Unsatisfactory ruling on a very unique 8-ball situation
ernie
who was playing in his first 8-ball league. On the table next to the
one he was playing on, a very unique and difficult ruling situation
occurred (unique to me anyway) which was apparently not covered in any
way by the World Standardized Rules of 8-ball:
Six of the solid balls were pocketed on the opening break. When the
breaker took the first shot after the break he sunk the remaining
solid ball and scratched, leaving the table still open. The solid he
pocketed stayed down, consistent with the league’s rules.
The table layout was now 7 stripes and the 8-ball. The incoming
player of course had ball in hand because of the scratch, and he
placed the cue ball for an easy shot on the 8-ball, planning to simply
sink the 8-ball and win the game.
His opponent immediately said, “This doesn’t seem right -- it can’t be
a legal thing to do.”
The tournament director was called over and soon stated his opinion
that, based on the rule that the 8-ball can’t be your object ball till
you’ve pocketed all the balls in your group, and the fact that the
*incoming* player had not determined his group yet, his ruling was
that the player with ball in hand had to shoot at the stripes,
hopefully pocket them all, then go for the 8-ball.
The shooter commented that this appeared to punish him for the first
shooter’s scratch. However, he complied with the director’s ruling
and managed, on the less cluttered table (with all the solids gone) to
run all 7 stripes and pocket the 8-ball.
The director’s ruling, albeit under the pressure of the uniqueness of
the situation and the need to keep the play on all tables moving,
didn’t seem appropriate, although since I play less 8-ball than any
other game, I had no clue to an alternative ruling.
Later, I researched the rules at my leisure at home and found that
indeed, nothing covered the situation. However, it occurred to me
that paradoxes arise no matter how the situation is handled.
But the overriding paradox is this: If the shooter attempts to run
the stripes (in the strange league case described above), makes
several of them, but fails to pocket all of them by either missing or
by fouling (for instance, he scratches) -- WHAT DOES THE IMMEDIATELY
INCOMING PLAYER (HIS OPPONENT) SHOOT AT?
Based on this reasoning when I had more time to think about it, I’d
have to say that the incoming player described in this post’s third
paragraph *would* be eligible to shoot at the 8.
The only other fair alternative I can think of, given that the rules
apparently don’t cover any of this, would be for the referee to
retrieve all the pocketed solids, spot them in a line directly behind
the foot spot, and inform the incoming player that he has the option
to pocket either a stripe or a solid, and that becomes the group he is
going to play for, before shooting at the 8. This would seem a less
satisfactory, but still possible way to handle this very rare
occurrence.
Any helpful comments?
Ernie
bk4...@hotmail.com
IMO, it may not "feel" very fair, but by the rules the incoming player
in your scenario could state that he chooses the solids. Then, since
they were no more solids to shoot at he could pocket the 8-ball.
Maybe if this was something likely to occur more frequently than me
winning the lottery ( LOL! ) a separate rule would be necessary. But
that's likely not the case.
Game over. Laugh about it and move on.
Bob Keller
Ron Shepard
<64776dc6-86c2-4b65...@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com>,
"bk4...@hotmail.com" <bk4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[an open table with all balls of one type pocketed...]
> IMO, it may not "feel" very fair, but by the rules the incoming player
> in your scenario could state that he chooses the solids. Then, since
> they were no more solids to shoot at he could pocket the 8-ball.
> Maybe if this was something likely to occur more frequently than me
> winning the lottery ( LOL! ) a separate rule would be necessary. But
> that's likely not the case.
> Game over. Laugh about it and move on.
This is an old dilemma with the (call-shot) WPA/BCA 8-ball rules.
The last time I looked, it was also not covered in the (slop-shot)
APA rules, although it is less likely to occur there than with
call-shot rules. We have discussed this many times over the past 15
years here in RSB, and I'm surprised that Bob Jewett did not address
this directly with the rewrite in 2008.
I think there are two reasonable ways to handle this situation. One
is to allow the incoming player to call and shoot the 8-ball. The
question then is what the next player can do if he misses. I think
the table should still be open (no ball has been legally pocketed,
right), so the next player can then call and shoot the 8-ball. In
this approach, the table is always open, and each incoming player
has the option to call and shoot the 8-ball or to call and shoot one
of the other object balls.
The other reasonable way to handle it is to treat it as a stalemate.
In this case, the breaking player would rebreak a new rack.
I don't think it is fair to the incoming player to force him to
shoot at a remaining object ball. And if he misses, or plays an
intentional safety, I don't think it is fair to the original player
to force him to shoot at a remaining object ball. To me, an "open
table" means that the incoming player has a choice, so this does not
seem like the right rule to me.
I don't really know which rule would be the most fair. I probably
lean towards the stalemate rule, but I can see some advantage of the
first rule too. As I say above, this situation can easily occur
with call-shot rules. The two players can simply conspire to pocket
all the object balls illegally (e.g. with called safeties), and this
situation could happen on every game that these two players play.
With slop-shot rules, it would take some skill to scratch on every
shot or, or to pocket balls of both types on every shot, or
something similar. But it could happen with slop-shot rules too
such as in the rare situation described in the original post.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black
a9e7f6...@a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, ernesto-s...@usa.net
says...
> The table layout was now 7 stripes and the 8-ball. The incoming
> player of course had ball in hand because of the scratch, and he
> placed the cue ball for an easy shot on the 8-ball, planning to simply
> sink the 8-ball and win the game.
Table is open. Incoming player can choose solids and since there are none,
he is on the 8. If he misses the 8 (not likely with ball in hand), table is
still open. You hit the nail on the head by saying that if the incoming
player had to play stripes and failed to run it, the incoming player should
not legally be on the 8 either by the same logic because he has not pocketed
any solids on legal (non-break) shots.
John Black
Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
> In article <8db81231-b385-4f52-9bf2-
> a9e7f6...@a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, ernesto-s...@usa.net
> says...
> > The table layout was now 7 stripes and the 8-ball. The incoming
> > player of course had ball in hand because of the scratch, and he
> > placed the cue ball for an easy shot on the 8-ball, planning to simply
> > sink the 8-ball and win the game.
>
> Table is open. Incoming player can choose solids and since there are none,
> he is on the 8.
The problem with the rules, as written, is that you "choose" solids
by calling and pocketing legally a solid ball. Your declaration of
which set you want does not matter, it is the act of calling and
legally pocketing the ball that determines which set is yours.
Since there are no solids left to call, it is not possible with the
current rules to choose solids.
> If he misses the 8 (not likely with ball in hand), table is
> still open. You hit the nail on the head by saying that if the incoming
> player had to play stripes and failed to run it, the incoming player should
> not legally be on the 8 either by the same logic because he has not pocketed
> any solids on legal (non-break) shots.
Once one player has stripes, then the other player has solids.
BTW, there is another separate rule that says that a player cannot
hit the 8-ball when the table is open. If he does so, it is a foul.
That means that with the current rules, even if the player were to
call the 8-ball and pocket it in the called pocket, he would lose
the game because he pocketed the 8-ball on a foul. So in order to
address this situation in the rules, this open-table rule would need
to be reworded too.
As I said before, this open-table situation has been a problem with
the rules for decades. We have discussed it several times over the
history of RSB. In fact, I think this was one of the first threads
after RSB was formed in 1994. Because this situation can occur so
easily with call-shot 8-ball rules, one suggestion was for all of
the players at the BCA national tournament to force this situation
to occur in every game. This "protest" would have forced the rules
committee to address it in the rules for the following year. That
never happened, and this dilemma in the rules is still haunting us
today.
As I said before, I personally favor including this as part of the
stalemate rule. But whether this or one of the other possibilities
is chosen, this situation certainly needs to be addressed in the
rules.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
ernie
>
> BTW, there is another separate rule that says that a player cannot
> hit the 8-ball when the table is open. If he does so, it is a foul.
Ron,
I don't think you meant to say "cannot hit the 8-ball" -- I think you
(and the rules) mean that when the table is open, the 8-ball cannot be
the first ball struck. And separate rules also convey that the 8-ball
can't be the *first* ball contacted when it is not the shooter's legal
object ball.
The rule that addresses what is legal with an open table reads as
follows in the rules effective as of January 2006 (and there may now
be a newer set of WPA 8-ball rules available):
4.9 -- OPEN TABLE
(Defined) The table is "open" when the choice of groups (stripes or
solids) has not yet been determined. When the table is open, it is
legal to hit a solid first to make a stripe or vice-versa. Note: The
table is always open immediately after the break shot. When the table
is open, it is legal to hit any solid or stripe first in the process
of pocketing the called stripe or solid. However, when the table is
open and the 8-ball is the first ball contacted, it is a foul and no
stripe or solid may be scored in favor of the shooter. The shooter
loses his turn; the incoming player is awarded cue ball in hand; any
balls pocketed remain pocketed; and the incoming player addresses the
balls with the table still open. On an open table, all illegally
pocketed balls remain pocketed.
Ernie
Mail Man
news:69770762-e206-4195...@v29g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
4.9 -- OPEN TABLE
Ernie
Mailman answers Ernie and Ron:
Under existing BCA and WPA rules:
Yes: group is established ONLY by calling AND pocketing a specific ball.
Yes: all of your group must be pocketed before you can legally shoot at the
8-Ball. Yes: on an open table, the 8-Ball CANNOT be contacted first with
the cueball, or it is a foul. Therefore, sadly, the TD made the correct
call: the incoming shooter MUST shoot at the stripes.
Mike Collier
Oak Harbor, WA
Jack Stein
I think by choosing to shoot the 8 ball, the shooter chose to take low
balls, by inference. If he misses the 8, the incoming players gets to do
the same thing. To me, logically, the 8 ball is the last ball in either
suit. If the only ball left in a suit is the 8 and the table is still
open, then the shooter gets to pick it and win.
Of course since the rules don't address it, the biggest, baddest dude
gets to decide...
--
Jack
I have not failed. I've just found ten thousand ways that won't work.
-Thomas Edison
http://jbstein.com
Ron Shepard
<69770762-e206-4195...@v29g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
ernie <ernesto-s...@usa.net> wrote:
> On May 7, 8:15�am, Ron Shepard <ron-shep...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, there is another separate rule that says that a player cannot
> > hit the 8-ball when the table is open. �If he does so, it is a foul. �
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> Ron,
>
> I don't think you meant to say "cannot hit the 8-ball" -- I think you
> (and the rules) mean that when the table is open, the 8-ball cannot be
> the first ball struck. And separate rules also convey that the 8-ball
> can't be the *first* ball contacted when it is not the shooter's legal
> object ball.
>
> The rule that addresses what is legal with an open table reads as
> follows in the rules effective as of January 2006 (and there may now
> be a newer set of WPA 8-ball rules available):
>
> 4.9 -- OPEN TABLE
>
> (Defined) The table is "open" when the choice of groups (stripes or
> solids) has not yet been determined. When the table is open, it is
> legal to hit a solid first to make a stripe or vice-versa. Note: The
> table is always open immediately after the break shot. When the table
> is open, it is legal to hit any solid or stripe first in the process
> of pocketing the called stripe or solid. However, when the table is
> open and the 8-ball is the first ball contacted, it is a foul and no
> stripe or solid may be scored in favor of the shooter. The shooter
> loses his turn; the incoming player is awarded cue ball in hand; any
> balls pocketed remain pocketed; and the incoming player addresses the
> balls with the table still open. On an open table, all illegally
> pocketed balls remain pocketed.
Here is the current WPA open table rule (from
<http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_8ball>):
3.4 Open Table / Choosing Groups
Before groups are determined, the table is said to be �open,� and
before each shot, the shooter must call his intended ball. If the
shooter legally pockets his called ball, the corresponding group
becomes his, and his opponent is assigned the other group. If he
fails to legally pocket his called ball, the table remains open and
play passes to the other player. When the table is �open�, any
object ball may be struck first except the eight ball.
Note in particular that last sentence, which precludes the shooter
from calling and pocketing the 8-ball when all balls of one group
have been pocketed. Also note that the player claims a group by
legally pocketing a called ball, something that cannot be done when
all balls of that group have been pocketed. Although the wording is
a little different from earlier versions of the rules, the effect is
the same -- the situation where an open table with all balls of one
or both groups have been pocketed is not covered. If there are
still balls left on the table of one group, then the incoming player
is allowed to claim that group, or he can play a safety and leave
the same open-table situation for his opponent. If the 8-ball is
the only ball left on the table, then neither player can play
without fouling, and if a shooter fouls while pocketing the 8-ball
it is loss of game. The referee could declare a stalemate at any
time where he determines that no progress is being made (under the
old rules, stalemate could be invoked only in more limited
situations).
So with the current rules, I think the correct decision was made in
the original post -- the incoming player chose the remaining group
and play continued in the usual way after that. I just think this
situation should be covered explicitly by the rules so that there is
no confusion (and there are several possible ways that the rules
could be changed to accommodate this situation).
$.02 -Ron Shepard
dave y.
wrote:
I think you've made the most sense here. If I was writing the new
rules, I'd just cut and paste your thinking as is.
And by the way, you can't just assume the 8 ball will always have a
pocket. You might have to run out the other suit instead.
dave y.
Mail Man
news:hs3pbh$gg5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Jack -- the rules DO address it! Refer to my FIRST "Yes," above. The BCA
or WPA rule sets, as they currently stand (can't speak for APA, TAP, VNEA,
any other sanctioning body, or especially any local house or league rules),
verbally preclude a player from establishing a group by simply "choosing" to
do so.
He physically MUST POCKET a called ball of this particular group (in this
case, it would be Solids, of which none are left on the table and are,
therefore, IMPOSSIBLE to establish as a group on an open table!) BEFORE he
has legally "earned" these as his established group.
Group MUST be first established and cleared from the table before the
shooter may proceed to the 8-Ball. If he shoots and first contacts the
8-Ball, under ANY circumstance, BEFORE his group is officially established,
it is either BIH foul or loss of game, depending upon whether or not the
8-Ball goes into a pocket or otherwise leaves the playing surface.
Jack Stein
> "Jack Stein" wrote in message
>>> Mailman answers Ernie and Ron:
>>> Under existing BCA and WPA rules:
>>> Yes: group is established ONLY by calling AND pocketing a specific ball.
>>> Yes: all of your group must be pocketed before you can legally shoot at
>>> the 8-Ball. Yes: on an open table, the 8-Ball CANNOT be contacted first
>>> with the cueball, or it is a foul. Therefore, sadly, the TD made the correct
>>> call: the incoming shooter MUST shoot at the stripes.
>>> Mike Collier
>> I think by choosing to shoot the 8 ball, the shooter chose to take low
>> balls, by inference. If he misses the 8, the incoming players gets to do
>> the same thing. To me, logically, the 8 ball is the last ball in either
>> suit. If the only ball left in a suit is the 8 and the table is still
>> open, then the shooter gets to pick it and win.
>>
>> Of course since the rules don't address it, the biggest, baddest dude
>> gets to decide...
> Jack -- the rules DO address it! Refer to my FIRST "Yes," above. The BCA
> or WPA rule sets, as they currently stand (can't speak for APA, TAP, VNEA,
> any other sanctioning body, or especially any local house or league rules),
> verbally preclude a player from establishing a group by simply "choosing" to
> do so.
> He physically MUST POCKET a called ball of this particular group (in this
> case, it would be Solids, of which none are left on the table and are,
> therefore, IMPOSSIBLE to establish as a group on an open table!) BEFORE he
> has legally "earned" these as his established group.
I think this does not sufficiently address the issue. It makes no sense
that a player gets punished after sinking 7 balls on a break, and it
makes no sense that if he makes a high ball and misses, the game is over
and a stalemate because the other guy cannot choose a suit. I don't
think this was the intent of the rule, and using rules not intended to
address the situation is why it makes no sense.
Rules that make no sense, are difficult or impossible to implement, or
cause more conflict than resolution should be addressed. This is a rule
(choosing suits) that, as Ron said, needs some attention.
--
Jack
Got Change: Now CHANGE IT BACK!
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
> Jack Stein wrote:
>> I think by choosing to shoot the 8 ball, the shooter chose to take low
>> balls, by inference. If he misses the 8, the incoming players gets to do
>> the same thing. To me, logically, the 8 ball is the last ball in either
>> suit. If the only ball left in a suit is the 8 and the table is still
>> open, then the shooter gets to pick it and win.
>> Of course since the rules don't address it, the biggest, baddest dude
>> gets to decide...
> I think you've made the most sense here. If I was writing the new
> rules, I'd just cut and paste your thinking as is.
Thank you Dave. Hard to argue with 260 lbs of pure, bad ass logic:-)
--
Jack
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
http://jbstein.com
ernie
written that covers the topic’s situation.
However, upon even more reflection, it now occurs to me that the
tournament director could have made a very satisfactory and
appropriate call which would be as logical and rules-consistent as a
call presently be in the absence of governing language specific to
case in question. Here’s my reasoning:
An Open Table as defined in all sets of 8-ball rules is predicated on
the shooter presented with an open table having a *choice* to make.
By implication, there must be the *possibility* of choosing between
two options (by the act of legally pocketing either a stripe or a
solid).
What we have in the posted topic’s situation is therefore not a
legally open table since the means that would enable a *choice* of one
group over the other, doesn’t exist.
Therefore, progress in this rack is not only unlikely, no progress
*can be* made in this rack, which is the very definition of a
stalemate, and the director must immediately (in this case) declare a
stalemate and require the initial breaker to break a newly-racked set
of balls.
I guess my years in law school weren't wasted, Mom.
Ernie
bk4...@hotmail.com
This is what's wrong with the world, and lawyers.
You have to keep in mind that the rule about the incoming player
making a choice was not written with the unique situation we are
talking about in mind. It was written under the assumption that there
would be a solid or a stripe to choose FROM. So now years after the
rule was written you cannot dissect each and every word in the rule as
if the rule-writers of years ago were somehow omniscient.
Sorry, Ernie, good try though.
Lawyers!
Bob Keller
ernie
> You have to keep in mind that the rule about the incoming player
> would be a solid or a stripe to choose FROM.
And that is of course PRECISELY the point of my post on which you're
commenting. Funny that a smart fella like you can't perceive that.
Architects!
>So now years after the
> rule was written you cannot dissect each and every word in the rule as
> if the rule-writers of years ago were somehow omniscient.
Till the sorely-needed rule to cover such situations is written, "each
and every word" in the present Open Table rule is all we have. That
would seem indisputable, no? Clarifying further, I neither implied
nor inferred that the rule-writers were "omniscient." How did that
quasi-spiritual notion come to you from anything I stated anywhere in
the post?
Architects! (Really kind of silly isn't it, Bob to imply that either
lawyers or architects think and behave alike, much less are what's
wrong with the world.)
If you disagree with my reasoning on the matter, I guess the next time
this scenario comes up we'll simply go with this beautifully clear
reasoning posted in your first reaction to the dilemma where we have
the novelty of an 8-ball player legally determining his group by
simply verbally stating his choice:
" .. by the rules the incoming player in your scenario could state
that he chooses the solids. Then, since
they were no more solids to shoot at he could pocket the 8-ball."
Peace, bro. Neither our professions nor we personally are what's
wrong with the world.
Ernie
Ernie
bk4...@hotmail.com
> On May 7 Bob Keller wrote:
>
> > You have to keep in mind that the rule about the incoming player
> > making a choice ... was written under the assumption that there
> > would be a solid or a stripe to choose FROM.
>
> And that is of course PRECISELY the point of my post on which you're
> commenting. Funny that a smart fella like you can't perceive that.
>
table, the rule cannot apply or is insufficient. Yet instead of that
conclusion you try to draw other conclusions which the rule-writers
did not imagine.
> Architects!
Lawyers!
>
> >So now years after the
> > rule was written you cannot dissect each and every word in the rule as
> > if the rule-writers of years ago were somehow omniscient.
>
> Till the sorely-needed rule to cover such situations is written, "each
> and every word" in the present Open Table rule is all we have.
Hardly, How about intent of the rule-writers? How about 'case
precedent'? How about 'favor the shooter during a questionable
ruling' (I've had that one used for and against me). Etc.
> That
> would seem indisputable, no? Clarifying further, I neither implied
> nor inferred that the rule-writers were "omniscient." How did that
> quasi-spiritual notion come to you from anything I stated anywhere in
> the post?
Because in order for your conclusion to be a valid one, one would have
to assume that the rule-writers took into account this unusual
scenario and then determined that an additional rule wasn't necessary
because the scenario does not satisfy the definition of a legally
'open table'. I doubt that. My opinion is that they wrote the rule
under the assumption that there would always be at least one solid and
one stripe on the table after the break or before the suits were
determined.
If you do not believe they had our scenario in mind when writing the
'open table' rule, then you can't conclude that they wanted the
stalemate rule to apply.
>
> Architects! (Really kind of silly isn't it, Bob to imply that either
> lawyers or architects think and behave alike, much less are what's
> wrong with the world.)
No. Lawyers seem to be trained to think in a strictly legalistic and
subjective manner rather than search for the absolute and objective
truth. Truth is that important.
>
> If you disagree with my reasoning on the matter, I guess the next time
> this scenario comes up we'll simply go with this beautifully clear
> reasoning posted in your first reaction to the dilemma where we have
> the novelty of an 8-ball player legally determining his group by
> simply verbally stating his choice:
>
> " .. by the rules the incoming player in your scenario could state
> that he chooses the solids. Then, since
> they were no more solids to shoot at he could pocket the 8-ball."
Sure could. As has been pointed out by more than one other in this
thread that could be a valid option. Since the 'open table' rule is
inadequate one cannot state that the rules do or do not allow this
option. I'm not saying it's the best option, though it could be and
it does make great sense. One could argue that forcing the incoming
player to shoot stripes or to agree to a stalemate is unfair to them
since the breaker scratched.
>
> Peace, bro. Neither our professions nor we personally are what's
> wrong with the world.
Yes, peace. And truth.
Bob Keller
Mail Man
As said, sadly, the TD made the correct decision under what can be properly
understood from the current wording of the BCA / WPA rule sets. However,
does this sufficiently address the issue? -- Absolutely not! And, from this
point on, other than the possibility of the TD arbitrarily changing his
ruling without new rules wording or further BCA / WPA rulings clarification,
I absolutely agree with you.
Ernie is also right about the existence of all the legalistic word parsers
we now have running around everywhere. It's for this reason that the rule
HAS TO BE either rewritten or further officially clarified by the BCA / WPA
to cover every possible situation in the SPIRIT of fairness. Too many
folks, nowadays, disregard the fairness aspect by attempting to twist
existing rules in order to take advantage of an opponent. These folks are
NOT trying to win fairly with their own game ON the table instead of
"around" the table -- a nasty sharking tactic employed to its utmost in our
area by Chris Iverson, who actually used to play well enough not to ever
need to do this.
bvinco
new rule needs to be implemented in order to cover this situation because
this happens SO VERY INFREQUENTLY, it's an anomaly. There is no way a set
of rules can cover absolutely every possible situation in pool because
there are just too many possible situations. IF, by some wild insane
coincidence, this should come up again anytime soon, the players should do
whatever they feel is fair, or a tournament director should make a
decision (as in this case), and the players live with the decision. If
the players can't come up with something fair on their own (we all know
how silly that thought is), re rack and get on with it.
Becky
On May 10 2010 12:21 PM, Mail Man wrote:
>
> As said, sadly, the TD made the correct decision under what can be properly
> understood from the current wording of the BCA / WPA rule sets. However,
> does this sufficiently address the issue? -- Absolutely not! And, from this
> point on, other than the possibility of the TD arbitrarily changing his
> ruling without new rules wording or further BCA / WPA rulings clarification,
> I absolutely agree with you.
>
> Ernie is also right about the existence of all the legalistic word parsers
> we now have running around everywhere. It's for this reason that the rule
> HAS TO BE either rewritten or further officially clarified by the BCA / WPA
> to cover every possible situation in the SPIRIT of fairness. Too many
> folks, nowadays, disregard the fairness aspect by attempting to twist
> existing rules in order to take advantage of an opponent. These folks are
> NOT trying to win fairly with their own game ON the table instead of
> "around" the table -- a nasty sharking tactic employed to its utmost in our
> area by Chris Iverson, who actually used to play well enough not to ever
> need to do this.
>
> Mike Collier
> Oak Harbor, WA
-------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Jack Stein
> As said, sadly, the TD made the correct decision under what can be properly
> understood from the current wording of the BCA / WPA rule sets.
I don't think the TD could make the wrong decision because the WPA rules
do not address the situation. He could have decided completely
differently and still have been correct, because he can't be wrong if no
rule addresses the issue.
I agree with Bob that trying to "dissect each and every word in the rule
as if the rule-writers of years ago were somehow omniscient." is folly.
I also think that the TD has all rights in making a decision, and he
cannot be deemed "wrong" by anyone if no rule exists to address the
situation. Also, I'm well aware that in the absence of a TD, and with
no rules addressing the issue, war could spring forth in short order.
> Ernie is also right about the existence of all the legalistic word parsers
> we now have running around everywhere. It's for this reason that the rule
> HAS TO BE either rewritten or further officially clarified by the BCA / WPA
> to cover every possible situation in the SPIRIT of fairness.
I agree, and my opinion is the incoming shooter should be allowed to
choose the 8 ball, and if he misses, the next guy has that option, as
the table is open. In no case should a guy that legally makes 7 balls
in one suit be punished for the rare feat, and if he makes 6 balls, and
fouls on the 7th, the table remains open, and his opponent gets to
choose. Big reward, big punishment.
Too many
> folks, nowadays, disregard the fairness aspect by attempting to twist
> existing rules in order to take advantage of an opponent. These folks are
> NOT trying to win fairly with their own game ON the table instead of
> "around" the table -- a nasty sharking tactic employed to its utmost in our
> area by Chris Iverson, who actually used to play well enough not to ever
> need to do this.
I don't know this guy, but my feeling is pool is a game, and in games
like golf and pool, you play as fair as possible. Thats why I think
calling fouls on yourself even if you are the only one seeing the foul
is the way to go. If golfers can do it in million dollar tourneys, and
Karen Corr can do it in a $50,000 match, I can do it for a beer at the
club, a trophy in a league and so on.
--
Jack
If Ignorance is Bliss, You must be One Happy Liberal!
http://jbstein.com
bk4...@hotmail.com
> new rule needs to be implemented in order to cover this situation because
> this happens SO VERY INFREQUENTLY, it's an anomaly.
Right! Like I said before, it happens less frequently than me winning
the lottery. It reminds me of the scene from the movie Caddyshack
where the guys hits his tee shot and the ball impales itself on a
birds beak.
Bob Keller
bk4...@hotmail.com
> > we now have running around everywhere.
Well, actually it was Ernie who attempted a legalistic word parsing.
I pointed out that's the wrong approach.
Bob Keller
Carlton Redford
Ernie wrote: “An Open Table as defined in all sets of 8-ball rules is
predicated on the shooter presented with an open table having a
*choice* to make. By implication, there must be the *possibility* of
stripe or a solid).
What we have in the posted topic’s situation is therefore not a
legally open table since the means that would enable a *choice* of one
group over the other, doesn’t exist.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above strikes me as a good analysis of the clear meaning of the
Open Table rule, which to me is probably one of the least complicated
rules imaginable. What can be disputed about the essence of an open
table being the fact that the shooter has the option to pocket either
a strip or a solid? If that option isn’t available in the absence of
any solid balls, then there’s no open table which in turn logically
means no fair play is possible IMHO. I agree with the guy above that
the TD should have decided without hesitation that a re-rack and a new
break by the original breaker was a fair resolution.
As to any “parsing” going on, I really don’t see that at least in
the negative sense that’s being suggested. Parsing has only two
meanings that I can remember (I may be rusty ... I’m a long way from
high school English classes) - one is describing a word or sentence
grammatically and the other more common use is when something is
analyzed critically, which generally is a positive thing to do because
it’s often the best way to arrive at the truth or falsity of a
situation, like parsing a political party’s explanations for the
housing crisis. Or in this case arriving at the truth about what makes
for an actual open table. I don't see that the intentions of the
writers of the open table rule are being twisted or questioned by a
simple statement about clear choice having to exist. Btw I’ve been
around pool long enough to have seen the originally posted situation
at least twice and the balls were re-racked both times.
-- Carlton
bk4...@hotmail.com
Seems like you haven't read my posts (numbers 12 and 14 above?) where
I've already addressed your points here?
Maybe "parsing" is the wrong word, it wasn't mine. I used the word
"legalistic" in my other posts.
>What can be disputed about the essence of an open
> table being the fact that the shooter has the option to pocket either
> a strip or a solid?
Because I don't think the rule-writers every imagined a situation
where there would not be a choice between a solid or a stripe. It is
entirely reasonable to assume they never imagined that, therefore the
rule is inadequate to address the situation. Further, several in this
thread have already stated that it would be fair for the incoming
player to shoot the 8-ball (myself included), by other reasoning. I
am a life-long proponent of logic, but one must always guard against
logic blinding one to options not considered.
So far, IMO, the best reasoned opinion expressed in this entire thread
has been Ron Shepard's - the situation needs to be explicitly covered
in the rules, one way or another.
Bob Keller
Rodan
Bob Keller wrote:
... I don't think the rule-writers ever imagined a situation where
there would not be a choice between a solid or a stripe, therefore
the rule is inadequate to address the situation. Several in this
thread (myself included), have stated that it would be fair for the
incoming player to shoot the 8-ball. I am a lifelong proponent
of logic, but one must always guard against logic blinding one
to options not considered.
So far, IMO, the best reasoned opinion expressed in this entire
thread has been Ron Shepard's - the situation needs to be
explicitly covered in the rules, one way or another.
_________________________________________________________________________________
It may be difficult to expand the rules trying to cover every possible
situation. Even then, situations could arise which had not been
considered. The event of 7 stripes being down without a group
being selected is so rare that it may not be worth the bother to
write a rule about it, unless current rules can be easily tweaked to
include the situation.
In the present case; what if 8-ball was played with 20 stripes and 20
solids. Would we be considering writing a new rule to cover a
situation where all 20 stripes were down without a group being selected?
When a situation occurs which is not covered by the rules there is
always the option to play the rack over. One of the players will be
disadvantaged by the replay, but the rarity of the event will make
the pain fade in time.
Rodan.
bk4...@hotmail.com
Yes.
Surely the rule of professional golf have been carefully dissected
(probably by lawyers, too!! LOL).
Is there a comparable 1 in 5 million occurrence in golf that is
comparable? And what do they do about it?
Just curious.
Bob Keller
Carter Adams
> I was in a pool room briefly a few nights ago to watch a young friend
> who was playing in his first 8-ball league. On the table next to the
> one he was playing on, a very unique and difficult ruling situation
> occurred (unique to me anyway) which was apparently not covered in any
> way by the World Standardized Rules of 8-ball:
>
> Six of the solid balls were pocketed on the opening break. When the
> breaker took the first shot after the break he sunk the remaining
> solid ball and scratched, leaving the table still open. The solid he
> pocketed stayed down, consistent with the league’s rules.
>
> player of course had ball in hand because of the scratch, and he
> placed the cue ball for an easy shot on the 8-ball, planning to simply
> sink the 8-ball and win the game.
>
This situation is specifically covered in the BCA Pool League Rules -
see section 2 of 2.6 at: http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook.aspx
~Carter
Rodan
"Carter Adams" <poolp...@gmail.com> wrote:
RE: Can an incoming player shoot the 8-ball if all the
stripes are pocketed and no group has been selected?
This situation is specifically covered in the BCA Pool League Rules -
see section 2 of 2.6 at:
http://www.playbca.com/Downloads/Rulebook/CompleteRulebook.aspx
____________________________________________________________________
I'll be danged. There it is, on page 41 of the 2009-2010
Official Rules of the BCA Pool League:
2.6 Establishing Groups
1. Groups are established when the first object ball is legally
pocketed on a shot after the break. The player legally pocketing
the first ball is assigned that group, and the opponent is assigned
the other group. You cannot establish a group on a safety. (AR p. 99)
2. If all balls of either group are pocketed on the break or illegally
pocketed before groups are established, either player may legally
shoot the 8-ball during their inning. You win the game if you legally
pocket the 8-ball on such a shot.
Rodan.
_______________________________________________________________________
Page 41
~Carter
JakartaDean
>> Architects! (Really kind of silly isn't it, Bob to imply that either
>> lawyers or architects think and behave alike, much less are what's
>> wrong with the world.)
>
> No. Lawyers seem to be trained to think in a strictly legalistic and
> subjective manner rather than search for the absolute and objective
> truth. Truth is that important.
>
It's funny you mention that, as my recent work has been to help a
provincial government improve its legal drafting skills. After a lot of
time and research, I settled on a method which you might call
"regulation as a tool to solve social problems." The idea is that
before you get to the legalistic bit, you sit down and think very, very
hard about what it is that you're trying to solve. People (here, at
least) typically jump in and, say, say we're banning street parking
because traffic is bad. Now traffic may be bad, but is eliminating
street parking the right solution? Perhaps enforcing existing traffic
rules, for example, would be more effective. The idea is to develop
problem-solving analytical skills to get to the core of the problem.
It's been an uphill battle. Much like pool has been for me lately
(getting back on topic).
Dean
bk4...@hotmail.com
Ditto that emotion - I'll be danged also!
This is the ruling that I thought was most fair.
Many kudos to Carter Adams for getting the facts first.
Bob Keller
Jack Stein
> Seems like you haven't read my posts (numbers 12 and 14 above?) where
> I've already addressed your points here?
> Maybe "parsing" is the wrong word, it wasn't mine. I used the word
> "legalistic" in my other posts.
The meaning of your post was clear, and that is the rules as written
were not intended to address this specific issue and trying to pick
apart a square rule to make it fit a round hole is not working.
>> What can be disputed about the essence of an open
>> table being the fact that the shooter has the option to pocket either
>> a strip or a solid?
> Because I don't think the rule-writers every imagined a situation
> where there would not be a choice between a solid or a stripe. It is
> entirely reasonable to assume they never imagined that, therefore the
> rule is inadequate to address the situation.
Even if the WPA rule writers intended to address the situation (I doubt
it) they did a lousy job, and moreover, arrived at a nasty conclusion.
In other words if they actually intended that by making 7 balls on a
legal break would result in a stalemate, they should have said it, and
boy, what a lousy decision that would be.
