PDA

View Full Version : Proposed World Standardized Rules



Bob_Jewett
10-28-2007, 09:04 PM
A nearly final draft of the proposed new World Standardized Rules of pool are available for one last, quick check before they are sent out to national federations and voted on by the WPA General Assembly at the end of November. This revision has been in progress for about two years. I think it's clearer than the present set of rules. I know it's far more uniform in intent and style.

See http://www.sfbilliards.com/WPA_New_Rules_28Oct2007.pdf

Any questions or comments? If you see anything that's a real disaster, please send me email at jewett@sfbilliards.com. Note that a companion set of regulations, which specify how tournament management and referees are supposed to handle situations and such is in a separate document that will be ready shortly.

1Time
10-28-2007, 10:32 PM
Current Version:
2.2 Nine Ball Rack
The object balls are racked as tightly as possible in a diamond shape, with the one ball at the apex of the diamond and on the foot spot and the nine ball in the middle of the diamond. The other balls will be placed in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern.

Proposed Version:
2.2 Nine Ball Rack
The shooter breaks and the opponent racks. The nine object balls are racked tightly in a diamond shape with the one ball on the foot spot and closest to the center of the table, the nine ball in the middle of the diamond, and these two balls aligned straight toward the center of the table. The other object balls are placed in the diamond in any order the opponent chooses. A rack with all object balls touching is desired, but an otherwise tight rack is acceptable when this is not possible. Once the balls are racked, the shooter may request any number of re-racks if he or she does not consider the rack to be in accordance with this rule. Either player may request the referee settle any racking dispute.

Current Version:
2.7 Standard Fouls
If the shooter commits a standard foul, play passes to his opponent. The cue ball is in hand, and the incoming player may place it anywhere on the playing surface.

Proposed Version:
2.7 Standard Fouls
If the shooter commits a standard foul, play passes to his or her opponent. The cue ball is in hand, and the incoming player may place it anywhere on the playing surface that does not place it in contact an object ball.

1Time
10-29-2007, 04:13 AM
Current Version:
1.3 Player’s Use of Equipment
(b) Chalk – The player may apply chalk to his tip to prevent miscues, and may use his own chalk, provided its color is compatible with the cloth.

Proposed Version:
1.3 Player's Use of Equipment
(b) Chalk - The player may chalk the tip of his or her cue with the house chalk, and may do so with his or her own chalk provided it is the same general color as the house chalk. The player will not leave his or her own chalk on the table when it is the opponent's turn to shoot. The player will not remove the house chalk from the table without promptly returning it to the table when it is the opponent’s turn to shoot.

Fran Crimi
10-29-2007, 07:38 AM
14.1 Rule 4.6 is wrong. The rule allows for reracking of 15 balls after 14 balls have been racked and a player plays a safe shot pocketing the 15th ball, if the 14 balls haven't been disturbed during the shot.

I don't know when this rule was incorrectly changed but it is dead wrong to allow balls that are in play to be reracked. It's illogical and inconsistent.

I have refereed many many events with the greatest players and legends ever, such as Lassiter and Balsis and Crane and I've even played Mosconi. You DO NOT rerack balls in play. The incoming player should not benefit from a rerack once the first shot of that table has commenced. And if anyone thinks it has little or no impact or relevence, then they haven't watched or played nearly enough straight pool. If you did that in a match Mosconi was playing, he would have cold cocked you. One shot, right to the jaw. It is only when you are legally allowed to take the balls out of play that you may rerack them, such as with the third foul.

Would we just go ahead and change the rules of snooker? God forbid we would even attempt to do something like that! We'd be crucified.

This is our chance to make sure our beloved 14.1 is played the way it was intended. I can appreciate and understand the necessity for compromises in World Standardized rules because these are rules that all nations have a say in. However, this does not seem to be a compromise with other countries, or anything of that nature. It appears to me just to be an error that needs fixing.

Fran

dr_dave
10-29-2007, 10:20 AM
Bob,

Thanks for keeping the following in rule 3.4:
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote WPA rules:</font><hr>When the table is “open”, any object ball may be struck first except the eight ball.<hr /></blockquote>I had remembered you removing this option in a previous draft. I'm glad to see it is back. The option provides for some creative options at the beginning of the game.

Thank you for your continued hard work on the rules.

Regards,
Dave

dr_dave
10-29-2007, 10:30 AM
Bob,

I don't see anywhere that a "scoop" jump shot is illegal. Is this now allowed? As we have discussed before, it is possible to execute a scoop jump shot without a miscue (see the pertinent links under "fouls" here (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads.html)). Do any of the rules address this situation? I couldn't find anything specific.

Thanks,
Dave

dr_dave
10-29-2007, 10:47 AM
Bob,

The only place I saw a rule specifically addressing miscues is in 6.15, where an unintentional miscue can result in an "unsportsmanlike conduct" "serious foul." I wonder if that is a little harsh. What if somebody truly miscues unintentionally and it appears intentional to the referee (e.g., a draw shot miscue resulting in a scoop jump with a favorable outcome). It wouldn't seem fair to declare this as a "serious foul" (possibly resulting in the loss of the game or match).

I'm not suggesting any specific improvements. It just seems like miscues should be described a little more than they are in the current document. For example, maybe it should be stated that an unintentional miscue is not a foul (provided "unintentional miscue" is defined specifically enough).

Thanks,
Dave

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 11:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> 14.1 Rule 4.6 is wrong. The rule allows for reracking of 15 balls after 14 balls have been racked and a player plays a safe shot pocketing the 15th ball, if the 14 balls haven't been disturbed during the shot.

I don't know when this rule was incorrectly changed but it is dead wrong to allow balls that are in play to be reracked. It's illogical and inconsistent. ... <hr /></blockquote>
I looked, and I could find no early written record of rule that forbids reracking 15 balls as needed. That's one problem with running tournaments by oral tradition.

Do you know of any early written rule set that covers this?

My feeling is the opposite. If the 14 balls were racked wrong, the person who has to shoot at a 15-ball rack should not be penalized for the referee's mistake.

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 11:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Bob,

I don't see anywhere that a "scoop" jump shot is illegal. ... <hr /></blockquote>
Fell through the cracks. Thanks.

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Bob,

The only place I saw a rule specifically addressing miscues is in 6.15, where an unintentional miscue can result in an "unsportsmanlike conduct" "serious foul." I wonder if that is a little harsh. What if somebody truly miscues unintentionally and it appears intentional to the referee (e.g., a draw shot miscue resulting in a scoop jump with a favorable outcome). It wouldn't seem fair to declare this as a "serious foul" (possibly resulting in the loss of the game or match).

I'm not suggesting any specific improvements. It just seems like miscues should be described a little more than they are in the current document. For example, maybe it should be stated that an unintentional miscue is not a foul (provided "unintentional miscue" is defined specifically enough).

Thanks,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>
There is a definition in 8.18, but I think it has to say a little more. Thanks.

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 11:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> Current Version:
...
Proposed Version:
.... <hr /></blockquote>
Thanks for looking the rules over. Unfortunately, it is to late to change major amounts of wording unless the current wording is clearly broken. Now, we are looking for disasters.

dr_dave
10-29-2007, 12:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Bob,

I don't see anywhere that a "scoop" jump shot is illegal. ... <hr /></blockquote>
Fell through the cracks. Thanks.<hr /></blockquote>
Bob,

Thanks again for all of your efforts. You are probably the best person in the world for this job.

Regards,
Dave

1Time
10-29-2007, 12:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> Current Version:
...
Proposed Version:
.... <hr /></blockquote>
Thanks for looking the rules over. Unfortunately, it is to late to change major amounts of wording unless the current wording is clearly broken. Now, we are looking for disasters. <hr /></blockquote>

You're welcome.

Not saying this is "clearly broken", just to clarify. The following rule allows for the rack to be intentionally or unintentionally pointed in any direction so long as the 1 ball remains at the apex (front) of the rack. And so the rule literally allows the 9-ball rack to be pointed in any direction from one side pocket to the other, instead of only straight toward the center of the table.

Current Version:
2.2 Nine Ball Rack
The object balls are racked as tightly as possible in a diamond shape, with the one ball at the apex of the diamond and on the foot spot and the nine ball in the middle of the diamond. The other balls will be placed in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern.

The following addresses this without changing anything else.

2nd Proposed Version:
2.2 Nine Ball Rack
The object balls are racked as tightly as possible in a diamond shape, with the one ball at the apex of the diamond and on the foot spot, the nine ball in the middle of the diamond, and these two balls aligned straight toward the center of the table. The other balls will be placed in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern.

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 01:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote 1Time:</font><hr> ... with the one ball at the apex of the diamond and on the foot spot, the nine ball in the middle of the diamond, and these two balls aligned straight toward the center of the table. The other balls will be placed in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern. <hr /></blockquote>
I see your point now. I think it's better to say, "and the nine ball on the long string below the one ball." The diagram shows the positions of the one and nine. Or, I could add the long string to the diagram and not add words to the text.

Fran Crimi
10-29-2007, 01:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> 14.1 Rule 4.6 is wrong. The rule allows for reracking of 15 balls after 14 balls have been racked and a player plays a safe shot pocketing the 15th ball, if the 14 balls haven't been disturbed during the shot.

I don't know when this rule was incorrectly changed but it is dead wrong to allow balls that are in play to be reracked. It's illogical and inconsistent. ... <hr /></blockquote>
I looked, and I could find no early written record of rule that forbids reracking 15 balls as needed. That's one problem with running tournaments by oral tradition.

Do you know of any early written rule set that covers this?

My feeling is the opposite. If the 14 balls were racked wrong, the person who has to shoot at a 15-ball rack should not be penalized for the referee's mistake. <hr /></blockquote>

There were a lot of things that weren't in writing, Bob, just like it wasn't in writing to rerack the balls until someone in the fairly recent past decided that would be a good idea. If the balls were racked incorrectly, then they should be corrected prior to the first shot having been taken. That's consistent with the rules of all games. What makes you think that spotting a ball means an automatic tight rack? One thing has nothing to do with the other. Balls get jarred just from the vibration of shots being taken. It's part of the game. There's no do-overs, as we used to say as kids. The balls should not be disturbed after the first shot has been taken. Reracking them is a disturbance.

What I'm saying here is absolutely consistent with the general rules of play. I'm surprised that you're not picking up on the fact that reracking is inconsistent and illogical.


Fran

1Time
10-29-2007, 01:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>
I see your point now. I think it's better to say, "and the nine ball on the long string below the one ball." The diagram shows the positions of the one and nine. Or, I could add the long string to the diagram and not add words to the text. <hr /></blockquote>

If you're going to include the phrase "long string", it should be represented in the diagram, and this would be best. The following would adequately address a 9-ball rack with the use of such a diagram.

3rd Proposed Version:
2.2 Nine Ball Rack
The object balls are racked as tightly as possible in a diamond shape, with the one ball on the foot spot and the nine ball on the long string below the one ball. The other balls are placed in the diamond without purposeful or intentional pattern.

dr_dave
10-29-2007, 02:24 PM
Bob,

I know the rules were re-written to be more concise, clear, and consistent, but are there any significant changes to the rules we should be aware of? For example, are there things now allowed that weren't allowed before, or are there things allowed before that are no longer allowed? I'm specifically thinking of 8-ball and 9-ball since these changes would affect a large number of people.

Thanks,
Dave

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 02:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Bob,

I know the rules were re-written to be more concise, clear, and consistent, but are there any significant changes to the rules we should be aware of? For example, are there things now allowed that weren't allowed before, or are there things allowed before that are no longer allowed? I'm specifically thinking of 8-ball and 9-ball since these changes would affect a large number of people.

Thanks,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>
I think there were no major changes. At 14.1 it is no longer an option to accept the balls in position after 3 fouls; the fouler must rebreak. (But the latter is the way it was for about 60 years.) There is no provision for "cue ball fouls only" and I think players benefit from applying all of the rules at all times. (Of course, if a league system wants to make up its own laxer rules, it will.) The rules after an eight ball break may be slightly different, but in my view they were and are entirely too complicated. At 14.1, there is no longer a repeated safety rule. This has been changed to a general stalemate rule that applies to all games.

dr_dave
10-29-2007, 04:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>The rules after an eight ball break may be slightly different, but in my view they were and are entirely too complicated.<hr /></blockquote>What are the changes here? It wasn't clear to me. I do agree that the list in 3.3 is too long and complicated.

Also, maybe you guys can add a section to the rules clearly indicating the changes from the previous rules. This might help with the transition.

Thanks,
Dave

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 04:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ... Also, maybe you guys can add a section to the rules clearly indicating the changes from the previous rules. This might help with the transition. ... <hr /></blockquote>
That's a good idea, but it could take a while to generate. The organization of the sections is quite different now and a lot less redundant.

