You make the call - the Mighty Mike Shamos wrong?

[jjinfla]

In the Feb issue of BD Mike points to rule 4.6 and I believe he interprets it literally rather than the intent of the rule.

Just another example of how hard it is to make rules and put them in writing and cover all the possibilities people come up with.

In this case the rule states that when you have ball in hand and you are shooting a a ball in the kitchen the cue ball must leave the kitchen and then re-enter it to hit the ball.

The intent of the rule, I believe, is that the CB must cross the headstring from head to foot and that once that is accomplished any ball may be struck. When the writer wrote the rule I believe that he was referring to a ball that was plainly in the kitchen and he added the words that the CB must first cross the headstring and come back behind the head string and hit the object ball just because that is what was necessary to get there.

Otherwise, with ball in hand, you would not be able to shoot at any ball that is in the kitchen but part of it is across the headstring. You can't shoot it from the kitchen because the base of the OB is in the kitchen. And you can't shoot it by kicking one rail and coming back and hitting it because then the CB would hit the OB before it crossed the headstring.

Just another interpretation of a rule that doesn't pass the smell test.

It just doesn't make sense.

Jake

[Rod]

I interpret that as come back and hit a ball in the kitchen. It seems the word behind should not be there. Just another way to take a rule that probably wasn't written the best and make it work for a situation.

Rod

[Bob_Jewett]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote jjinfla:</font><hr> In the Feb issue of BD Mike points to rule 4.6 and I believe he interprets it literally rather than the intent of the rule. <hr /></blockquote>

Well, yes, but, it's not really that hard to write a nearly fool-proof rule if you logically think through exactly what the words say. Many people can't do that, including some people who attempt to write rules. At one time, the BCA rules said that you had to have one foot off the floor when shooting. Everyone knows what is meant, but the person who wrote the rule did not understand what he wrote.

If someone shoots the shot described, and the opponent calls a foul, and there is a rulebook present, you cannot go by what may have been meant at one time, unless the wording is very unclear. I think the wording is reasonably clear and wrong. Note that 4.6 is a repetition of Rule 3.10, and should not even exist. It is a gross mistake to have two different rules that cover the same situation.

[houstondan]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> If someone shoots the shot described, and the opponent calls a foul, and there is a rulebook present, you cannot go by what may have been meant at one time, unless the wording is very unclear. I think the wording is reasonably clear and wrong. Note that 4.6 is a repetition of Rule 3.10, and should not even exist. It is a gross mistake to have two different rules that cover the same situation. <hr /></blockquote>

agree completely. you're just stuck with the words as written. i think these rules are actually pretty clear if you just remember to figure everything at the bottom of the ball, not the sides.

and yes, although it's kinda convenient having the rule in both contexts it shouldn't be duplicated.

why is the rule wrong???

dan

[jjinfla]

But even in 3.10 they state that the CB must come back above the headstring and strike the object ball.

When the rules were written I wonder if that is actually what the writer really meant, that the CB must pass the headstring twice before it could contact an OB that is in the kitchen? Or was it just an oversight?

As our dear departed, former mayor of Chicago, was want to say, "Do what I mean, not what I say".

But anyway I doubt that anyone around here will be called on that rule. Hell, most of the pool players don't bother to read anymore, let alone buy a book.

Jake

[Vagabond]

Howdy Folks,
Some of these rules are written by some people with limited skills in :comprehension and reasoning of the subject matter, knowledge of variables and skills in expressing in English language.Many years ago Mr.shamos wrote an article in one of the Billiards magazine criticizing the flaws in framing these rules.I was glad to see that some educated people are noticing the problems created by the people with limitations.I agree with Mr.Bob Jewett.
Somebody do the spell check for me, please... Cheers
vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif