SpiderMan
10-30-2002, 03:35 PM
In an 8-ball game in APA competition, players A and B each have one ball left on the table, plus the eight. The 8-ball and cueball are a few inches out from the center of the foot rail.
Player A shoots at a hard thin cut on his last ball, which is at the other end of the table, on the head rail about a foot from the corner pocket. He misses his object ball completely, the cue ball speeds back toward his end of the table, and he catches it just before it strikes the 8-ball full in the face.
Player B's captain asks for a concession of the game, player A's captain insists that it is merely ball-in-hand. Someone produces a rule book which states (approximately) that it is a concession if the path of the balls is interfered with "in a game-losing situation".
Player B's captain says that it was not a game-losing situation because the 8-ball was not in front of a pocket, therefore would not have been pocketed.
Player B (a SL-2) took ball-in-hand, made her last ball but left herself poorly on the 8. She jawed the 8 and then player A (a SL-3) made his ball and proceded to win.
Is it just me, or is "game-losing situation" a pretty ambiguous judgement call? Maybe the 8 would have banked into another pocket if player A had not stopped the cueball. What if the 8 were not directly in front of the pocket, but maybe a foot away and a 45-degree cut? Where do you draw the line?
Having a rule that is open to so much interpretation and argument is, in my opinion, a bad and unnecessary idea.
SpiderMan
Player A shoots at a hard thin cut on his last ball, which is at the other end of the table, on the head rail about a foot from the corner pocket. He misses his object ball completely, the cue ball speeds back toward his end of the table, and he catches it just before it strikes the 8-ball full in the face.
Player B's captain asks for a concession of the game, player A's captain insists that it is merely ball-in-hand. Someone produces a rule book which states (approximately) that it is a concession if the path of the balls is interfered with "in a game-losing situation".
Player B's captain says that it was not a game-losing situation because the 8-ball was not in front of a pocket, therefore would not have been pocketed.
Player B (a SL-2) took ball-in-hand, made her last ball but left herself poorly on the 8. She jawed the 8 and then player A (a SL-3) made his ball and proceded to win.
Is it just me, or is "game-losing situation" a pretty ambiguous judgement call? Maybe the 8 would have banked into another pocket if player A had not stopped the cueball. What if the 8 were not directly in front of the pocket, but maybe a foot away and a 45-degree cut? Where do you draw the line?
Having a rule that is open to so much interpretation and argument is, in my opinion, a bad and unnecessary idea.
SpiderMan