Tom_In_Cincy
08-23-2004, 11:02 AM
Yesterday, I had to make a ruling that wasn't all that difficult. But the resulting action was funny.
The shooting player was jacked up over the five ball near the corner pocket. The five ball was between the cue ball and the rail. When the player was setting his bridge hand on the rail, he moved the 5 ball about 2 inches. He looked at his opponent to see if he wanted to move the 5 ball back. No response from the opponent. The shooter shoots at the two ball down table, hits the two ball and the cue ball comes back and hits the 5 ball into the pocket. The non-shooting player calls a foul. He thinks that the shooter moved the 5 ball in the act of shooting and when the cue ball came back to hit it, that would be a foul.
But, he also agreed that the 5 ball had been "accepted in place". Thus, no accidental movement of the 5 ball, to rule it a foul.
I ruled 'no foul' and the non-shooter went to the table and started shooting with cue ball in position. The player that had made the 5 ball was suppose to be shooting and didn't realize it until after the match. No one did.
After the match was over, the player that thought it was suppose to be a foul, came to me for futher explaination. I first asked him what happened after I had ruled 'no foul' and he told me that took the shot on the table. I then informed him that because of the 'no foul' rule, the other player should have continued his turn at the table.
Now get this, this player not only admitted to shooting out of turn, but also complained that it should have been BALL IN HAND. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
The shooting player was jacked up over the five ball near the corner pocket. The five ball was between the cue ball and the rail. When the player was setting his bridge hand on the rail, he moved the 5 ball about 2 inches. He looked at his opponent to see if he wanted to move the 5 ball back. No response from the opponent. The shooter shoots at the two ball down table, hits the two ball and the cue ball comes back and hits the 5 ball into the pocket. The non-shooting player calls a foul. He thinks that the shooter moved the 5 ball in the act of shooting and when the cue ball came back to hit it, that would be a foul.
But, he also agreed that the 5 ball had been "accepted in place". Thus, no accidental movement of the 5 ball, to rule it a foul.
I ruled 'no foul' and the non-shooter went to the table and started shooting with cue ball in position. The player that had made the 5 ball was suppose to be shooting and didn't realize it until after the match. No one did.
After the match was over, the player that thought it was suppose to be a foul, came to me for futher explaination. I first asked him what happened after I had ruled 'no foul' and he told me that took the shot on the table. I then informed him that because of the 'no foul' rule, the other player should have continued his turn at the table.
Now get this, this player not only admitted to shooting out of turn, but also complained that it should have been BALL IN HAND. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif