PDA

View Full Version : What rule applies here?



Bambu
05-24-2012, 08:06 AM
A situation came up the other day when I couldnt see whether a ball was frozen or not. So I get up to look at it, but it wasnt my turn. Just for a little FYI, Fran says that if we were playing in a tournament I could be accused of sharking. I'm always happy to learn new things, but I was surprised. I mean, thats what I always do(as discreetly as I can).

Fran knows the rules far better than I do, but even she wasnt sure of the right call. So the question is: What is the proper thing to do in a "blinded" possible frozen ball situation? If you cant talk or get up to look because its not your turn, how do you question a ball on a rail? (Lets assume the rack changed, you didnt get the chance to look when it was your turn.)

Rich R.
05-24-2012, 08:09 PM
Was this a friendly game, a league match or what?

I honestly don't know the official rules but my guess is --

Friendly match -- I trust my opponent to do the right thing.

League match or tournament -- in some situations, it would depend on the position of the balls but, most of the time someone has to make an official determination. the shooting player should declare it frozen or not frozen. If you don't agree, a third party has to be called in, either another league player or a tournament TD.

That's my guess. Now I'm ready for Fran to tell me how stupid I am. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

Bambu
05-24-2012, 09:52 PM
Thanks Rich. It was just a fun game, but we were both wondering what the right thing to do in a tournament would be. If its ok to call time and search for a ref, why isnt it ok to simply ask your opponent if the ball is frozen? I dont trust most opponents to bring it to my attention, but I dont think many would flat out lie if you asked them.

Fran Crimi
05-25-2012, 07:59 AM
Actually, I'm clear about feeling that it's improper to get out of your chair to check to see if a ball is frozen. What I'm not clear about is how it would be addressed in different situations.

I don't know of any situation where a player was reprimanded for sharking by doing it, however, that doesn't mean that it isn't wrong to interrupt your opponent's thought process just because you want to check something on the table.

I think it's entirely proper to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt unless he has a reputation for cheating. The issue usually arises when a player is about to play a safe where he might not drive a ball to another rail. You will most likely approach the table right after the shot and you can confirm with that player before you shoot if the ball was frozen or should you take ball in hand. Based on his response you can then judge whether or not you have to get up to check the next time. If he says, "Don't know, didn't look," I'd be out of my chair next time checking.

Unfortunately, not too many people give this any thought, so I'm afraid that people get away with getting out of their chair all the time. When we allow things like this to happen, we are lowering the bar in our game, IMO.

Deeman3
05-25-2012, 08:38 AM
I think most of us can tell the difference in sharking and an honest need to check for a situation. In my tiny mind, it is all in the way you go about it. A respectful request to check ball position should be allowed as you have every right to know about the potential foul situation.

Eric.
05-25-2012, 12:05 PM
To add, I would think that if it's bad form to get out of your chair, then I would declare and consider the ball frozen, unless a ref or other proves it's not.


Eric

Fran Crimi
05-25-2012, 01:48 PM
This topic reminds me of a match I witnessed in Vegas between Johnny Archer and Ronnie Wiseman about 3 years ago at, I think, the last Pro BCA event. It was an important match and there was a lot of tension between the players. I think it was a quarter or semi-final match.

While Wiseman was at the table, Archer got up to check something on the table, I think a frozen ball. I could see that it upset Wiseman and got him right out of his head and he missed. People all around me were whispering that what Johnny did was wrong.

Wiseman lost the match and didn't shake Archer's hand. The match was not refereed.

Rich R.
05-27-2012, 05:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This topic reminds me of a match I witnessed in Vegas between Johnny Archer and Ronnie Wiseman about 3 years ago at, I think, the last Pro BCA event. It was an important match and there was a lot of tension between the players. I think it was a quarter or semi-final match.

While Wiseman was at the table, Archer got up to check something on the table, I think a frozen ball. I could see that it upset Wiseman and got him right out of his head and he missed. People all around me were whispering that what Johnny did was wrong.

Wiseman lost the match and didn't shake Archer's hand. The match was not refereed. </div></div>
Fran, I remember seeing that match on TV. Johnny didn't only get out of his chair to check if the cue ball was frozen to the object ball, he also asked a rules question that most league players would be able to answer. IMHO, it was definitely a shark moved and it worked because, as you said, it got Wiseman out of his head and he missed. It was a refereed match and Archer had no good reason to get out of his chair.
Here is the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_XERutsL1Y

Fran Crimi
05-27-2012, 12:09 PM
OK thanks, Rich. I didn't remember that it was refereed. But regardless, referee or not, an opponent getting out of his chair to check something at the table is a distraction.

Regarding that particular rule, there have been a couple of different interpretations, so I am not convinced that Archer got up with the specific intention of sharking Wiseman.

