Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: cue-ball fouls

  1. #1
    Guest

    cue-ball fouls

    A group of us play on a regular basis, and have followed BCA rules. I have become somewhat uncomfortable with fouls that are called because someone's sleeve brushed a ball a tiny distance, or a cue touched a ball other than the cue-ball after a shot. I've notice that some tournaments say "cue-ball fouls only". I've notice other tournaments when a shooter inadvertently moves a ball, the ref points it out, and other player waves it off, indicating to the shooter to just put the ball back. I've been considering proposing we move to a cue-ball only foul format, but am not sure what constitutes a cue-ball foul. The reason this came to mind was a shot the other night, where a player using a bridge hit two balls with the bridge after a shot, and that seemed a little more egregious than brushing a ball with a sleeve. I'd appreciate any clarification as to what defines a cue-ball only foul, and the issue with a major movement of balls with a bridge. Thanks for any info.

  2. #2
    Guest

    Re: cue-ball fouls

    <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott:</font><hr> A group of us play on a regular basis, and have followed BCA rules. I have become somewhat uncomfortable with fouls that are called because someone's sleeve brushed a ball a tiny distance, or a cue touched a ball other than the cue-ball after a shot. I've notice that some tournaments say "cue-ball fouls only". I've notice other tournaments when a shooter inadvertently moves a ball, the ref points it out, and other player waves it off, indicating to the shooter to just put the ball back. I've been considering proposing we move to a cue-ball only foul format, but am not sure what constitutes a cue-ball foul. The reason this came to mind was a shot the other night, where a player using a bridge hit two balls with the bridge after a shot, and that seemed a little more egregious than brushing a ball with a sleeve. I'd appreciate any clarification as to what defines a cue-ball only foul, and the issue with a major movement of balls with a bridge. Thanks for any info. <hr /></blockquote>

    bca has gotten it pretty clear over the years; 1.16.1 "cue ball fouls only" says that if there is a ref on the match then touching an object ball with anything, clothing, cue, bridge or whatever is a foul.

    if there is no ref, which is what you are talking about, then it is played more loosely. if you do move an object ball then, if you know about it, you should stop and give the other player the opportunity to restore or leave it where it is. if you move the ball while shooting then the test is: if the moved ball moves into or out of the path of a moving ball then it's a foul. in other words, if it changes the path of the balls moved in the shot then it's a foul. i've played guys who have heard that "if you move more than 1 ball or more than 2, then it's a foul." wrong. there's nothing like that in the book. same test. anything in or out of the path is a foul.

    technically, touching the cue ball with clothing, or anything else, is a foul but i've never seen it called unless the ball actually moves.

    for most of us, we play it as a "does it matter??" test. no harm, no foul. life is too short to worry about someones beard brushing the c.b. while he's (or she's??)(tough room!) setting up.

    dan

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    429

    Re: cue-ball fouls

    Pro express rules work something like this:

    Cue ball fouls only. It is a foul if you touch the cue ball. It is a foul if you touch another ball and it impedes the cue ball or interferes in any way with another object ball. It is a foul if you touch another ball and *might* have cleared the path for the cue ball or other object ball.

    An example of the third is:

    The five ball is bumped and rolls to the position where the 13 is marked.
    START(
    %Am2U9%Ej2W0%Mp3Z6%Pg9V9%Wn4Y8%Xj3W7%Yi4Z5%Zg8W2%[l9V5%\j2Z9

    )END

    This is a foul because the 5 ball was near the path that the cue ball took and might have been in play on the kick that was taken. It doesn't really matter if the 5 is or isn't actually in the path, just that it *might* be in the path.

    There was a decision at a Kennedy event that actually comes into play here as well, although I don't know that it has been officially adopted. Under that ruling, even if the 5 definitely wasn't in the path, moving it is a foul because it is the impeding ball. Like I said, I don't know if that one was adopted overall or not. Under that rule, this would be a foul as well, even though the movement didn't potentially change the shot.

    START(
    %Ar6G2%Ej4Q5%Mf8P8%Pf9V5%Wh5Q2%Xj7Q9%Yi4Z5%Zg8W2%[r4I0%\j2Z9

    )END

    Anyhow, I hope this helps you.

    Jay M

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area
    Posts
    528

    Re: cue-ball fouls

    I know I've heard Earl Strickland at least on one occasion probably more say that he would like to see "all fouls" played in nineball. I thinks most of us (unless you come from a straight pool background) are comfortable with just the cue ball foul rule we use now as discribed in the posts.

    I wonder what the rules are in "Grady's rules" regarding this?

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    77

    Re: cue-ball fouls

    The people I play with call all fouls, mostly on ourselves (we're very diplomatic), except when practicing for league then we play that we are not allowed to call fouls on ourselves so that we practice watching the game when not shooting. This is so we don't get sloppy and miss fouls that opponents try to get away with, an unfortunately common senario in our league.

    I think calling all fouls will be ultimately be better for your game in the long run because it makes you concentrate more on a sturdy bridge and stroke mechanics. Also, when you do get in a reff'd game there won't be a period of adjustment.

    Getting used to all fouls doesn't take too long either and you will find that silly touching fouls hardly ever happen. I probably went from about one a game to 1 in every 15 games or so in about a month after starting to call all fouls.
    <font color="red">Who's the cat that won't cop out when there's danger all about? qSHAFT!</font color>

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    103

    Re: cue-ball fouls

    Personally, I'm with Earl Strickland and qShaft on this one. Here in the UK, like in Australia, we have snooker thrown at us left and right. As such, we are used to ALL fouls being called (mainly by ourselves on ourselves).

    I think the "cueball fouls only" rule can make players lazy. If they turn up at a tournament and find out that "all ball fouls" count, then they may not be used to having to reach over a ball when trying to play a shot, inadvertantly moving the ball you are over.

    Just my thoughts.

    thecardman
    [img]/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •