PDA

View Full Version : Rule query. Ball moves when you get on the table.



09-06-2002, 02:49 PM
Here's a question that comes from an observation of the World Championship final match between Earl Strickland and Bustamente.

Down 13 to 14, Strickland plays an awful position shot and gets right up to the 4 ball, which is frozen to the rail. He plays the safe shown below.

As the shot is being played, the camera is doing a close-up shot of the two balls. Before Strickland plays the shot, the four ball visibly rolls off the rail and back. You can't see what Strickland did, but I assume that the ball moved as he stretched over the opposite rail, and bumped the table.

If a ball was on the lip of a pocket and falls without any interference, it gets replaced, but if it falls as you stretch over the table, is that technically a foul? I'm assuming all fouls count, not just CB fouls.

START(
%DR9C9%FJ0O7%G_1Z1%HL5N3%Im3N0%PS4E2%Wp4L5%XT7C3%Y R7G2%ZL8Z3
%[T3C7%\S6D3
)END

Rod
09-06-2002, 06:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: KaromKlutz:</font><hr>
Here's a question that comes from an observation of the World Championship final match between Earl Strickland and Bustamente.

Down 13 to 14, Strickland plays an awful position shot and gets right up to the 4 ball, which is frozen to the rail. He plays the safe shown below.

As the shot is being played, the camera is doing a close-up shot of the two balls. Before Strickland plays the shot, the four ball visibly rolls off the rail and back. You can't see what Strickland did, but I assume that the ball moved as he stretched over the opposite rail, and bumped the table.

If a ball was on the lip of a pocket and falls without any interference, it gets replaced, but if it falls as you stretch over the table, is that technically a foul? I'm assuming all fouls count, not just CB fouls.

START(
%DR9C9%FJ0O7%G_1Z1%HL5N3%Im3N0%PS4E2%Wp4L5%XT7C3%Y R7G2%ZL8Z3
%[T3C7%\S6D3
)END

<hr></blockquote>


3.31 BALLS MOVING SPONTANEOUSLY
If a ball shifts, settles, turns or otherwise moves “by itself,” the ball shall remain in the position it assumed and play continues. A hanging ball that falls into a pocket “by itself” after being motionless for 5 seconds or longer shall be replaced as closely as possible to its position prior to falling, and play shall continue. If an object ball drops into a pocket “by itself” as a player shoots at it, so that the cue ball passes over the spot the ball had been on, unable to hit it, the cue ball and object ball are to be replaced to their positions prior to the stroke, and the player may shoot again. Any other object balls disturbed on the stroke are also to be replaced to their original positions before the shooter replays.

No it's not a technical foul unless you touch the ball with something. It plays as it lays unless it falls in the pocket, then it is spotted. I think this rule use to be written a little different, something to the effect of an act of god or similar. Either way the rule hasn't changed.

09-06-2002, 09:17 PM
I'm assuming that that's how the rule might be interpreted, but that's precisely why I ask the question, because the rule is worded intentionally to deal with the case where the active player has no role in the movement, and because the player clearly caused the movement, that rule does not necessarily apply. IMO, it shouldn't because the ball did not move "by itself".

If you deliberately knock the table, it's a "special intentional" foul. 3.29

If you accidentally drop something on the ball, brush it with your sleeve, drool on it :O), or touch it with the cue, it's a foul. 3.25

If another person knocked the table, it would come under non-player interference 3.35.

If the other player was to hit the shot, wait five seconds to see if the ball dropped, then accidentally knock the table walking back to his seat (drunk?), it would be player interference, and a foul. 3.41

If you accidentally knock the table, when you approach the shot, it is your inning, so 3.41 doesn't apply.

Seems to me that the only way that this isn't a foul is if it's excluded from 3.31, and interpreted to fall under 3.35 "Non player interference", which also includes "act of God" interferences, regardless of the fact that it was the player and not an "act of God" ... although maybe the Pearl would argue that point, too :O)

Rod
09-06-2002, 10:49 PM
I think this still falls under 3.31, unless a ref decided to inforce rule 3.29 and call it intentional. In other words it is either intentional or it is not. If not then rule 3.31 is still in effect. Efren would have had to really bump the table for that shot to be a foul. It wouldn't make any sense to call it an act of god unless a tremor or gust of wind come through. The Pearl might argue about anything if he thinks there is a chance.