IMO the real problem was the fact that this problem of the opponent getting up out of their chair is not enforced the way it should be, so players think it's their right to get up and check things.

Rich R.
05-27-2012, 02:40 PM
Fran, if there is something at the table, such as frozen balls or a ball frozen to the rain, that should be established, what is the proper procedure? At this point, I'm not sure what I should do in that situation.

Fran Crimi
05-27-2012, 08:57 PM
Well, Rich, in a perfect world, the shooter should announce whether a ball is frozen to the rail or the cb or not if he is about to take a shot where it is important to know.

Just to be clear, this is my opinion. It's not addressed specifically because it's a sportsmanship issue which is subjective.

If I'm at the table, and there is a ball that might be frozen to the rail, I will only announce it if it is pertinent to the shot. That is the only time I feel I owe my opponent an explanation. If I plan on hitting the shot hard, driving the ob 3 rails, I will not tell my opponent it's frozen. He'll just have to sit in his chair patiently and trust me. I may even ease his mind by telling him my intent. But I don't consider that mandatory.

But if my opponent is allowed to leave his chair and check the shot without even knowing what my intent for the shot was, that's not fair to me.

I think it's a matter of common sense. When I'm in the chair, the way I do it is that I will always give my opponent the benefit of the doubt the first time. Whether I stay in my chair for future shots depends on what he does the first time. If he neglects to show courtesy to me, then I will do the same to him by getting out of my chair to check the next time I feel he's about to do something questionable. But by then I would have the right to question my opponent's behavior.

Rich R.
05-28-2012, 07:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, Rich, in a perfect world, the shooter should announce whether a ball is frozen to the rail or the cb or not if he is about to take a shot where it is important to know.

Just to be clear, this is my opinion. It's not addressed specifically because it's a sportsmanship issue which is subjective.

If I'm at the table, and there is a ball that might be frozen to the rail, I will only announce it if it is pertinent to the shot. That is the only time I feel I owe my opponent an explanation. If I plan on hitting the shot hard, driving the ob 3 rails, I will not tell my opponent it's frozen. He'll just have to sit in his chair patiently and trust me. I may even ease his mind by telling him my intent. But I don't consider that mandatory.

But if my opponent is allowed to leave his chair and check the shot without even knowing what my intent for the shot was, that's not fair to me.

I think it's a matter of common sense. When I'm in the chair, the way I do it is that I will always give my opponent the benefit of the doubt the first time. Whether I stay in my chair for future shots depends on what he does the first time. If he neglects to show courtesy to me, then I will do the same to him by getting out of my chair to check the next time I feel he's about to do something questionable. But by then I would have the right to question my opponent's behavior. </div></div>
Fran, it's a shame that we don't live in that perfect world.

Like you, when I'm in the chair, I trust my opponent to do the right thing until he proves that he won't.

When I'm shooting, as soon as I see a potentially frozen ball, that may be a part of my shot, I declare it frozen or not frozen. I prefer to get that established early on, before I make a final shot decision, so I'm not disturbed later. Of course, you have to realize that most of the time I'm dealing with league players who don't always know the rules, not advanced players who should know what is going on.

I think most of us league players, who play the same people most of the time, get to know which players are going to do the right thing and those that you have to watch. When you were on the pro tour I'm sure you knew exactly which players to watch. If I'm playing some one who can not be trusted to do things correctly, I have no problem leaving my chair.

dingqian101212
05-31-2012, 12:30 AM
Sung Boutique specializes in high-quality, affordable evening put on for ladies. The company is proud to provide dresses for all occasions, which includes evening dresses, party dresses, satin and silk dresses, prom dresses, and small black dresses. To total your party look, the boutique also presents accessories including matching shawls, evening bags and bolero jackets.

Karen Millen Outlet (http://www.hifrost.com/)
Cheap Karen Millen (http://www.hifrost.com/)
herve leger uk (http://www.ukherve.com/)
herve leger sale (http://www.ukherve.com/)

Fran Crimi
05-31-2012, 08:08 AM
Rich, I think we're on the exact same page.

Bambu
06-01-2012, 06:38 AM
So what kind of rule could apply here, if any? It just seems wrong to go by the honor system, but I cant think of a better way. Even if it really was, you cant penalize a cheater for claiming a ball wasnt frozen.

Rich R.
06-01-2012, 06:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what kind of rule could apply here, if any? It just seems wrong to go by the honor system, but I cant think of a better way. Even if it really was, you cant penalize a cheater for claiming a ball wasnt frozen. </div></div>
I'm not sure but I think that the only rule involved is one that says it has to be determined if the ball is frozen or not.

I don't know about anyone else but, if a player I don't trust declares a ball frozen and I don't agree based on my view from the chair, I'm getting up and checking it. If it is a refereed match, I'm just sitting because the referee's opinion is the only one that matters.

Bambu
06-01-2012, 07:54 AM
I feel the same way Rich, but many tours call for players to remain seated regardless of a ref. We all have good intentions here, but different answers. To me, asking as nice and as timely as possible would be less offensive than getting up to check. I wouldnt blame you for asking unless you jump all over me and dont give me a chance to say something on my own. (Its not what you say, its how you say it.)

Rich R.
06-01-2012, 01:59 PM
Bambu, which tours require a player to stay seated regardless of a referee?

Bambu
06-02-2012, 08:54 AM
Predator and Tristate for sure, and I also thought Joss and Mezz did the same. I double checked it, didnt see anything about seating listed for Joss and Mezz.

Interestingly enough though, I found this rule at the Tristate site:

REQUESTING OBSERVATION
If a player wants to have a shot observed for a possible foul, they must inform their opponent in order to stop them from playing the shot unobserved. If the shooter continues to play the shot before the tournament director is present to watch the shot, it will be an automatic foul. The decision of the tournament director is final.


And this rule, at the Mezz site:

CALLING FOULS
The non-player is responsible for calling fouls incurred by his/her opponent at the time of, or immediately following (before the next shot is played), a foul. Failure to do so results in the loss of the right to call that foul. In the event that a player calls a foul and his/her opponent continues playing without having the foul verified by the tournament director, the tournament director may be called upon by the opponent to determine if a foul has occurred.

Rich R.
06-02-2012, 09:50 AM
The rule from the Tristate is what I see in most tournaments as far as getting the TD to watch a shot. I haven't see, but I do like, that it is an automatic foul if the player keeps shooting.

The rule from Mezz seems like it would cause a lot of arguments. How can a TD determine if a foul was committed after the fact? I just don't get it. The TD should be watching the shot.

Fran Crimi
06-02-2012, 04:11 PM
If you were a rule writer, how would you write the rule?

Sid_Vicious
06-02-2012, 09:51 PM
How about, The non shooting player may legally ask verbally,"is that ball frozen" without being guilty of sharking? Then, it is loss of turn and a foul, if they shoot through? Some common sense has to prevail. sid

tatcat2000
06-02-2012, 11:16 PM
This technical rule writer can answer for the BCAPL rules, which already address the situation directly, both for referee presiding and for referee not presiding. BCAPL Applied Ruling 1.42 states:

<span style="color: #3333FF">"The non-shooting player has certain rights with regard to inspecting the position of the table prior to their opponent being down on a shot. For example, checking whether the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, checking whether balls are frozen to a cushion, or whether a ball is in or out of the kitchen are permitted

The non-shooting player may also inspect the position of the table for the express purpose of deciding whether to call a referee to watch a shot. However, they may not inspect the table simply to see whether an object ball has a clear path to a pocket or for any other reason that has no bearing on the need to call a referee."</span>

Also BCAPL Rules 9-4-2 and 9-4-3:

9-4-2: <span style="color: #3333FF">After having been properly called to a table, the referee takes over the responsibilities and duties of the non-shooting player, including acknowledging called shots or safeties. The non-shooting player must leave the table while their opponent is shooting, and does not necessarily have the right to occupy any particular position away from the table other than being in the chair.</span>

9-4-3: <span style="color: #3333FF">When a referee is presiding over a match, the referee will make all calls concerning the match, and no request by the players is necessary. However, players may still request specific information from the referee as necessary.</span>

Although the wording of 9-4-3 is a little vague, I can tell you that the intent is that the phrase "requesting information" is designed for the player at the table. When a referee is presiding in BCAPL play, the same intent as the last sentence of 9-4-2 applies, and the player in the chair has no business interrupting the referee or the shooter before a shot, unless it would be to protest a rules application on a previous shot or for some other administrative matter. When a referee is presiding, they have no reason to approach the table concerning the lay of the table before a shot. Even if some justification could be found, such as the referee forgetting to declare a ball, the request MUST come before the shooter is down on the shot.

BCAPL referees are trained to call all balls near cushions frozen or not before every shot, and the CB to a nearby OB or cushion if in doubt and/or necessary.

