PDA

View Full Version : Cueball Fouls Only - is this a Major copout ?



bigbro6060
07-11-2004, 07:42 PM
It seems on the Women's tour they often play cueball fouls only

I think this is a major major copout. Part of the skill of playing pool is being able to cue over balls, off the rail and cue when object balls are obstructing where your bridge hand is normally etc

i think cueball fouls only should be saved for cheap pub comps

Rod
07-11-2004, 07:51 PM
They don't always play that way, and neither do the men. Of course a number of women are vertically challenged so maybe that explains it. lol

rod, vertically challenged

Popcorn
07-11-2004, 08:24 PM
The problem is, it can sometimes be hard to call and without a ref all but impossible.

Bob_Jewett
07-11-2004, 08:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bigbro6060:</font><hr>i think cueball fouls only should be saved for cheap pub comps <hr /></blockquote>
The real problem is that they can't afford referees for all the matches. Maybe they could get enough volunteers to work for free, but there would still be the problem of dressing and training them.

Popcorn
07-11-2004, 09:41 PM
A bad ref is worse then none at all, especially with top players, they are easily intimidated, they are afraid to make a call on one of their heros. Plus the amateur ref can get stage fright and not know what is going on.

cueball1950
07-11-2004, 09:57 PM
in 9 ball i think cueball fouls is the way to go. here is why i think that. i have played in all kinds of pool halls and on all kinds of different equipment. i plated on a table once that if you hit a ball with only medium speed or banked the ball cross sides with medium speed. the dam ball would fly out of the pocket go up on the rail and off the table. there are alot of tables like that out there. what if you were playing someguy for big banannas and you played on this table and that happened to you while shooting the 9 and tha game was hill/hill. what would you do. besides scream and holler at the table like i did and call it a piece of s##t. so my final thoughts would be... hey it depends on the equipment. but what do i know. i like the 9 ball foul only rule. so did i bore you enough...lol.....mike

Wally_in_Cincy
07-12-2004, 07:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> A bad ref is worse then none at all, especially with top players, they are easily intimidated, they are afraid to make a call on one of their heros. Plus the amateur ref can get stage fright and not know what is going on. <hr /></blockquote>

At the WPBA tourney I went to in Peoria, Steve Tipton recruited timekeepers from the attendees. The women are put on a 30-second clock if either player has not won 5 games after an hour IIRC.

First of all no player is going to like being put on a clock, especially if she is the ofeending slow player. So the timekeepers got some pretty nasty glares when they showed up at some of the tables.

Any way I just wanted to buttress your point that it would be difficult for amatuer or volunteer refs to deal with some of the situations that arise.

Rich R.
07-12-2004, 07:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bigbro6060:</font><hr> It seems on the Women's tour they often play cueball fouls only <hr /></blockquote>
It is not only the Women's tour. Most of the men's tournaments are played this way also.
As others have said, without qualified referees, for each and every match, it would be impossible to call all fouls.

Ken
07-12-2004, 08:12 AM
Mike,
The scenario you describe would not come under the "cueball fouls only" rule. The rule used in tournaments simply means that if you disturb an object ball during your stroke it will not be a foul if it would not come into play during the shot. The disturbed ball would be put back if your opponent wanted it put back.

Object ball off the table would be a foul. Touching an object ball any other time would be a foul unless you can make the case that you were preparing to take the shot.
Ken in CT

woody_968
07-12-2004, 09:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Touching an object ball any other time would be a foul unless you can make the case that you were preparing to take the shot.
Ken in CT <hr /></blockquote>

If they are playing cueball fouls only, this would not be a foul. Do they use different rules?

Bob_Jewett
07-12-2004, 09:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> A bad ref is worse then none at all, especially with top players, they are easily intimidated, they are afraid to make a call on one of their heros. Plus the amateur ref can get stage fright and not know what is going on. <hr /></blockquote>
This is true, but if tournaments want credibility, I think it's necessary to have trained, competent referees. It is an additional expense and effort, and unfortunately the current state of pool is such that the resources are not available.

Note that the WPC has always had referees (so far as I know). And the Las Vegas Worldcup 3-cushion tournaments (1999-2003) had referee training courses, referees and scorekeepers for every match (about 170 matches), and tuxedos provided to the referees who didn't have them.

RedHell
07-12-2004, 09:43 AM
Bob,

I don't think tuxedo would be required, the black and white stripes shirt look good enough for me and reduces considerably the chances that the ref get asks for a cocktail /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

And BTW, could you confirm that on cue ball fouls only, touching an object ball while seting for a shot or not, in mouvement or not, is not a foul as long as the ball that was touched did not contact the CB or wasn't prevented from contacting the CB ?

woody_968
07-12-2004, 10:07 AM
Bob correct me if I am wrong, when playing cueball fouls only it is not a foul to touch another object ball.

As long as-
1. The object ball touched does not then touch the cuball.
2. The object ball does not touch any other ball in motion during a shot.
3. A moving object ball, or cueball, does not go through the "area" where the moved object ball was setting.

All 3 above would cause a foul. And number 3 is one that many people miss. If you move a ball during a shot, and another ball comes through that "area" it is a foul.

Although while I was reading through the rule book the other day (man I gotta get a life) I noticed a statement that if two object balls were moved at the same time it was a foul? Havent had time to research this one yet, Any direction here Bob?

Woody

Bob_Jewett
07-12-2004, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote RedHell:</font><hr>... And BTW, could you confirm that on cue ball fouls only, touching an object ball while seting for a shot or not, in mouvement or not, is not a foul as long as the ball that was touched did not contact the CB or wasn't prevented from contacting the CB ? <hr /></blockquote>
It is always a foul to touch any moving ball. It is always a foul to touch any ball intentionally (except the tip onto the cue ball, of course). It is always a foul to touch balls in a way that the table cannot be restored to the position that it would have had if the balls had not been touched. For example, it is a foul to accidently move a ball out of the way of a banking object ball.

Ken
07-12-2004, 07:29 PM
"Cueball Fouls Only" applies only while shooting. It does not apply at all times. You can't just look at the words that make up the title of the rule and figure it out in your head. It helps to read the rule:

"when a referee is not presiding over a game, it is not a foul to accidentally touch stationary balls located between the cue ball and the shooter WHILE IN THE ACT OF SHOOTING" (emphasis added)

Ken in CT

Vagabond
07-12-2004, 07:50 PM
Howdy Bigbro,
Professional Billiard Tour now defunct had a very interesting rule.It is a foul to touch the balls only when u are playing the TV matches.Other times it is a foul only if the illegally moved ball obstructs the path of the cue or other balls that were put in play.
cheers
Vagabond /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

woody_968
07-13-2004, 09:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> "Cueball Fouls Only" applies only while shooting. It does not apply at all times. You can't just look at the words that make up the title of the rule and figure it out in your head. It helps to read the rule:

"when a referee is not presiding over a game, it is not a foul to accidentally touch stationary balls located between the cue ball and the shooter WHILE IN THE ACT OF SHOOTING" (emphasis added)

Ken in CT
<hr /></blockquote>

Well, I certainly dont "look at the title and figure it out", I have spent alot of time going through the rule book.

I understand that it says while in the act of shooting, but have you ever ran a tournament? One of the major reasons places play cueball fouls only is because without a ref to make that call you will have many arguments over who or when someone did or didnt touch a ball. There is no way I would also bring in "he was or he wasnt in the act of shooting". In fact I have NEVER played in any tournament where if a ball was touched you were asked if it was in the act of shooting.

One of the other stipulations in that rule is that the object ball touched is located "between the cue ball and the shooter". This again can bring up gray area and is not normally talked about for tournament play.

So by the rules if you and I are in a match, Its my shot and I have to bridge over an object ball thats close to the cueball. During my shot I bump the objectball back with my tip and shoot the cuball with low english. Not a foul because it was during my shot.

Your next shot you have the same set up but while placing your bridge hand you touch the object ball. You were not in the act of shooting so FOUL and I get ball in hand. And that is fair how?

I understand your interpretation of the rule, I just wouldnt want the headaches of explaining that everytime someones shirt did or didnt touch a ball.

Ken
07-13-2004, 09:57 AM
You asked me "do they use different rules?" Then I quote the rule and you say you knew it all along. You seem to think you can walk around the table possibly using your cue to check angles and touch an object ball and it's no foul. You could not be more wrong.

So you come up with a scenario where you might or might not be "in the act of shooting" to try to prove your point. Placing the bridge might be interpreted as part of shooting. I am not in a position to make that judgment.

Perhaps you believe that if you reach for a piece of chalk and touch a ball that should also not be a foul. Knock a piece onto the table into a ball and that is no foul. Well, add as many circumstances to your interpretation as you like but I will go by what the rule says not some creative interpretation.

Of course it says "Cueball Fouls Only" so what more does one need to know? I must be wrong.
Ken in CT

woody_968
07-13-2004, 10:20 AM
Ken, Im not saying that you are wrong at all. Not trying to make this a #$%#ing contest either. I went back to read the earlier post, we were talking about the womens tour and you were correct. I was side tracked thinking local play, I was wrong /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif Unfortunatly wasnt the first time.