But I think the best thing for everyone to start is to read the new version when the final version is approved. If you look at any of the "what's the rule here" threads, it's clear that few players know the present rules, so a "changes file" is not useful to them. It's remarkable how often the "rules" stated in those threads have little to do with the actual official rules that are available for free on-line.

dr_dave
10-29-2007, 04:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ... Also, maybe you guys can add a section to the rules clearly indicating the changes from the previous rules. This might help with the transition. ... <hr /></blockquote>
That's a good idea, but it could take a while to generate. The organization of the sections is quite different now and a lot less redundant.<hr /></blockquote>
I'm not suggesting a detailed section-by-section analysis. I'm just suggesting a brief executive summary of substantive changes.

For example (I'm not saying the following statements are true in the final version ... these are just hypothetical examples):
- a scoop jump shot is now specifically prohibited, whether it is a miscue or not.
- intentional miscues can now be judged as unsportsmanlike and be penalized with a "serious foul."
- after the break in 8-ball, when balls are jumped off the table, the non-breaking player now has the option to ...
- X is no longer allowed.
- Y is now allowed.

It sounds like this list will be very short (but potentially useful to some ... like me, for example).

Thanks,
Dave

Rich R.
10-29-2007, 05:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> There were a lot of things that weren't in writing, Bob, just like it wasn't in writing to rerack the balls until someone in the fairly recent past decided that would be a good idea. If the balls were racked incorrectly, then they should be corrected prior to the first shot having been taken. That's consistent with the rules of all games. What makes you think that spotting a ball means an automatic tight rack? One thing has nothing to do with the other. Balls get jarred just from the vibration of shots being taken. It's part of the game. There's no do-overs, as we used to say as kids. The balls should not be disturbed after the first shot has been taken. Reracking them is a disturbance.

What I'm saying here is absolutely consistent with the general rules of play. I'm surprised that you're not picking up on the fact that reracking is inconsistent and illogical. <hr /></blockquote>
I'm sorry Bob, but I have to agree with Fran on this point. I learned to play 14.1 in the 60's and I played in a room owned by a world class player, who provided guidance for us newbies. Although I can't say that I ever saw it in writing, he always told us that the balls should never be reracked, just as Fran stated.

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 06:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> ... I'm sorry Bob, but I have to agree with Fran on this point. I learned to play 14.1 in the 60's and I played in a room owned by a world class player, who provided guidance for us newbies. Although I can't say that I ever saw it in writing, he always told us that the balls should never be reracked, just as Fran stated. <hr /></blockquote>
Well, OK, but what happens in the following two situations when respotting the fifteenth ball?

The rack has been placed a little too far back so the spotted ball is not touching either of the two "head" balls. What do you do?

The rack has been placed a little to far forward, so the spotted ball cannot be placed on the head spot. What do you do?

If the rule is changed to state no re-racking, then the above two points have to be specifically covered.

Rich R.
10-29-2007, 08:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>Well, OK, but what happens in the following two situations when respotting the fifteenth ball?

The rack has been placed a little too far back so the spotted ball is not touching either of the two "head" balls. What do you do?

The rack has been placed a little to far forward, so the spotted ball cannot be placed on the head spot. What do you do?

If the rule is changed to state no re-racking, then the above two points have to be specifically covered. <hr /></blockquote>Assuming the table has been marked with the outline of the rack, in my experience, in most cases there will be a very slight gap between the spotted ball and the rack. It is played as is. I can't say that I have ever seen the rack placed too far forward, with the rack outlined on the table.
If the rack is not outlined on the table, and the rack is slightly too far back, the same would apply. If the rack is too far forward, I will defer to a more experienced player, like Fran, for an answer, as I don't remember having that problem.
As you may guess, I am totally in favor of rooms properly marking the outline of the rack.

Editted to add:
I would have no problem putting the spotted ball behind the rack, if necessary, when the rack is too far forward.

Fran Crimi
10-29-2007, 08:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>Well, OK, but what happens in the following two situations when respotting the fifteenth ball?

The rack has been placed a little too far back so the spotted ball is not touching either of the two "head" balls. What do you do?

The rack has been placed a little to far forward, so the spotted ball cannot be placed on the head spot. What do you do?

If the rule is changed to state no re-racking, then the above two points have to be specifically covered. <hr /></blockquote>Assuming the table has been marked with the outline of the rack, in my experience, in most cases there will be a very slight gap between the spotted ball and the rack. It is played as is. I can't say that I have ever seen the rack placed too far forward, with the rack outlined on the table.
If the rack is not outlined on the table, and the rack is slightly too far back, the same would apply. If the rack is too far forward, I will defer to a more experienced player, like Fran, for an answer, as I don't remember having that problem.
As you may guess, I am totally in favor of rooms properly marking the outline of the rack.

Editted to add:
I would have no problem putting the spotted ball behind the rack, if necessary, when the rack is too far forward. <hr /></blockquote>


I agree, Rich in that I've also never seen a case where the rack was so far forward that the ball to be spotted couldn't touch even the smallest part of the foot spot. In what type of WPA Sanctioned event would you see the balls racked that badly???

As far as the rack being placed too far back, a slight gap is a frequent occurrence and perfectly acceptable. If the gap is significant, then either the person playing shouldn't be playing tournament 14.1, or if it's a ref, then the ref should be replaced.

As long as the ball being spotted is spotted anywhere on the foot spot, it is legally spotted. Depending on whether you use a dot or an actual spot, the range of the spot could be significantly large.

Yes, lines may be drawn on the table in 14.1 events, otherwise the player is allowed to take the rack in hand during the game to determine if an object ball is in or out of the rack.

Fran

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 09:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> ... I agree, Rich in that I've also never seen a case where the rack was so far forward that the ball to be spotted couldn't touch even the smallest part of the foot spot. ... <hr /></blockquote>
The foot spot is a point, not the patch covered by the cloth or paper sticker that is sometimes used. If the spotted ball cannot be placed on the foot string, it must be placed on the long string below the foot spot. I think this has always been the rule.

Shaft
10-29-2007, 09:30 PM
Though traditional, the "no scoop jump shot" rule is rather arbitrary when you think about it. As Dr. Dave has demonstrated, it can be done without a miscue. It is less risky to the table, too. I know it will not change in my lifetime, but there is no rhyme or reason to it, as far as I can see. I could craft as many arguments why the standard jump shot should not be allowed.

While I am DREAMING, let me dream BIG.... why not also make 9-ball a called-ball-and-pocket game? I can't understand why slop is allowed in 9-ball. Are they going to at least standardize on calling the 9?

Bob_Jewett
10-29-2007, 09:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Shaft:</font><hr> ... why not also make 9-ball a called-ball-and-pocket game? I can't understand why slop is allowed in 9-ball. ... <hr /></blockquote>
While slop is allowed, it's rare enough at the top level that the complication of calling shots is not warranted, IMO. For players who almost never run out the rack, it is more important, but they probably should play some other game.

Tom_In_Cincy
10-29-2007, 10:12 PM
I was taught to place one of the 14 balls at the top (apex) of the rack when positioning the rack. After I got a tight rack, I would take the top ball, while holding the other 13 balls in place with a little pressure from the back of the rack and put in in the wing ball position.

It takes a little practice to get it good, but if the 15th ball is made while calling a safe, the 15th ball then easily spots up in the rack without re-racking.

Fran Crimi
10-30-2007, 10:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> ... I agree, Rich in that I've also never seen a case where the rack was so far forward that the ball to be spotted couldn't touch even the smallest part of the foot spot. ... <hr /></blockquote>
The foot spot is a point, not the patch covered by the cloth or paper sticker that is sometimes used. If the spotted ball cannot be placed on the foot string, it must be placed on the long string below the foot spot. I think this has always been the rule. <hr /></blockquote>


Of course the foot spot is a point. I'm not trying to imply that it's not, however, you can take that point to infinity or you can be reasonable about it. I prefer the reasonable approach.

Fran

Fran Crimi
10-30-2007, 10:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> I was taught to place one of the 14 balls at the top (apex) of the rack when positioning the rack. After I got a tight rack, I would take the top ball, while holding the other 13 balls in place with a little pressure from the back of the rack and put in in the wing ball position.

It takes a little practice to get it good, but if the 15th ball is made while calling a safe, the 15th ball then easily spots up in the rack without re-racking. <hr /></blockquote>


That sounds like a good way to do it. As you know, Tom, after awhile, you just know where to rack the balls, just by sight.

The important thing I want to point out here is that World Standardized rules were created so that players from other continents can compete against each other in competition. Can you imagine how it was the first time they all got together for a World Championship without these rules? The Chinese played differently from the Brits, who played differently from the Americans who played differently from the Australians and so-on. I think we used BCA rules at the time, but the other continents were lost and the refs had their work cut out for them. It was a nightmare. I remember because I played in the first one.

But on a local level, there's no reason why a pool room or a league can modify the rules to suit the level of play of their players, providing they're not running a qualifier for a WPA sanctioned event.

I'd be foolish to think I could successfully play the same rules the pro golfers use. I'd probably shoot a 140 and tie up the whole course while I was at it.

Fran

mikepage
10-30-2007, 12:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> [...]

Of course the foot spot is a point. I'm not trying to imply that it's not, however, you can take that point to infinity or you can be reasonable about it. I prefer the reasonable approach.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>


Ah, the choice between "reasonable" and "dogmatic."

I think this choice is fine. It just doesn't seem consistent with the rather dogmatic stand you took regarding whether the rack might be brought back to the table once the balls were "in play."


That stance seemed fine too. It just seems inconsistent with your call to "be reasonable" about spotting the ball.

If we take the stance that in-play is in-play, that the guy in the third row could have sneezed during the safety shot jostling the balls a bit, then I think it's also reasonable to refuse to spot the ball at a location you wouldn't spot it later in the game.

Fran Crimi
10-30-2007, 12:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> [...]

Of course the foot spot is a point. I'm not trying to imply that it's not, however, you can take that point to infinity or you can be reasonable about it. I prefer the reasonable approach.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>


Ah, the choice between "reasonable" and "dogmatic."

I think this choice is fine. It just doesn't seem consistent with the rather dogmatic stand you took regarding whether the rack might be brought back to the table once the balls were "in play."


That stance seemed fine too. It just seems inconsistent with your call to "be reasonable" about spotting the ball.

If we take the stance that in-play is in-play, that the guy in the third row could have sneezed during the safety shot jostling the balls a bit, then I think it's also reasonable to refuse to spot the ball at a location you wouldn't spot it later in the game.


<hr /></blockquote>


Yikes, Mike. I have no intention of turning this into another Niels Feijen 'pause' thread, beating more dead horses. I've said all I think I needed to say on the subject.

Over and out....
Fran

mikepage
10-30-2007, 01:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> [...]
Yikes, Mike. I have no intention of turning this into another Niels Feijen 'pause' thread, beating more dead horses. I've said all I think I needed to say on the subject.

Over and out....
Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Wow! Didn't expect that.

I guess I just have to get a feel for the lay of the land here.

Shaft
10-30-2007, 02:10 PM
Thanks for writing Bob.

I don't follow your logic on slop being allowed in 9 ball "because it should really be payed by only advanced players" (my paraphrase, but that's what you were implying).

If that is your argument, why, then, are 8-ball and straight pool (also played by very advanced players) call-shot games?

Ususally it is *amateurs*, not better players, that like slop in games. Nobody, ESCPECIALLY a better player, likes to see their inning or their opponent's inning continue based on slop. And, slop happens, even at the pro levels. When it happens, everyone is embarrassed, including the shooter, but they keep playing because "that's the rule."

Does it make the game better? Not in my opinion. Do most players like it? Who knows ....... nobody asks them.

Bob_Jewett
10-31-2007, 12:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Shaft:</font><hr> ... I don't follow your logic on slop being allowed in 9 ball "because it should really be payed by only advanced players" (my paraphrase, but that's what you were implying).

If that is your argument, why, then, are 8-ball and straight pool (also played by very advanced players) call-shot games?
... <hr /></blockquote>
In case of 14.1, it would fundamentally change the game to make it slop.

Many rule sets for eight ball are slop. The BCA rules used to be that way. I think it doesn't change the game much one way or the other.

For nine ball, call shot just gets in the way, as far as I can figure. It would also remove two-way shots from the game. How often do you see a good player blasting the balls?

dr_dave
10-31-2007, 12:11 PM
Bob,

I know the new rules are written very differently from the previously rules (and much improved), but my question remains:

Are there any significant rule changes the committee decided to make?

In other words, did you guys decide to specifically allow anything that wasn't allowed before. Also, did you guys decide to specifically disallow something that was allowed before. I'm not talking about rule wording or interpretation here. I'm talking about rule intent.

I didn't notice anything obvious when I read through, but I might have missed something. I thought you might be better able to answer these important questions.

Please respond,
Dave

Bob_Jewett
10-31-2007, 12:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Bob,

I know the new rules are written very differently from the previously rules (and much improved), but my question remains:

Are there any significant rule changes the committee decided to make?

In other words, did you guys decide to specifically allow anything that wasn't allowed before. Also, did you guys decide to specifically disallow something that was allowed before. I'm not talking about rule wording or interpretation here. I'm talking about rule intent.

I didn't notice anything obvious when I read through, but I might have missed something. I thought you might be better able to answer these important questions.

Please respond,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>
For American players, I think the largest change, which I suppose they are free to ignore, is that there is no more "cue ball fouls only" rule. That part is now in the regulations, where some suggestions are made on what to do if a referee cannot be present continuously at the table.

There is a minor change to the lagging rules.

A stalemate rule was added to straight pool at the same time that the nurse safety rule was removed. All games now have a stalemate rule.

The rule for "No Rail" was revised for frozen balls to make more sense. (As someone has pointed out, it's not clear that the ball-frozen-on-the-rail rule is needed, but it's still there.)

Several things were moved into "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" that were previously specific fouls. It is important to read that section.

That's all I can think of right now that was major.

dr_dave
10-31-2007, 02:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> Bob,

I know the new rules are written very differently from the previously rules (and much improved), but my question remains:

Are there any significant rule changes the committee decided to make?

In other words, did you guys decide to specifically allow anything that wasn't allowed before. Also, did you guys decide to specifically disallow something that was allowed before. I'm not talking about rule wording or interpretation here. I'm talking about rule intent.

I didn't notice anything obvious when I read through, but I might have missed something. I thought you might be better able to answer these important questions.

Please respond,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>
For American players, I think the largest change, which I suppose they are free to ignore, is that there is no more "cue ball fouls only" rule. That part is now in the regulations, where some suggestions are made on what to do if a referee cannot be present continuously at the table.

There is a minor change to the lagging rules.

A stalemate rule was added to straight pool at the same time that the nurse safety rule was removed. All games now have a stalemate rule.

The rule for "No Rail" was revised for frozen balls to make more sense. (As someone has pointed out, it's not clear that the ball-frozen-on-the-rail rule is needed, but it's still there.)

Several things were moved into "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" that were previously specific fouls. It is important to read that section.

That's all I can think of right now that was major.<hr /></blockquote>Bob,

Thank you very much. This is a useful and important list.

Regards,
Dave

Derek
10-31-2007, 03:28 PM
I enjoy listening to Danny DiLiberto in the Accu-Stat matches. Occasionally, he will, or his co-host, comment on how to make the game better, in their opinion.

1) Having the option to move the 9-ball rack from the 1-ball at the foot spot to the 9-ball at the foot spot. I think the comment was this would somewhat neutralize the current soft break approach. I forget who Danny's co-host at the time was, but he said they were racking that way on the Canadian tour.

I haven't tried that setup with the 9-ball rack yet, so I have no idea how much it affects a game. I don't soft break either.

2) Danny's opinion was the 9-ball should spot if made on the break. He thinks it's a cheap way to mark up a win when all of the pro pool players have exceptional breaks. While it's fun to sink a 9 on the break and get a quick win, I do like his thought on this. I see the 8-ball rules spot the 8 and it's much more difficult to sink the 8 on a break.

This may be a hard rule to instigate worldwide though since everyone plays 9-ball as a win if sunk on the break.

3) Is 10-ball going to be added?

Bob_Jewett
10-31-2007, 04:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Derek:</font><hr> ... 3) Is 10-ball going to be added? <hr /></blockquote>
I think you can just use the nine ball rules. Does 10 ball have any special rules I don't know about?

For the other changes you mentioned, the racking position is presently handled by the individual tournaments, and sometimes they move it up, like at the last US Mosconi cup. As for making the nine on the break, if the rack is tight, the nine ball rarely goes in. If the rack is loose, the breaker has been cheated. I'd prefer spotting the nine myself, but that wasn't the consensus at the rules committee meeting.

Derek
11-01-2007, 10:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>I think you can just use the nine ball rules. Does 10 ball have any special rules I don't know about? <hr /></blockquote>

Nope. Good enough. Just wasn't sure if it needed to be called out or added as a footnote under the 9-ball rules.

bradb
11-05-2007, 11:49 AM
Bob, I want to ask you a question in regards to the current ruling on a ball leaving the playing surface and returning.

