PDA

View Full Version : 8-ball rule question

jjinfla
02-12-2004, 05:04 PM
In 8-ball if someone starts shooting the wrong balls what is the rule? How about if the opponent doesn't call it until the 3rd or 4th wrong ball? Don't give me APA rules because they are pretty clear as what happens. I can't find it in the BCA rule book. Jake

Barbara
02-12-2004, 05:14 PM
Jake,

The sitting player must call the foul as soon as it has happened or they cannot call the foul. S/He can't wait until the shooter gets down to the 8-ball and then say, "Whoa there, that was my pattern of balls.", and then get up to shoot the 8-ball.

Barbara

jjinfla
02-13-2004, 07:54 AM
Barbara,

Well, actually, I believe, yes they can. In fact the APA rule book states exactly that. Say you start out and have stripes. Then you miss your next shot. Then I come to the table and miss a solid. Then you come to the table and start shooting the wrong balls. You make the 3, then the 5 and I say you just shot the wrong ball. Are you telling me that since I didn't call the foul when you shot the 3 then in fact I can't call the foul on the 5 since you effectively switched to solids and they now become yours?

That is actually what some people think and all I am looking for is a statement of this in a rule book. The APA rule book clearly states that I can sit and watch my opponent shoot as many of the wrong balls as I want and can call the foul whenever I want. As long as he hasn't switched back to his own balls, or cleared all the wrong balls and shot at the 8.

Jake

Fred Agnir
02-13-2004, 08:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr> Barbara,

Well, actually, I believe, yes they can. In fact the APA rule book states exactly that. Say you start out and have stripes. Then you miss your next shot. Then I come to the table and miss a solid. Then you come to the table and start shooting the wrong balls. You make the 3, then the 5 and I say you just shot the wrong ball. Are you telling me that since I didn't call the foul when you shot the 3 then in fact I can't call the foul on the 5 since you effectively switched to solids and they now become yours?<hr /></blockquote>It's a funny ruling and one that should be explicitly spelled out in the BCA rulebook. You'd think that with all the other obscure rules that would never be in question, that this one (which happens more often than people might think) should be in there. Alas, it's not. But, with some investigation and assumptions, the BCA office says that if the foul isn't called on the first shot, then it can't be called on the next shot. So, effectively, the suits change hands as if the first shot was legal..

IMO, it should be simply loss of game or a redo. If I had a vote, I'd go with loss of game.

Fred &lt;~~~ doesn't have a vote.

Barbara
02-13-2004, 08:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr> Barbara,

Well, actually, I believe, yes they can. In fact the APA rule book states exactly that. Say you start out and have stripes. Then you miss your next shot. Then I come to the table and miss a solid. Then you come to the table and start shooting the wrong balls. You make the 3, then the 5 and I say you just shot the wrong ball. Are you telling me that since I didn't call the foul when you shot the 3 then in fact I can't call the foul on the 5 since you effectively switched to solids and they now become yours?

<font color="blue">Yep, that's exactly right with the BCA rules. It's technically called "switching groups" when done unintentionally or "stealing groups" when done with intention. BCA Ref school was real clear on this one. In fact, one of their head refs, Roger Glenn, was the one to explain this to us all and said that he actually had this happen during a tournament.</font color>

That is actually what some people think and all I am looking for is a statement of this in a rule book. The APA rule book clearly states that I can sit and watch my opponent shoot as many of the wrong balls as I want and can call the foul whenever I want. As long as he hasn't switched back to his own balls, or cleared all the wrong balls and shot at the 8.

<font color="blue">Well, that's the difference between the APA and the BCA</font color>

Jake <hr /></blockquote>

Barbara

houstondan
02-13-2004, 09:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr> Barbara,

Well, actually, I believe, yes they can. In fact the APA rule book states exactly that. Say you start out and have stripes. Then you miss your next shot. Then I come to the table and miss a solid. Then you come to the table and start shooting the wrong balls. You make the 3, then the 5 and I say you just shot the wrong ball. Are you telling me that since I didn't call the foul when you shot the 3 then in fact I can't call the foul on the 5 since you effectively switched to solids and they now become yours?<hr /></blockquote>It's a funny ruling and one that should be explicitly spelled out in the BCA rulebook. You'd think that with all the other obscure rules that would never be in question, that this one (which happens more often than people might think) should be in there. Alas, it's not. But, with some investigation and assumptions, the BCA office says that if the foul isn't called on the first shot, then it can't be called on the next shot. So, effectively, the suits change hands as if the first shot was legal..

IMO, it should be simply loss of game or a redo. If I had a vote, I'd go with loss of game.

