Legal Break
Mail Man
Standardized Rules" now being used by BOTH BCA and ACS leagues and major
tournaments. If you go to either the BCA or the ACS site and look up the
rules, BOTH sites, in their entirety, are verbatim copies of the "World"
rules found at the wpa-pool.com site. These rules have been, in some cases,
drastically re-worded within the last couple of years.
In particular, a question came up in my BCA 8-Ball league, last night. I
realize that this has been discussed before in this NG, but it has been a
couple of years -- at least a bit before all the rules changes were made.
A player asked me if you have to break DIRECTLY at the rack, or if you can
send the cueball into a rail, first, before making contact with the rack --
you know: the ole
off-the-foot-rail-first
into-the-back-of-the-rack
break that some bar bangers like to try. I said to give me a few minutes
while I look it up, adding that I was sure that a direct-at-the-rack
approach was required.
LO's and TD's BEWARE!!!
Guess what? Nowhere can a provision for or against this be found in the BCA
/ ACS / WPA "General Rules of Play" section or in the "8 Ball Rules"
section! There is also no mention of this in the section for Referees. I
may be wrong, but I'm almost positive that the DIRECT break was a
specifically-worded requirement somewhere in the previous set of rules.
Therefore, according to the new rules, IT IS LEGAL for a player to go off of
a rail, first, to effect his break shot!!! If I can't show a
specifically-worded requirement against this to a player in the "Official
Rules," I can't forbid this type of break to be done!
However, League Operators and Tournament Directors, in accordance with the
"World" Rules, ARE ALLOWED to make this a "local" stipulation by PUBLISHING
a LOCAL ADDENDUM to the BCA / ACS / WPA Rules which incorporates a
requirement to shoot DIRECTLY at the rack to effect the break shot. This
must be published BEFORE the beginning of any league or tournament matches.
Any thoughts, advice or corrections on this? Remember that just saying
"past league practice" just doesn't cut it for some players, causing
dissention and league shrinkage. Same for tournaments -- no one likes
surprises like this after travelling long distances to play in a tournament.
Mike Collier <-- has no grudge - either way is fine, but which is it?
Oak Harbor, WA
John Black
he...@invalid.invalid says...
> A player asked me if you have to break DIRECTLY at the rack, or if you can
> send the cueball into a rail, first, before making contact with the rack --
> you know: the ole
>
> off-the-foot-rail-first
> into-the-back-of-the-rack
>
> break that some bar bangers like to try. I said to give me a few minutes
> while I look it up, adding that I was sure that a direct-at-the-rack
> approach was required.
Out of curiosity, why would someone want to do this? It seems like a bad
idea...
John Black
Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
I'm not entirely sure, but this is a standard safety shot in 14.1.
So maybe people think of it as a safety break that sends four balls
to the cushion, and is therefore a legal 8-ball break. I don't
remember that the WPA/BCA rules had a requirement to shoot directly
at the rack (without looking up the old rule, I don't think it was
there), but the APA rules did have this requirement.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> I'm not entirely sure, but this is a standard safety shot in 14.1.
Yeah, it makes sense for 14.1 because you have to call your shots even on
the break, but that is not the case for 8 ball. You get credit for any
balls made so its best to blast away.
John Black
Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
As I said before, I'm not sure because I don't see this kind of break in
8-ball. But if it is intended as a safety break, the breaker would be
trying to get four balls to the cushion, scatter as many balls as
possible to the center of the table without pocketing any of them, and
leave the cue ball stuck to the back of the rack with no clear shot.
Pocketing a ball and sticking the ball to the back of the rack would not
be a desirable outcome of this break shot.
There is also a common rail-first break shot in one pocket (off the side
cushion, not the end cushion). And of course there is Mosconi's
rail-first break shot in 14.1 that was included in the movie The
Baltimore Bullet (where the head ball goes two rails into the side
pocket). So rail-first break shots in general are not unheard of in
pocket billiards games, but they are not common in 8-ball (and they are
specifically illegal in the APA rules).
Here is the APA break shot rule:
"To be a legal break, players must break
from behind the head string, the head ball or second
ball must be struck first and at least four object balls
must be driven to the rails or a ball must be pocketed.
The cue ball may not be shot into a rail before the rack.
If the break does not qualify as legal, the balls are
reracked and rebroken by the same player. If the break
does not qualify as legal and results in a scratch, the
balls are reracked and broken by the opposite player.
THE RACK MUST BE STRUCK BEFORE A FOUL CAN
OCCUR. Breaking safe or soft is not allowed. The League
Operator may make judgments and issue penalties to
teams and players who are not breaking hard. Breaking
just hard enough to comply with this rule is not a
guarantee against penalties. Remember, break as hard as
you can with control."
Note that the rail-first break shot is specifically mentioned, and in
general safety breaks are not allowed. I do not recall any similar
BCA/WPA rule in the past about safety breaks, or soft breaks, in 8-ball.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
bk4...@hotmail.com
> Out of curiosity, why would someone want to do this? It seems like a bad
> idea...
>
> John Black
I suspect that most of the bar bangers who like this break attempt it
as smash-em versus safety break. They think the balls will spread
just as well while there will be less chance of a scratch. They
probably actually achieve some success with it - on a bar table. But
as 14.1 players know, a behind-the-rack break is not the best for
spreading balls, and neither is it extremely reliable at preventing
scratches.
Bob
JakartaDean
> THIS APPLIES TO BCS, ACS and WPA ***ONLY***; i.e., the so-called "World
> Standardized Rules" now being used by BOTH BCA and ACS leagues and major
> tournaments. If you go to either the BCA or the ACS site and look up the
> rules, BOTH sites, in their entirety, are verbatim copies of the "World"
> rules found at the wpa-pool.com site. These rules have been, in some cases,
> drastically re-worded within the last couple of years.
>
> In particular, a question came up in my BCA 8-Ball league, last night. I
> realize that this has been discussed before in this NG, but it has been a
> couple of years -- at least a bit before all the rules changes were made.
>
> A player asked me if you have to break DIRECTLY at the rack, or if you can
> send the cueball into a rail, first, before making contact with the rack --
> you know: the ole
>
> off-the-foot-rail-first
> into-the-back-of-the-rack
>
think it would be hard on a 9' table to be sure 4 balls were going to
hit a cushion. I can see no reason not to allow it, since it appears to
be to the shooter's disadvantage, unless the painfully slow rack that
results is a reason.
The one I don't like is the lack of specification, in 8-ball, over
whether the balls are repositioned when someone accidentally touches
one. It's mentioned as a foul, and the general rules tell you how to do
it as a referee, but the 8-ball rules no longer say whether balls are
repositioned. I emailed Bob J. about it a couple of years ago, but
never heard back from him. (It's a minor nuisance in our league, since
we follow WPA, and captains or other players referee matches, and now
some are repositioning and some not.)
Dean
Carter Adams
AFAIK, balls are never repositioned on a foul. When matches are played
as "all fouls" as opposed to "cue ball fouls only" balls are not
repositioned as it is a foul to accidentally touch the balls and it is
unsportsman-like conduct to touch/move balls intentionally.
See the WPA rules at:
(www.wpapool.com/index.asp?content=rules_tournament)
"1. General Rules - The following General Rules apply to all the games
covered by these rules except when contradicted by specific game
rules..."
and
"1.8 Restoring a Position - When necessary for balls to be restored or
cleaned, the referee will restore disturbed balls to their original
positions to the best of his ability. The players must accept the
referee's judgment as to placement..."
and
"1.9 Outside Interference - When outside interference occurs during a
shot that has an effect on the outcome of that shot, the referee will
restore the balls to the positions ...."
and
"6.6 Touched Ball - It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of
any object ball ..."
and
"6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct - ... (b) changing the position of the
balls in play other than by a shot; ..."
As for the rail-first break, I can find nothing to prohibit it. I
think it could be a strategy for a weaker player against a very strong
player. If the league is using the BCA/ACS 10-point scoring system,
the weaker player "may" have a better chance of making points with the
table being congested.
Regards,
Carter Adams
www.LeagueOperator.org
www.CartersBilliardsLibrary.com
poolp...@gmail.com
JakartaDean
> Hi Dean,
>
> AFAIK, balls are never repositioned on a foul. When matches are played
> as "all fouls" as opposed to "cue ball fouls only" balls are not
> repositioned as it is a foul to accidentally touch the balls and it is
> unsportsman-like conduct to touch/move balls intentionally.
>
> See the WPA rules at:
> (www.wpapool.com/index.asp?content=rules_tournament)
>
far as I know, the old rule set required that the referee reposition
balls accidentally moved after a shot. The new rules seem to indicate
that they may be repositioned, depending on the rules of the game being
played, but they don't say to do so in 8-ball. Since there's no rule
allowing the referee to move balls, he should just leave them where they
are (in my interpretation).
I'm curious what others think: Should they be repositioned, in a
refereed match?
Dean
Mail Man
> > ... you know: the ole
> >
> > off-the-foot-rail-first
> > into-the-back-of-the-rack
> >
> > break ...
>
> Out of curiosity, why would someone want to do this? It seems like a bad
> idea...
Beats me, John. I actually have seen this break done quite a few times over
my 55+ years of playing pool. Sometimes, it's effective, sometimes not.
You get a corner pocket scratch a bit more often, as the cueball bounces off
the back of the rack, either directly into a corner or off the side rail
cross-corner.
Smart-ass bravado is usually involved with the character doing this break --
the hope is to get a good spread and make a couple of balls either up-table
or in the sides, while showing off way above his actual abilities, at the
same time. What I've seen, though, is that, more than half the time after
this break, depending upon whether a ball is pocketed or not and stipulating
that there was no scratch on the break, either player that winds up shooting
next is left without a decent continuation shot (i.e., left "safe")!
I also know that, if you hit the foot rail with a lot of top-spin and not
too much speed, you can get the cueball to back-up (draw) off of the back of
the rack, back to the foot rail, and can still get 4 object balls to the
rails! This is NOT limited to bars tables -- 9' tables are historically
better-maintained, have faster cloth and have faster rails. Therefore, it
is EASIER to do this break legally on a 9' table than on an 8' or 7' table!
Then, there's the REAL smart-ass who wants to hit the center of the back of
the rack, so he will go TWO rails (to the side, then to the foot, then into
the rack) to do this break. Tsk ... a LOT more corner scratches!
The best spot to hit this is between the middle ball and the ball on either
side of it, as nearly simultaneously as possible. Also, hit the cueball
with slight low english to have a better chance that it is still in contact
with the table surface as it strikes the rack (i.e., to reduce the cueball's
vertical bounce effect off of the foot rail at high speeds).
For my personal purposes, this looks like it would be a good safety break in
8-Ball, but there are SO MANY much more viable options in 8-Ball than going
off of a rail first in ANY situation where it is not necessary to do so!
Mike Collier
Oak Harbor, WA
Mail Man
my answer to John Black's first post for some thoughts about why this is
done and how I have seen it work best.
It may well be that it has never been handled in "BCA Rules," although I DID
know that it was in the APA Rules. All I know is that it used to be that,
if a person tried this break in any of the leagues (local rules or BCA
Rules) I have ever played in, this was always reason enough for a
bar-ransacking brawl (doesn't take much out here in the boondocks to keep us
entertained).
Seeing as how it DOES, in fact, appear to be a legal break shot under BCA
Rules, I guess I'll have to spread the word around our league -- and maybe
even work on this a little more, myself ... 8>]] .
Thanks again, all.
Mike Collier <-- Workin' on it? Naw -- fugeddaboudit!
Oak Harbor, WA
Jack Stein
To me, if you are playing "all fouls" as opposed to "cue ball fouls
only" they should not be repositioned. If playing "cue ball fouls only"
then it should be the sitting players option to leave it or reposition
it. My reasoning is if it is a foul, it's BIH, sufficient penalty; if
not a foul, the least you can do for the observing player is give him a
choice which ever is to his advantage.
As far as breaking off the rail in 8 ball... no rule needed. It is
rarely done. The reason is it doesn't work well, and even the dumbest
of players figure that out, sooner or later, and use a break that has
most chance of success.
While I never tried it intentionally, my guess is just hitting the
bottom rail hard enough to get 4 balls to the rail and keeping the CB on
the table would be iffy, first because of loss of speed when changing
directions off the rail, and second because the balls are angled wrong
for an efficient transfer of energy.
I'll leave it to the physicists among us to state how far off my guesses
are:-)
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com
Ron Shepard
Jack Stein <jbst...@comcast.net> wrote:
This issue about whether balls are restored after accidental
movement has always been at least a little ambiguous in the rules.
With the old rules at least, it seemed pretty clear to me that the
rules called for restoration of the original positions, but after
seeing dozens of refereed matches and never seeing balls restored, I
figured it was one of those things where everyone knew what the rule
was supposed to say, so they did that instead. (An even better
example of this is the old pre-1995 BCA foot-on-the-floor rule,
which actually said exactly the *opposite* from what it was supposed
to say.)
> To me, if you are playing "all fouls" as opposed to "cue ball fouls
> only" they should not be repositioned. If playing "cue ball fouls only"
> then it should be the sitting players option to leave it or reposition
> it. My reasoning is if it is a foul, it's BIH, sufficient penalty; if
> not a foul, the least you can do for the observing player is give him a
> choice which ever is to his advantage.
I think this is a good justification for not restoring balls. But
what about other games, such as 14.1 and one-pocket, where the foul
penalty is not ball-in-hand. Should ball positions be restored in
these games? Has anyone ever seen a referee restore position in a
14.1 or one-pocket game (in a refereed match with all-ball fouls)?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
"Mail Man" <not-...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Seeing as how it DOES, in fact, appear to be a legal break shot under BCA
> Rules, I guess I'll have to spread the word around our league -- and maybe
> even work on this a little more, myself ... 8>]] .
I expect you will find that it isn't really a good 8-ball break shot.
However, if you do work on it, I suggest that you work on the second
shot also. Being able to reply in those situations where there is no
clear shot might be a better thing to learn than how to do the break
shot itself.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Gideon Forrest
> In article <haksgk$qq...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Jack Stein <jbste...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> This issue about whether balls are restored after accidental
> movement has always been at least a little ambiguous in the rules.
> With the old rules at least, it seemed pretty clear to me that the
> rules called for restoration of the original positions, but after
> seeing dozens of refereed matches and never seeing balls restored, I
> figured it was one of those things where everyone knew what the rule
> was supposed to say, so they did that instead. (An even better
> example of this is the old pre-1995 BCA foot-on-the-floor rule,
> which actually said exactly the *opposite* from what it was supposed
> to say.)
The WPA "Regulations" make it clear what the position is if you are
playing cue ball fouls only - it is the opponent's election as to
whether the balls are replaced: http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules#20
--
20. Cue ball fouls only
If there is no referee presiding over a match, it may be played using
cue ball fouls only. That is, touching or moving any ball other than
the cue ball would not be a foul unless it changes the outcome of the
shot by either touching another ball or having any ball, including the
cue ball, going through the area originally occupied by the moved
ball. If this does not happen, then the opposing player must be given
the option of either leaving the ball where it lies or replacing the
ball as near as possible to its original position to the agreement of
both players. If a player shoots without giving his opponent the
option to replace, it will be a foul resulting in cue ball in hand for
the opponent.
--
When playing all ball fouls, at least with a referee present, it would
seem that General Rule 1.8 would apply, although I grant you that you
could argue that it only applies if it is "necessary" for the balls to
be restored:
--
1.8 Restoring a Position
When necessary for balls to be restored or cleaned, the referee will
restore disturbed balls to their original positions to the best of his
ability. The players must accept the referee’s judgment as to
placement.
--
I can't comment on what the actual practice is when the match is
refereed - I think I've seen the balls replaced, but I cannot recall
for certain.
Regards,
Gideon
Ron Shepard
<5bd526be-b4f0-44bd...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Gideon Forrest <gid...@rogers.com> wrote:
> When playing all ball fouls, at least with a referee present, it would
> seem that General Rule 1.8 would apply, although I grant you that you
> could argue that it only applies if it is "necessary" for the balls to
> be restored:
I see only rules 1.7 (balls settling) and 1.9 (outside interference) as
requiring restoration (which is described in 1.8). Are there any other
situations mentioned anywhere? In particular, rule 6.6 (touched ball,
applicable for all-ball fouls situations) does not mention restoration.
With the old ruleset, there was a rule that required all balls to be
restored after standard fouls. I have never seen that rule enforced or
followed, either in refereed or unrefereed matches. Of course,
"standard fouls" were not defined in the old ruleset, so as I said
before, it was at least a little ambiguous when restoration was required.
BTW, I have refereed professional matches with all-ball foul rules, and
I have never restored a position after a touched-ball foul. And yes, I
have called touched-ball fouls. When discussed in the referee meetings
before the tournaments, it was always decided that the ball-in-hand foul
penalty was sufficient.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Gideon Forrest
> Gideon Forrest <gide...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > When playing all ball fouls, at least with a referee present, it would
> > seem that General Rule 1.8 would apply, although I grant you that you
> > could argue that it only applies if it is "necessary" for the balls to
> > be restored:
>
> I see only rules 1.7 (balls settling) and 1.9 (outside interference) as
> requiring restoration (which is described in 1.8). Are there any other
> situations mentioned anywhere? In particular, rule 6.6 (touched ball,
> applicable for all-ball fouls situations) does not mention restoration.
>
> With the old ruleset, there was a rule that required all balls to be
> restored after standard fouls. I have never seen that rule enforced or
> followed, either in refereed or unrefereed matches. Of course,
> "standard fouls" were not defined in the old ruleset, so as I said
> before, it was at least a little ambiguous when restoration was required.
The only other references I could find were:
8.15 Restoring a Position (this in the defintion section)
If the balls are disturbed, the rules of the game may require them to
be replaced where they were. The referee will replace the balls to
their original position as accurately as possible.
Which, of course, begs the question, because it depends whether the
"rules of the game" require it.
and there is this, which simiarly begs the question.
11. Restoring a Position
In any case a position of balls needs to be amended it is solely the
referee’s duty and responsibility to perform this task. He may form
his opinion by any means he considers appropriate at the time. He may
consult one or both players on that, however, the particular player’s
opinion is not binding and his judgment can be amended. Each involved
player has the right to dispute the referee’s judgment just once, but
after that it is the referee’s discretion to restore the ball or
balls.
> BTW, I have refereed professional matches with all-ball foul rules, and
> I have never restored a position after a touched-ball foul. And yes, I
> have called touched-ball fouls. When discussed in the referee meetings
> before the tournaments, it was always decided that the ball-in-hand foul
> penalty was sufficient.
I am sure you are right about the practice, and the rules aren't
clear.
I suppose one way of looking at it is that in all other circumstances
where a foul is committed (e.g., wrong ball hit, no rail) there is no
suggestion that the balls should be replaced in their "pre-foul"
position. Indeed, such a rule would be contrary to standard and
accepted deliberate fouls. On the other hand, where balls are moved
and there is no foul (balls settling, outside interference), the balls
are replaced, and, in the case of balls moved when cue ball fouls
only, there is a slight penalty (that the openent gets to decide
whether to move the ball back) to the party that moved the ball. I
suppose there is a certain logic to that.
Regards,
Gideon
Mail Man
>
> "Mail Man" wrote:
>
> > Seeing as how it DOES, in fact, appear to be a legal break shot under
BCA
> > Rules, I guess I'll have to spread the word around our league -- and
maybe
> > even work on this a little more, myself ... 8>]] .
>
> I expect you will find that it isn't really a good 8-ball break shot.
> However, if you do work on it, I suggest that you work on the second
> shot also. Being able to reply in those situations where there is no
> clear shot might be a better thing to learn than how to do the break
> shot itself.
>
Amen, Bro' -- my point, exactly -- in ALL respects with your reply. If
you'll look at my sigblock on the previous message, you'll see that I wasn't
serious about "working on it." Although I HAVE discussed results I have
seen with this break along with possibilities for its application, the REAL
upshot is, as I have also already mentioned: more frequent scratches on the
break, far less ball control and a much higher risk of "being stuck" for the
next shot. This break is highly inconsistent, at best, and is much more
usually just a "sellout" -- so much for bragging bravado! -- HAH!
The ARE two "sweet spots" on this break, as I already noted. However, in
order to take advantage of this with ANY consistency, one would need to be
at the stroke and aim accuracy of a Top Ten Touring Pro. Even so, there
are, as EVERYBODY has already said, far better and more effective break
options and, of all possible options, THIS IS THE WORST!!!
I can't count the number of times where an opponent has pulled this break on
me, that I have lept for absolute joy and immediately shouted at my opponent
in glee, "You just lost the game"!
And, that's why I don't care whether there's a rule against it or not --
but, for the sake of our area league and tournament players, if there HAD
BEEN one, we needed to know.
Good reply, Ron -- thanks!
James Forget
I thought that the BCA Pool League had their own set of rules...
http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/
Default.aspx
Mail Man
>
> I thought that the BCA Pool League had their own set of rules...
>
> http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/
> Default.aspx
>
Thanks for the link, James, although I hate that, when you are viewing
online because you don't want to download the file, you can't break out of
BCAPL's page-frame and view the PDF in full-screen mode. Nonetheless, this
is a far more comprehensive and instructive rule set than I was able to
previously find.
However, like the other WPA / BCA / ACS rule sets, the BCAPL rule set for
8-Ball play also does not specifically discuss or disallow the type of break
I had in question -- therefore, the "off-the-rail-first" break remains LEGAL
under ALL permutations of WPA / BCA / ACS rule sets.
Of further interest is that this BCAPL rule set defines an 8' table's
playing surface as 45" x 90". This has traditionally been 44" x 88" for the
normal barbox and 48" x 96" for the "Pro" or Full-Size 8' table.
Additionally, the diagrams for the table-bed specs show curved slate edges
with an applied tangent apex spec, and the diagrams for the pocket angle
sizes and cuts define a two-ball width at the mouth, rather than at the
throat, of the corner pockets.
Further, rail nose heights are defined about 1% higher than any other known
specs. This 1% can make a big difference, as the rails will tend to "eat"
your balls on high speed contact, spit them out more slowly, with the egress
angle being greatly widened from the ingress angle. There was a table over
in Okanogan, WA, that was so bad in this respect that, when I hit it with an
object ball at near full speed and about a 45-degree angle, it spat out
about 1-1/2 ", then turned and slowly dribbled all the way down the rail
into the corner pocket -- it cost me a match, but everybody, including me,
got a huge belly-laugh out of it!
The BCAPL's rule set is Mark Griffin's (Diamond Smart Tables) rule set, as
Mark is the OWNER of the BCAPL. It looks to me like he is defining a specif
ically and proprietarily Diamond table -- this means that it could be that
your league's tables do not meet BCAPL equipment specs and, if some a**hole
in your league gets ticked off and pitches a b*tch to the BCAPL Ruling Body,
it could possibly be ruled that your league loses its sanction for not
meeting BCAPL equipment spec standards!
Don't get me wrong about this -- I support Griffin in just about every
possible way. He took the old BCA league-sanctioning body that was being
killed by "corporate" BCA and turned it into a viable, vibrant and ever more
popular entity, tailored, first, specifically toward players' and
participants' needs. He also eliminated executive confusion in the
decision-making process by being the sole owner, rather than authority being
bestowed upon a board room full of self-aggrandizing personalities with
conflicting agendas, as was previously the case. So what if he IS trying to
get everybody to convert to the Diamond Smart Table? I personally like them
far better than any other table.
Unfortunately, they are too new and far too expensive for all the rural bar
and tavern owners (there ain't no money out here -- it's all in the big
cities) to just immediately junk their decades-old Valleys, Dynamos,
Globals, American Games, Brunswicks, International Games, Irving Kayes and
Qualitys, etc., just to conform to a new set of league-imposed standards.
As locales open up or shut down, these old tables customarily get shuttled
from place-to-place for between $500 - $1,000 a pop. Most are actually
well-constructed and can easily and cheaply be brought back into standards,
in spite of their age (a ton of personal experience speaking, here).
Compare this to the cost for most bars / taverns, who all are just barely
able to stay afloat, purchasing even just one or two Diamonds, and you can
see that it will be a LONG time before the Diamond becomes a universal
table -- not for at least 5 or 10 years, maybe longer. Right now, the
nearest place to me that has Diamond equipment is 1-1/2 hours away -- Canada
is closer to me than this!
Just to bring this post back to TOPIC, I should mention that the break being
discussed in this thread can be accomplished as effectively, or as
ineffectively, on the Diamond Smart Table as on any other table whereupon
the game of 8-Ball might be played ... 8>]].
Thanks again for the great link!
nhoop
"Mail Man" <not-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hc1dve$ef6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "James Forget" wrote:
>>
>> I thought that the BCA Pool League had their own set of rules...
>>
>> http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook/tabid/372/
>> Default.aspx
>>
>
> Further, rail nose heights are defined about 1% higher than any other
> known
> specs. This 1% can make a big difference, as the rails will tend to "eat"
> your balls on high speed contact, spit them out more slowly, with the
> egress
> angle being greatly widened from the ingress angle.
Are you sure about 1%? That's a bit less than 1/64"..pretty small.
Nat
Mail Man
>
> Are you sure about 1%? That's a bit less than 1/64"..pretty small.
> Nat
>
OK Nat, check this out:
-----
BCAPL Equipment Specs:
The height of the cushion nose measured from the playing surface will be
1-29/64", +1/64" or -1/32".
1-29/64 = 1.453125; / by ball dia. (2.25) = 64.58333...%
1-30/64 = 1.46875; / by 2.25 = 65.2777...%
1-27/64 = 1.421875; / by 2.25 = 63.19444...%
-----
WPA World Rules (also used by ACS):
... Rail height (nose-line to table-bed) should be 63-1/2% (+ or - 1%), or
between 62-1/2% and 64-1/2% of the diameter of the ball. (MikesNOTE: this
is a new and expanded spec -- the previous definition was between 62-1/2%
and 63-1/2%).
63.5% x 2.25 = 1.42875 = just under 1-55/128 or 1-27.5/64
62.5% x 2.25 = 1.40625 = exactly 1-26/64 or 1-13/32
64.5% x 2.25 = 1.45125 = just under 1-29/64
-----
There were no equipment specs available for VNEA, APA or TAP league play.
As you can see, the NOW largest WPA / ACS spec is just slightly less than
the Median, or STANDARD, BCAPL spec. It may seem that 1/64" is a nitpick,
but there are also variances of up to 1/16" in these different specs. In
the game of pool/billiards, physics dictates appreciation of
MICRO-millimeters, NOT millimeters (1 mm = ca. 2.5/64")!
When you get down to 62.5%, you are almost, but not quite, on the verge of
getting full-diameter (i.e., unworn) 2-1/4" balls to bounce up above the
table bed upon rail impact. At and just barely above 63.5%, you begin to
notice ball hesitation upon rail impact, but this does not seem to have an
unworkable or inconsistent effect on eventual rebound path or speed.
However, beyond this nose height, all bets are off! Why these ruling bodies
have expanded their nose height tolerances to 64.5% is beyond me.
Out of personal experience and years of testing, we have found that ALL of
the various brands of 8' barboxes here in the Gorgeous PacNW function best
in all realms of play with the rail nose set at just above 1-13/32"; that
is, very near to 1-27/64". The balls are very active at all speeds and stay
on the table surface. This height continues to work well as the ball sets
wear down to ever smaller diameters with constant play.
An ENTIRE new set of balls, when used continuously in a bar setting, or
something similar, can wear down out of equipment specs in LESS THAN A YEAR!
Up here in the boonies, ALL of the ball sets are at least 15 years old, and
some are over 30 -- picture that! The exception is the Oak Harbor American
Legion, whose balls I replaced about 2-1/2 years ago. One of the ball sets
I replaced had diameters between 2.12" - 2.18" (or roughly 2-1/8" -
2-3/16") -- another couple'a years and they could have been snooker balls
... ;>].
Next time you hear someone complaining about "slow rails," go up and see how
firm they are, first. If they are even "somewhat" firm, the only reason
they are slow is that the rail nose height is too high. In many cases, it
only takes 1/64" to cause this!
Ron Shepard
"nhoop" <nlh1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you sure about 1%? That's a bit less than 1/64"..pretty small.
Yes, considering that the measurement is from the cloth surface to the
cloth-covered cushion nose. The thickness of the cloth might be larger
than this, and how much the cloth is depressed during the measurement
could be about this magnitude.
A previous comment indicated that a slightly lower cushion would cause
balls rolling into the cushion with topspin to ride up during the
rebound. That may be true, but that also depends on how slick the cloth
is on the cushions. Sticky cloth will cause the balls to ride up, while
this happens less with slick cloth.
And, the actual force from the depressed cushion on the ball during the
rebound depends on the cushion profile. The ball actually depresses
pretty far into the cushion, over 1/2 inch on a hard shot. That cushion
compression results in cushion contact that is spread over a comparable
vertical distance on the ball. Consider also that some cushion profiles
curve down from the rail down to the cushion nose, while other cushion
profiles are basically horizontal from the rail out to the cushion nose.
So worrying about exactly where the depressed cushion nose is located
within that 1/2 inch of vertical contact doesn't seem too critical for
those kinds of shots.
In light of all this, I don't understand why the BCAPL issues its own
equipment specifications that are slightly different from the WPA/BCA
specs. I can see why a particular vendor (Diamond, for example) might
issue its own specs for its table installers to use. They want
consistency, and with their equipment (cushion profiles, cloth type,
etc.) they may have refined some of the specs to tighter standards than
the WPA/BCA specs, which are appropriate for multiple vendors and a
wider range of cloth types and cushion profiles. But the BCAPL is not
supposed to be a single-vendor league. Of course, I also think that the
"BCA" in "BCAPL" is entirely misleading too; it should not have been
allowed to use those initials in its name because of the likelihood for
exactly this kind of confusion. IMO, of course.
$.02 -Ron Shepard