-----------------------

Under WSR, the following information is pertinent, and may or may not be definintive based on usage or interpretation. However, Regulation 25 gives guidance, but uses the dreaded "should", thus allowing for wiggle room/interpretation:

<span style="color: #CC0000">Remaining in Player’s Chair. The non-shooting player should remain in his designated chair while his opponent is at the table. Should a player need to leave the playing area during matches, he must request and receive permission from the referee. Should a player leave the playing area without the permission of the referee, it will be treated like unsportsmanlike conduct</span>

The vaguness is compounded by WSR Regulation 27:

<span style="color: #CC0000">Calling Frozen Balls. The referee should be careful to inspect and announce the status of any object ball that might be frozen to a cushion and the cue ball when it might be frozen to a ball. The seated player may remind the referee that such a call is necessary. The shooter must allow time for such a determination to be asked for and made, and may ask for the call himself.</span>

Unfortunately, other than the vagueness of the "distracting the opponent" provision of the WSR UC rule (1.16(a)), WSR goes into no detail concerning the timing of requests from the player in the chair.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif
Buddy Eick
BCAPL National Head Referee
BCAPL Director of Referee Training
Technical Editor, BCAPL Rule Book
bcapl_referee@cox.net

Find the Official Rules of the BCA Pool League here:

http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/Default.aspx

<span style='font-size: 8pt'>* The contents of this post refer to BCA Pool League (BCAPL) Rules only. The BCAPL National Office has authorized me to act in an official capacity regarding questions about BCAPL Rules matters in public forums.
* Neither I nor any BCAPL referee make any policy decisions regarding BCAPL Rules. Any and all decisions, interpretations, or Applied Rulings are made by the BCAPL National Office and are solely their responsibility. BCAPL referees are enforcers of rules, not legislators. BCAPL Rules 9.5.3 and 9.5.4 and the BCAPL Rules "Statement of Principles" apply.
* No reference to, inference concerning, or comment on any other set of rules (WPA, APA, VNEA, TAP, or any other set of rules, public or private) is intended or should be derived from this post unless specifically stated.
* For General Rules, 8-Ball, 9-Ball, 10-Ball, and 14.1 Continuous: there is no such thing as "BCA Rules" other than in the sense that the Billiard Congress of America (BCA) publishes various rules, including the World Pool-Billiard Association's "World Standardized Rules" for those games. The BCA has no rules committee. The BCA does not edit, nor is responsible for the content of, the World Standardized Rules. <u>The Official Rules of the BCAPL</u> is a separate and independent set of rules and, to avoid confusion, should not be referred to as "BCA Rules".
* Since 2004, there is no such thing as a "BCA Referee". The BCA no longer has any program to train, certify or sanction billiards referees or officials. The BCAPL maintains what we consider to be the most structured, complete and intensive referee training program available.
* The BCAPL has no association with the Billiard Congress of America other than in their capacity as a member of the BCA. The letters "BCA" in BCAPL do not stand for "Billiard Congress of America, nor for anything at all.
* The BCAPL has not addressed every imaginable rules issue, nor will it ever likely be able to, as evidenced by the seemingly endless situations that people dream up or that (more frequently) actually happen. If I do not have the answer to a question I will tell you so, then I will get a ruling from the BCAPL National Office and get back to you as soon as I can. If deemed necessary, the BCAPL will then add the ruling to the "Applied Rulings" section of The Official Rules of the BCA Pool League.
* All BCAPL members are, as always, encouraged to e-mail Bill Stock at the BCAPL National Office, bill@playcsi.com, with any comments, concerns or suggestions about the BCAPL rules.</span>

Bambu
06-03-2012, 07:02 AM
I guess the moral of this post is, rule sets change from league to league, tournament to tournament. Hey, I knew that! LOL.

kenz
06-04-2012, 08:28 AM
In the league I play in, "The opponent has the responsibility of notifying the player prior to their shot that the object ball is frozen to the rail. When there is doubt whether the object ball is frozen to a cushion, the player should ask for a ruling before shooting."

Fran Crimi
06-06-2012, 06:00 PM
It wouldn't be logical to have a specific rule like that.

The rule would have to be written allow an opponent to ask any question from the chair if they felt it was relevant to the upcoming shot. That could turn into a sharking nightmare.

kenz
06-09-2012, 05:59 PM
I agree with you Fran, but that is an exact quote from our rule book. Would it be better to have the seated opponent request time from the shooter to view the ball on the rail?

Fran Crimi
06-09-2012, 07:20 PM
What rule book are you referring to?

It's a difficult issue --- No question about it. I believe the answer lies in educating your players to do the right thing, which is to learn to trust each other and to not violate that trust. If the shooter addresses it before it becomes a problem, then there is no problem.

Most people want to try to do the right thing. They just need to be educated on what that is. That's where the league operator or tournament director can help. Hold regular players meetings and discuss issues that come up,particularly those in gray areas, like sportsmanship issues.

TomBrooklyn
06-28-2012, 09:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When we allow things like this to happen, we are lowering the bar in our game. </div></div>
...which is even worse than lowering the game in our bars.