and moves the cue ball himself, you did not cause the motion of the cue ball, therefore no foul. If you are chalking your stick and a drunk bumps you, causing you to drop the chalk onto the point of the rail, and it bounces halfway down the table and hits the cue ball, you have caused the cue ball to move (I've seen this one myself).
Interpreting the rule the way we do allows us to make the call in a deterministic way, no matter what happened. I do not believe that would be the case if we were to change the rules to mention "outside interference". Even the wording mentioned in the first post on this topic is seriously lacking. What happens when the drunk walks behind the shooter and does what drunks often do when they think they're being funny, grabs the butt-end of the cue just as the player strokes? This is not covered by the wording in that first post. The drunk did not move any balls and did not bump the shooter. Technically, this would be a foul.
My point is this - in these situations the spirit of the rules should prevail, because the technical interpretation of the rules may defy common sense, regardless of what rules are in place. However, playing within the spirit of the rules cannot be mandated, due to the insistence of the technically inclined to have an exact definition of the word "spirit". Without that, any time we make a ruling that is inconsistent with the technical interpretation, we are accused by the technically inclined of not enforcing the written rules. So, when we are called in these situations, we provide a technical interpretation of the rule, then put whatever pressure we can on the parties involved to "do the right thing". Note that doing the right thing doesn't change no matter what rules are in place.
So, should the current rule be changed? I don't think that would accomplish anything. There will be issues regarding the spirit of the rule, no matter how it's worded. Since we have a way to interpret the current rule technically and the common sense solutions don't change, what would be the point of changing the rules?
Phil
OK, I'm going to be transparent and blunt.
This answer seems to say that the spirit of the rule is to not have this be a ball in hand foul. That tells me that the rule is flat out wrong ... or the interpretation is wrong. It would be very simple to add the "non-player interference" rule to clarify exactly what would happen in this situation.
I don't think anybody would ask what a "non-player" was. As to "interference", that is hardly open to debate. In a league where the players are in bars, sometimes jammed with drunks near tables, this probably happens a lot (players getting bumped into a foul). Changing the rule would resolve this and resolve it completely.
We're not talking about loud noises here, or flash photography, or anything else that is disruptive. We're talking about non-player interference, which means someone who is not playing interfering with the balls on the table ... whether it be jostled cues, touching balls, etc.
If anybody thinks the correct thing to do in this case is penalize the shooter, I'd be very surprised. Given that, why not put it into the rules so that the player is *not* penalized?
Now, let's test this one out to the extreme. Who here would claim a win if the player were jostled and his cue not only struck the cue ball (while shooting on the 8-ball) but the cue ball went into the pocket? That would be the ultimate penalty and be absolutely totally wrong ... in total violation of any reasonable spirit of any rule book.
John
It only hurts if you miss.
I would not only take the WIN in this situation but I would take the LOSS just the same. When you step up to the table and its your turn its your responsablity for what happens to the balls on the table. If you touch the Que ball in anyway it is a foul regaurdless of how it got hit. This would be a nice way out of giving up a ball in hand wouldn't it ( Yea but that drunk guy bumped in to me I shouldn't have to give up my turn) Not saying that anybody in APA would try to take advange of this situation , if the rules changed to acomadate the "outside interference" it would open up the chance for the "Phantom bump " . If I hit it, it's my fault thats way you look around and try your best to make sure the coast is clear. The hole john the drunk thing made me do it just dosen't work with this one.
HARD EIGHT'S & EASY NINE'S |
Edited by - wisdom on 04/08/2008 1:18:02 PM |
|
|
|
bikercowboy
105 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2008 : 2:14:52 PM
|
| Not going to quote a long description of what is probably a unique circumstance but it seems to miss the point entirely. Rules are there to apply to most cases. The unique and extreme like the scenario you describe have 2 outcomes. In the first the players use common sense and come to a sportsman like decision. The second uses the letter of the rule and not the spirit. Changing the rule wouldnt change this, common sense is the only way. |
|
|
|
rhaydt
USA
109 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2008 : 3:46:06 PM
|
| Another example that happened to my team mate some time ago. We had split the match to two tables. When my player was lined up on a shot, our opponent from the other table accidentally bumped my player causing a cue ball foul. Our opponents insisted on ball-in-hand. They got it, won the game, and the match point. I will never forget this or the player that took ball-in-hand. This was a moment when good sportsmanship should have trumped the rules. When I see a similar situation where an opponent fouls and it was not really their fault, I have no problem replacing the cue ball and allowing them to shot again. I did just that at the Nationals some years ago, and it was a ref that caused the foul. We eventually won the match. The victory would not have been the same if we had stuck to the letter of the law. |
|
|
|
Phil
USA
829 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2008 : 4:53:33 PM
|
No amount of back and forth is going to get the point across to someone who doesn't want to get it. Rather than waste everyone's time with that, why don't we do this? I'm going to create a new forum on this message board, called "Spirit of the Rules". It will be a place to post all of the special situations where common sense should prevail over the technical rule. Once we have identified a significant number of these situations, maybe the League Office will compile a "Guidelines to Common Sense" piece and include it in the team packets each session. Then when a new situation comes up, you can see if it's covered in the common sense guide, and if not, post it in the Spirit of the Rules forum as a candidate for future inclusion.
This horse is officially dead.
Phil
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Non-Player Interference
Topic Locked