In a league game the cue ball was jumped up on the rail by accident and rolled down the rail until it fell back down onto the called ball over the corner pocket. It pocketed that ball and rolled back into play. An argument insued that the ball had stayed on the cloth of the rail and therefore was a legal shot. Someone else said it did'nt matter that any ball off the tables surface is illegal. We could'nt seem to come to a satisfactory agreement on this.

Is it ball in hand, played on, or counted as a miss?
-brad

Alfie
11-05-2007, 02:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bradb:</font><hr> In a league game the cue ball was jumped up on the rail by accident and rolled down the rail until it fell back down onto the called ball over the corner pocket. It pocketed that ball and rolled back into play. An argument insued that the ball had stayed on the cloth of the rail and therefore was a legal shot. Someone else said it did'nt matter that any ball off the tables surface is illegal. <hr /></blockquote>
Look here
http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_pocket
rule # 3.28

Bob_Jewett
11-05-2007, 03:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bradb:</font><hr> Bob, I want to ask you a question in regards to the current ruling on a ball leaving the playing surface and returning.

In a league game the cue ball was jumped up on the rail by accident and rolled down the rail until it fell back down onto the called ball over the corner pocket. It pocketed that ball and rolled back into play. An argument insued that the ball had stayed on the cloth of the rail and therefore was a legal shot. Someone else said it did'nt matter that any ball off the tables surface is illegal. We could'nt seem to come to a satisfactory agreement on this.

Is it ball in hand, played on, or counted as a miss?
-brad <hr /></blockquote>
At pool, it is perfectly fine for a cue ball or an object ball or both to go up onto the top of the rail, roll around, perhaps hit the wood, and then return to the playing surface, perhaps pocketing several balls. As long as no ball remains up on the rail at the end of the shot, the shot is legal.

There are specialty shots at one pocket that require the cue ball to go up on the cushion/rail to get out of the way of a bank. There are other general situations in which you go up on the rail to get away from the rail.

It is illegal to hit chalk up on the rail. It is illegal to hit the light fixture. It is legal to contact any part of the top of the rail with any ball. So far as I know, the latter part has not changed in about 100 years. You may want to get a more recent copy of the rules. Within the last 30 years, it was legal to hit the light fixture and return to the table, but no longer.

bradb
11-05-2007, 05:02 PM
If anyone is hitting the light fixture, I don't think I wanna be anywhere near the table Bob!

I think the reason there was an argument on the shot I described was that jump shots are not allowed at the club where we play, so even though the shot was unintentional it was disallowed. but it looks like it was perfectly legal. -brad

slow_roller
11-07-2007, 04:03 PM
Here's a funny point, the kind of thing that may only bother me (I'm a tech writer):

On rule 3.2, Racking for 8-ball, there is a sentence saying "The other [other than the corner] balls are placed in the triangle without purposeful or intentional pattern."

Yet the diagram shows the balls being placed in a very non-random pattern, as if the racker wanted to distribute solids and stripes as evenly as possible. This is the way I rack for 8-ball, by the way, and I don't see why that should be against the rules.

Bob_Jewett
11-07-2007, 04:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote slow_roller:</font><hr> ... Yet the diagram shows the balls being placed in a very non-random pattern, as if the racker wanted to distribute solids and stripes as evenly as possible. This is the way I rack for 8-ball, by the way, and I don't see why that should be against the rules. <hr /></blockquote>
I think the problem is larger at nine ball. Should a player be allowed to get some advantage from the order of the balls in the rack? The committee decided that they should not get such an advantage.

I agree that the person who drew the diagram for the eight ball rack didn't do a good job of "randomicity" but the order shown is as likely as any of the rougly 1000 different arrangements of the balls at eight ball. The rules for black ball show a "more random" pattern.

If you are a referee, you should try to follow the rules, which is to say try to pay no attention to the order that you put the balls in the rack. If you are racking as a player, you should get agreement from your opponent that the "well mixed" arrangement is OK. If not, he has a right to demand "random."

Bob_Jewett
11-07-2007, 04:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> A nearly final draft of the proposed new World Standardized Rules of pool are available for one last, quick check before they are sent out to national federations and voted on by the WPA General Assembly at the end of November. ... <hr /></blockquote>
Thanks to those who offered suggestions and pointed out errors. The final draft that is going to the Federations is available at:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/WPA_New_Rules_07Nov2007.pdf

and the proposed regulations are at:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/WPA_New_Regulations_07Nov2007.pdf