Fred &lt;~~~ doesn't have a vote. <hr /></blockquote>

well, fred, it does help some if you actually read the book. it is spelled out explicitly. bca 2.26 says, in part " ..the foul is considered not to have occured." how obscure is that?? are you really suggesting that they should explicitly explain every foul to which this would apply? all possible fouls?

loss of game for a foul that wasn't called??????

ok, so i'm down on the 8 and you yell foul. wha????sez i. yes,sez you. you made the wrong ball 4 balls ago and now i win the game!

yep, that'll work.

dan

dan

Fred Agnir
02-13-2004, 10:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote houstondan:</font><hr>

well, fred, it does help some if you actually read the book. it is spelled out explicitly. bca 2.26 says, in part " ..the foul is considered not to have occured." how obscure is that?? are you really suggesting that they should explicitly explain every foul to which this would apply? all possible fouls? <hr /></blockquote>And I would shoot back at you and say that it would help if you followed the thread. The question is revolving around the suits and their change of ownership, if any. Rule 2.26 does not cover this explicitly. Do you disagree with that? Do you actually want to say that the natural course to switch suits is obvious and clearly understandable?

As I clearly said, there are many *other* obscure rules that *are* explicitly addressed in the BCA book. This is a less obscure rule that, IMO, this rule and specifically this rule should be explicitly addressed. Do you disagree with that?

Fred

Ralph S.
02-13-2004, 12:03 PM
I have always been under the presumption that if the fouls was not called after the first ball, then there is no foul.

Fred Agnir
02-13-2004, 12:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph S.:</font><hr> I have always been under the presumption that if the fouls was not called after the first ball, then there is no foul. <hr /></blockquote> Yes, that's pretty explicit in the book. The question becomes, what happens when the error is discovered? I know what the BCA says, and I know what they point to in the rulebook. What I don't know is why it isn't a clear and distinct rule.

There is an alternative that still doesn't violate anything that's in the rules. Once the foul was discovered, the player could simply switch back with no foul.

Now, let me be clear, I am not advocating this alternative. I am simply saying that the ruling in the book for this situation should be explicit. It's something that happens more often then many other explicit rules in the book.

Fred

Iowashark
02-13-2004, 01:30 PM
I would think this would be an obvious foul for failing to hit one of 'your own balls' with the cue ball first. If the foul is ignored and the other player let's this player keep shooting his own balls until the 8-ball, then that's just dirty and terrible pool etiquette. Basically it's simple, as long as the foul is called after the first shot.
Dang!

See now, I thought this would be simple, and it is if the foul is called right away. But once it's not called after the initial foul then it stems out into a realm of possible other fouls or options.

Come on Fred, I was counting on you to make this clear for me and now I've gone and confused myself even more. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

houstondan
02-13-2004, 03:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>

As I clearly said, there are many *other* obscure rules that *are* explicitly addressed in the BCA book. This is a less obscure rule that, IMO, this rule and specifically this rule should be explicitly addressed. Do you disagree with that?

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

obscure rules explicitly addressed? now you're gettin me real confused fred. i guess what you are suggesting is that they should say that the "failure to call it" rule applies to table scratches. then another one on failure to hit the right ball. then another one on hitting the 8-ball first. then another one for.........

as they say "i can explain it to you but i can't understand it for you."

i'm still wondering about you claiming you win the game cause you failed to call a foul.

dan...obscurely explicit.

Fred Agnir
02-13-2004, 04:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote houstondan:</font><hr>
i'm still wondering about you claiming you win the game cause you failed to call a foul.

dan...obscurely explicit. <hr /></blockquote>I didn't say or imply this. That might be the problem, eh?

I reread my posts and don't see anywhere that I said anything near what you're saying I said. Did you bother to actually read my posts?

Fred

Fred Agnir
02-13-2004, 04:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Iowashark:</font><hr> Come on Fred, I was counting on you to make this clear for me and now I've gone and confused myself even more. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif <hr /></blockquote>At the risk of sounding redundant, I'll say it again. What Barbara said is correct. And it's also what I said. If it isn't called a foul after the first shot, then it's not considered a foul. Therefore, the players have now effectively switched suits. The game continues as if no foul ocurred, and the offending player continues to shoot at the ball set that wasn't his to begin with. No foul. No penalty. He can't be called on it later.

Again, at the risk of sounding terribly redundant, it doesn't say that they switch suits in the BCA Rulebook. IMO, it should. The referees infer that they switch suits, but it isn't explicitly stated. If it were explicitly written in there, then when this question comes up again (which it will next month), we can all say:

Rule XXX " If a player shoots at the wrong suit and a foul isn't called until after the second shot at that suit, then no foul is considered, and the players have effectively changed suits."

That would be nice. That would be explicit. We are talking about a relatively vague ruling, afterall. I don't understand why anyone would question the desire for explicit wording on this. Unless they didn't understand the question in the first place. Which is obvious.

Fred

houstondan
02-13-2004, 05:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote houstondan:</font><hr>
i'm still wondering about you claiming you win the game cause you failed to call a foul.

dan...obscurely explicit. <hr /></blockquote>I didn't say or imply this. That might be the problem, eh?

I reread my posts and don't see anywhere that I said anything near what you're saying I said. Did you bother to actually read my posts?

Fred <hr /></blockquote>
\

IMO, it should be simply loss of game or a redo. If I had a vote, I'd go with loss of game.

Fred &lt;~~~ doesn't have a vote.

Barbara
02-13-2004, 05:38 PM
Fred,

It really helps being a professional Government Spec reader and programmer to sort through the crap to figure out what it really means. This is the one thing that helped me figure out what the BCA rule book says here, there, and everywhere.

And going through the National Certification program helped with some even more obscure interpretations.

I highly encourage you to go through the BCA Ref course in Vegas. You could go far in the program and even strive to be on the panel of refs that revise the rules. Your impeccable background in things technical give you a great background to argue sanely. Think about it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Barbara~~~and Bob Jewett's day instruction was really cool!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

jjinfla
02-13-2004, 05:52 PM
I think that it is a great stretch of the imagination to look at rule 2.26 to explain this. To me rule 2.26 only means that if the opponent thinks a foul has occurred on a shot then he must call it right then and there and not wait until another shot is taken. Example: a person tries a masse shot and in doing so his cue strikes another ball. Well, this is a foul but if the opponent doesn't call it then and waits until the player takes another shot then it is just too late to call the foul, and the game continues like no foul has taken place. This is common in baseball and football.

I can understand that if I shoot a wrong ball, say the 3, and then I shoot another wrong ball, the 4, you can't call me on the foul I committed on the 3, but I sure hope that you can call me on the foul I committed on the 4. But if now I shoot the 11, then it is too late to call me on the other two fouls.

But say you guys are right. I am playing a game and my balls are all screwed up, everywhere I look you got me in jail. Then I notice you are not paying attention and are bragging to your bud how you got me sewed up. So I quickly pop in one of your balls and before you notice or can say anything I shoot at another one of your balls. Following your interpretation of 2.26 I have effectively switched balls and now you are the one who is screwed.

Is this poor sportsmanship? Or is it shrewd playing?
Will you then say the opponent should have been paying attention?

The idea of being able to switch balls during a match once a determination has been made just does not sound reasonable to me. Where is the common sense in that?

Of course, when reading the BCA rule book, one has to keep in mind that most of the time they are talking about playing under conditions where a referee is there. And the protest in rule 2.26 would mean that the player must protest to the referee about a call, or lack of call, prior to another shot being taken.

Jake

Fred Agnir
02-13-2004, 07:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> I highly encourage you to go through the BCA Ref course in Vegas. <hr /></blockquote> What extra would that get me? I'm already a BCA ref.

[ QUOTE ]
You could go far in the program and even strive to be on the panel of refs that revise the rules. <hr /></blockquote>
I'd love to be part a BCA rules committee. Randy? Bob? Bueller? Bueller?

Fred

Fred Agnir
02-13-2004, 07:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr> I think that it is a great stretch of the imagination to look at rule 2.26 to explain this. <hr /></blockquote>Bingo. Maybe they should make the rule more explicit? It's a test question for BCA referees. It's discussed in detail according to Barbara at the Referee course in Las Vegas. Seems like an explicit rule covering this has been a long time coming.

Fred

Bob_Jewett
02-13-2004, 09:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
I'd love to be part a BCA rules committee. Randy? Bob? Bueller? Bueller? <hr /></blockquote>

There is no more BCA Rules Committee. It was disbanded several years ago as being useless and as part of a general cleanup by the new Executive Director, or at least that's what I was told quite a while after the fact.

As for the original item of switching groups, I think a literal reading of the rules shows only one way for groups to be assigned. While it's true that if you don't call a foul when your opponent shoots one of your balls in, and shoots a next shot, the first shot was not a foul, but I'd say -- in the absence of an explicit group-switching rule -- that the groups stay the same and if your opponent shoots a second of your balls, it is a foul.

Personally, I think both players have a responsibility as sportsmen to see that all the rules are enforced in the absence of a referee, so if I'm the TD and I'm called over to a table where a sly opponent waited until the other player cleared the table for him before calling the foul, the sly one gets DQ'ed for unsportsmanlike conduct. Your mileage may vary.

Ralph S.
02-13-2004, 09:24 PM
Fred, I hope you didn't misunderstand my post. I am in your corner on this one.

Alfie
02-14-2004, 02:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> As for the original item of switching groups, .... <hr /></blockquote>Same thing wrt switching pockets in One Pocket; that is, you don't?

Bob_Jewett
02-16-2004, 01:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Alfie:</font><hr>Same thing wrt switching pockets in One Pocket; that is, you don't? <hr /></blockquote>

Which leads to an interesting question. At one pocket, your opponent gets confused, and shoots a ball into your pocket. Let's suppose you mean to say thank you, but just then the waitress arrives with drinks, and you're dealing with that. As you look up, your opponent shoots a second ball into your pocket. What is the strict rule?

It is not a foul to shoot a ball into your opponent's pocket at one pocket, so no foul could be called for the first shot. It is a foul to shoot out of turn, which was the case for the second shot, so you should call a foul at that point. Although the second ball was made on a foul, it was not one of the two kinds of fouls that would have it respotted, so you get to keep it and your opponent has to spot one of his own balls for the foul.

jjinfla
02-16-2004, 02:27 PM
I received a reply from Betty Harris at BCA and am posting it in a new thread.

Jake

Fred Agnir
02-17-2004, 08:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr> I received a reply from Betty Harris at BCA and am posting it in a new thread.

Jake <hr /></blockquote>Her answer should echo mine. She was the one who explained it to me in the first place.

Fred