> So far, IMO, the best reasoned opinion expressed in this entire thread
> has been Ron Shepard's - the situation needs to be explicitly covered
> in the rules, one way or another.
Everyone except Becky and ironically you thought it needed addressed.
You seemed to have agreed with Becky that it happens rarely enough it
needn't be addressed. I can see the point, but really, if it happens as
often as someone hitting the lottery, it happens once a day:-)
Also, the amount of paper wasted on addressing something that comes up
every once in a blue moon is not going to rid the earth of trees.
Still, saying it needs addressed is weak. What do you think the rule
should state once addressed?
bvinco
> Everyone except Becky and ironically you thought it needed addressed.
> You seemed to have agreed with Becky that it happens rarely enough it
> needn't be addressed. I can see the point, but really, if it happens as
> often as someone hitting the lottery, it happens once a day:-)
It looks as if it HAS been addressed, and I think he said as often as he
hitting the lottery, which I took to meant that he hasn't (yet). :)
> Also, the amount of paper wasted on addressing something that comes up
> every once in a blue moon is not going to rid the earth of trees.
>
> Still, saying it needs addressed is weak. What do you think the rule
> should state once addressed?
Taking the road already paved, I say the rule that exists is fine. As
much as it's been an interesting thread to read, I think using bandwidth
on something that comes up more often is now due. Such as.... ummmmm....
hmmmm.... well.... never mind... carry on.
Becky
____________________________________________________________________�
Ron Shepard
<809487eb-d888-4f4d...@u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
"bk4...@hotmail.com" <bk4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That is probably why it isn't mentioned explicitly in the rules, it
doesn't happen very often. But, if you and I played, say, 100 games of
8-ball, we could force this situation to occur in every single one of
them if we wanted. That is the reason why I think it should be
mentioned specifically in the rules, even if the resolution is
effectively to leave everything the same as it is now.
I personally think the best way to handle this situation is to include
it in the stalemate rule because, otherwise, either winning or losing a
game like this is just too weird. Imagine if this is a
tournament-winning game. If you win a tournament like this, you would
feel afterwards that you got away with something you shouldn't have, and
if you lose a tournament because of a game like this, then you would
have to feel cheated by the rules. Of course, other people might feel
differently about the current situation, and I understand that, but the
various options should at least be discussed and the best one chosen.
It should not simply default and be decided by how this odd situation
falls between the cracks of the current rules.
BTW Bob, I know a pool player here who did win the lottery. He won
$16M. He chose to receive $800K/year for 20 years. He invested some of
it in a pool cue collection. So it can happen!
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
<7bcd9d51-1e5d-4857...@6g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
ernie <ernesto-s...@usa.net> wrote:
> An Open Table as defined in all sets of 8-ball rules is predicated on
> the shooter presented with an open table having a *choice* to make.
> By implication, there must be the *possibility* of choosing between
> two options (by the act of legally pocketing either a stripe or a
> solid).
With the current rules, the incoming player does have a choice (between
shooting a stripe or playing a safety), he just doesn't have the full
set of options that are usually available with an open table.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Jack Stein
addressed it should allow shooter to pick the stripes or shoot the 8
ball, treated as the last ball in the suit. Dave Y. gets extra points
for thinking my logic made the most sense.
Who would have guessed I'd be on the... right?:-)
--
Jack
You Can't Fix Stupid, but You Can Vote it Out!
http://jbstein.com
Jack Stein
> I personally think the best way to handle this situation is to include
> it in the stalemate rule because, otherwise, either winning or losing a
> game like this is just too weird. Imagine if this is a
> tournament-winning game. If you win a tournament like this, you would
> feel afterwards that you got away with something you shouldn't have, and
> if you lose a tournament because of a game like this, then you would
> have to feel cheated by the rules.
I dunno, if I broke and legally made 7 balls of one suit on the break,
and then was told I had to run out 7 balls of the other suit, I'd be
pretty damned unhappy. If I make 6 balls and foul on 7th ball, then my
punishment should hurt. This situation might be rare, as in 7 balls,
but what about making 3, 4 or 5 balls and fouling on the next ball, and
the incoming shooter gets to pick suits? Changing this rule simply
because 7 balls were made instead 6, or 5, or 4 is not very logical, or
fair.
I agree with Dave y., my logic (and as it turns out the BCA logic) makes
the most sense.
> Of course, other people might feel
> differently about the current situation, and I understand that, but the
> various options should at least be discussed and the best one chosen.
--
Jack
Got Change: More Unemployment! More Debt! More Fraud! Less Freedom!
http://jbstein.com
Ron Shepard
Jack Stein <jbst...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ron Shepard wrote:
>
> > I personally think the best way to handle this situation is to include
> > it in the stalemate rule because, otherwise, either winning or losing a
> > game like this is just too weird. Imagine if this is a
> > tournament-winning game. If you win a tournament like this, you would
> > feel afterwards that you got away with something you shouldn't have, and
> > if you lose a tournament because of a game like this, then you would
> > have to feel cheated by the rules.
>
> I dunno, if I broke and legally made 7 balls of one suit on the break,
> and then was told I had to run out 7 balls of the other suit, I'd be
> pretty damned unhappy.
My suggestion above is for a stalemate, which would mean a rerack
and break of that game.
> If I make 6 balls and foul on 7th ball, then my
> punishment should hurt. This situation might be rare, as in 7 balls,
> but what about making 3, 4 or 5 balls and fouling on the next ball, and
> the incoming shooter gets to pick suits? Changing this rule simply
> because 7 balls were made instead 6, or 5, or 4 is not very logical, or
> fair.
Making balls on the break is largely a matter of luck, so to some
extent the issue is the tradeoff between luck and skill. This is
the same basic issue related to making the 8-ball on the break (i.e.
whether it should be a win, or a loss, or respotted, or a rerack).
But, as I explained previously, this is not just an issue of making
balls on the break. An open table situation with all balls of one
(or both) groups being made can occur in other ways too, including
some which can occur with essentially 100% probability if the two
players so choose.
> I agree with Dave y., my logic (and as it turns out the BCA logic) makes
> the most sense.
FYI, our in-house league rules do cover this situation, and they do
it the same way as the posted BCA league rules (the incoming player
can call and shoot the 8-ball). We play slop-shot (APA-like) 8-ball
rules, so that might be important to some people in deciding which
rule is most consistent with the game. In our case, this rule was
selected by vote of our team captains. As I said previously, I
think a stalemate rule might be a little better, but at least our
rule set does cover the situation.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black
she...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
> In article <hse5su$c3n$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Jack Stein <jbst...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Ron Shepard wrote:
> >
> > > I personally think the best way to handle this situation is to include
> > > it in the stalemate rule because, otherwise, either winning or losing a
> > > game like this is just too weird. Imagine if this is a
> > > tournament-winning game. If you win a tournament like this, you would
> > > feel afterwards that you got away with something you shouldn't have, and
> > > if you lose a tournament because of a game like this, then you would
> > > have to feel cheated by the rules.
> >
> > I dunno, if I broke and legally made 7 balls of one suit on the break,
> > and then was told I had to run out 7 balls of the other suit, I'd be
> > pretty damned unhappy.
>
> My suggestion above is for a stalemate, which would mean a rerack
> and break of that game.
So a guy who has the break of his life is rewarded with... a stalemate.
Doesn't count, sorry. Um, I don't think so!
John Black
bk4...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> BTW Bob, I know a pool player here who did win the lottery. He won
> $16M. He chose to receive $800K/year for 20 years. He invested some of
> it in a pool cue collection. So it can happen!
He is my HERO!
LOL
Bob Keller
Ron Shepard
John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
With the current rules, that "break of his life" is rewarded
with...having to pocket all of the remaining balls on the table of
the other group. I think a stalemate is more fair than the current
rule. Don't you?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Black
Yes. I'm in agreement with those who think the rules need to address this
situation in a way that says he can shoot the 8 ball.
John Black
Jack Stein
> Jack Stein wrote:
>>> I personally think the best way to handle this situation is to include
>>> it in the stalemate rule because, otherwise, either winning or losing a
>>> game like this is just too weird. Imagine if this is a
>>> tournament-winning game. If you win a tournament like this, you would
>>> feel afterwards that you got away with something you shouldn't have, and
>>> if you lose a tournament because of a game like this, then you would
>>> have to feel cheated by the rules.
Are you saying this because you think something must be wrong in order
to make 6 or 7 balls on a break in 8 ball? I guess it would be rather
weird, probably a bad rack but bad racks are part of the game.
>> I dunno, if I broke and legally made 7 balls of one suit on the break,
>> and then was told I had to run out 7 balls of the other suit, I'd be
>> pretty damned unhappy.
> My suggestion above is for a stalemate, which would mean a rerack
> and break of that game.
That's even worse. I make 7 balls and my reward is a stalemate?
>> If I make 6 balls and foul on 7th ball, then my
>> punishment should hurt. This situation might be rare, as in 7 balls,
>> but what about making 3, 4 or 5 balls and fouling on the next ball, and
>> the incoming shooter gets to pick suits? Changing this rule simply
>> because 7 balls were made instead 6, or 5, or 4 is not very logical, or
>> fair.
>
> Making balls on the break is largely a matter of luck, so to some
> extent the issue is the tradeoff between luck and skill. This is
> the same basic issue related to making the 8-ball on the break (i.e.
> whether it should be a win, or a loss, or respotted, or a rerack).
I agree to a point. Rules of a game are just made up. Still, I like
rules that at least appear to make sense. For example, 8 on the break
is a win, 8 and CB on break is a loss, make sense because of pay tables
and costing cash to spot the 8 or to rerack. Making it a win rather
than a loss is arbitrary I guess, but since 9 on break is a win, players
are more apt to reward making the money ball than punishing the feat.
> But, as I explained previously, this is not just an issue of making
> balls on the break. An open table situation with all balls of one
> (or both) groups being made can occur in other ways too, including
> some which can occur with essentially 100% probability if the two
> players so choose.
You've said that before, but I can't imagine why it would be done,
particularly with a rule that says they could shoot the 8 and win if an
open table with no balls of a suit were left.
> FYI, our in-house league rules do cover this situation, and they do
> it the same way as the posted BCA league rules (the incoming player
> can call and shoot the 8-ball). We play slop-shot (APA-like) 8-ball
> rules, so that might be important to some people in deciding which
> rule is most consistent with the game.
APA slop shot rule is a non issue I think. APA says you must shoot
whatever suit you make on a break, so, by APA rules, I guess if you make
7 balls of one suit, or 6 and foul on the 7th, that is your suit, and I
guess you would be shooting the 8. Slop shot doesn't seem to enter into
the decision. Also, while APA is slop shot, you still have to call the
8 (inconsistent) and more goofy is you must patch it, insuring fights
over patching take place routinely.
In our case, this rule was selected by vote of our team captains.
My Monday night league has a meeting every year over the rules. They've
been doing it for 40 years, and the rules are a mess. For example, it
took them 30 years to agree to remove the call everything rule, but,
they kept it for the 8 ball. So, it's call pocket until you get to the
8, then let the fights begin. Also, they fight every year over fouls
and safety play. As it stands, unless BOTH players agree to play by
more formal WPA type rules, they must attempt to make all shots and
safety play is not allowed. Again, "where were you trying to make that
ball?" let the fights begin.
As I said previously, I
> think a stalemate rule might be a little better, but at least our
> rule set does cover the situation.
I think the most balls I've seen made on a break in 8 ball is 5, and
probably not in the same suit. I'm just guessing because I think if I
saw 5 in one suit I would remember it, and 6 I know I'd remember it.
--
Jack
The reason I carry a gun is because a cop is too heavy.
http://jbstein.com