14.1 fouls and deliberate fouls
Roger Ballenger
have taken a foul by shooting softly into the rack, hoping to shoot away
with a legal safety on my next turn (assuming my opponent also takes a
foul).
Today, I went to a new pool hall and played with a player who informed me
that my scratch constituted a 'deliberate foul' and I would be penalized 15
points. Not having played 14.1 with anyone seriously for the last 15 years,
I consulted my 1998 BCA Official Rules and Records book when I returned
home. A deliberate foul is described as such:
"A player may not catch, touch, or in any way interfere with a ball as it
travels toward a pocket or the rack area on a shot (to include catching a
ball as it enters a pocket by having a hand in the pocket)."
I don't think my 'taking a scratch' fits this category, so, I guess my
question is: "Is it no longer legal to 'take a scratch', or is that
considered a 'deliberate foul'?"
Bob Jewett, I'd really appreciate it if you can respond to this, since you
are on the BCA Rules Committee. Sometimes I don't get all the messages from
the newsgroup, so if you could forward this to my email, it would be great.
Thank you,
Roger Ballenger
Roger M. Orsulak
essence of a great straight pool game - the ability to strategize your
way to the first open shot. I suspect that your opponent is ignorant
(meant in it's kindest way) of the basics of the game. Hopefully, you
can convince him. While you intentionally took a scratch, this is not
what the rules consider a deliberate foul. Trading safes and taking
scratches at the right time, for the right reason is one of the aspects
that raises straight pool above all others IMO IMO IMO :-) If there's
anyone older than 35 in your room, you should be able to come up with at
least that many people who support your position.
By the way, on rare occasions, and depending on the level of the
players, there are even times where taking the third scratch and the
resulting penalty and 'opening' break are your best option. There were
several times during one game this weekend where my opponent and I each
took two fouls, jockeying for position. Fortunately for both of us, it
never came to three.
Glad to see someone still plays the game.
Roger
delete 'no' if replying by email
Roger Ballenger wrote:
>
> For years I've played 14.1, and, when confronted with a difficult situation,
> have taken a foul by shooting softly into the rack, hoping to shoot away
> with a legal safety on my next turn (assuming my opponent also takes a
> foul).
>
> Today, I went to a new pool hall and played with a player who informed me
> that my scratch constituted a 'deliberate foul' and I would be penalized 15
> points. <snip>
Qnut9
ball we think nothing of calling "safe" and pocketing the ball while putting
some distance between the rack and cue ball. When I am playing a stranger I
don't feel comortable in this strategy due to fear that they will not see this
as a ploy to get an advantage, but rather as the chicken way out . Is there a
better way to play this situation? Would it be better to call the shot and then
play safe, as in a "deliberate" foul? Most people I know will do there damndest
to hit the rack even in the face of impending doom.
T.V.B. <-----Thinks the Monk may be on to something.
emer...@execpc.com
Anyone bored with standard league play who thinks they may be interested in
trying some straight pool may want to try what I've been doing lately. Every
Monday, I meet a worthy opponent at Romines. We play 2 games of straight
pool to 100 for $20/game. We are playing a longer match up to 2000 total,
which these games count towards. The first one to 2000 wins $100 and the
high run for the total match wins another $20. We've been recording each
inning on a straight pool scoresheet. I've created a spreadsheet (who ever
would have guessed??) that calculates balls per inning, safety %, miss %, and
error % for each game, and for the totals including high run for the match.
It's very easy to update off the scoresheets, and is an excellent measure of
whether you've played a good game, bad game, or where you may need some
improvement.
What I like about this is I'm not searching for someone to play, I've got a
scheduled game and I know I'm going to get at least two games in per week.
Right now this is all the pool I'm playing, unfortunately.
I've learned that I miss about 1 out of 10 shots. I run 20+ balls about 6%
of my innings, and my high run after 14 games is 43 (done twice, once
unfinished.) I'm a little disappointed neither of us have hit a 50 ball run
yet, but I still think it will happen before we're done.
As always, I am willing to share this spreadsheet with others who are
interested. It's created in Excel 97. I will put it up on my website soon.
Ed Mercier
President
Billiard Congress of Wisconsin
http://www.execpc.com/~emercier/bcw/
In article <3635DA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mike Page
<ball...@usmo.com> wrote:
--while we're waiting for Mr. Jewett so sign on...
I recall a discussion from quite some time ago about deliberate fouls vs.
intentional fouls. On the street, the words deliberate and intentional
mean the same thing, but in the pool hall they are terms of art. What you
did was an intentional foul, a perfectly reasonable strategic shot where
you choose to take the one-point penalty. The other kind--throwing your
stick on the table full of balls, swinging the scratched cueball four
rails around the table rearranging the object balls....---should probably
be called something different than a "deliberate" foul. Aggregious?
heinous? dastardly? unthinkable? slimy? ??
--
mike page
fargo
fred....@nypro.com
noma...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Right you are. Your play is standard practice and in many ways the
> essence of a great straight pool game - the ability to strategize your
> way to the first open shot. I suspect that your opponent is ignorant
> (meant in it's kindest way) of the basics of the game. Hopefully, you
> can convince him. While you intentionally took a scratch, this is not
> what the rules consider a deliberate foul. Trading safes and taking
> scratches at the right time, for the right reason is one of the aspects
> that raises straight pool above all others IMO IMO IMO :-) If there's
> anyone older than 35 in your room, you should be able to come up with at
> least that many people who support your position.
First of all, I agree with you. Second of all, I'm not older than 35, but I
still support both of your position. Straight pool and Rotation were the
only games I knew when I first learned to play (18 years ago!).
The confusion is in the term "intentional foul". You properly call this an
"intentional scratch" which is what I call it. BTW, is there a penalty for
an "intention foul" in straight pool other than to scratch a point and a slap
in the wrist?
--
Fred Agnir
-Believer in special voodoo magic-
Bob Jewett
[Takes and absolutely standard straight pool intentional foul,
and is confronted by an ignorant opponent.]
: I don't think my 'taking a scratch' fits this category, so, I guess my
: question is: "Is it no longer legal to 'take a scratch', or is that
: considered a 'deliberate foul'?"
Tell your opponent that he don't know squat and he oughta get a rule
book and a little experience. You may quote me.
But seriously, I suppose the rule book could be worded more clearly in
that section, at least to clear up the intent of the rule. This
points out a problem in general with rules: beside knowing the rules,
part of learning how to play is learning how good players play. (Imagine
trying to learn how basketball is played from the rule book.) People
who have any hesitancy to play an intentional foul at 14.1 when it is
the right shot probably haven't seen champions play.
Bob Jewett
Member, BCA Rules Committee
Gary Ives
>In article <3635DA...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>,
> noma...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> Right you are. Your play is standard practice and in many ways the
>> essence of a great straight pool game - the ability to strategize your
>> way to the first open shot. I suspect that your opponent is ignorant
>> (meant in it's kindest way) of the basics of the game. Hopefully, you
>> can convince him. While you intentionally took a scratch, this is not
>> what the rules consider a deliberate foul. Trading safes and taking
>> scratches at the right time, for the right reason is one of the aspects
>> that raises straight pool above all others IMO IMO IMO :-) If there's
>> anyone older than 35 in your room, you should be able to come up with at
>> least that many people who support your position.
><snip>
>
>First of all, I agree with you. Second of all, I'm not older than 35, but I
>still support both of your position. Straight pool and Rotation were the
>only games I knew when I first learned to play (18 years ago!).
>
>The confusion is in the term "intentional foul". You properly call this an
>"intentional scratch" which is what I call it. BTW, is there a penalty for
>an "intention foul" in straight pool other than to scratch a point and a slap
>in the wrist?
>
Yeah, if there's a dead ball in the rack that you didn't see ;)
Gary
Roger M. Orsulak
>
Glad to see you're younger than 35 and playing straight. :-) It just
seems that with the COM (this too is an initialism and NOT and acronym -
sorry, different thread), EVERYBODY plays nine ball. I ran into a
player - 48 yrs old the other day who used to be a very good straight
pool player - high run of 236. He told me that he hasn't played a game
of straight in 15 years. There's no money in it. Hope you weren't
offended Fred, that wasn't my intention. What was my intention was to
point out that since it's almost a novelty in today's room (I think I
hear people giggle when I shoot the eight "out of turn"), Mr. Ballenger
needs to find older players who were familiar with the game as it is
played.
As a follow-up to the original post, I've heard a friend of mine quote
Irving Crane, something to the effect that "If I (Crane) take the first
scratch, you're in trouble." The point is, there is a strategy. Many
times, one player is trying to convince the other to move the cue to a
position where he will leave a shot, or, leave you in a position to play
a lock-up safe not available from the starting location. Players of
Crane's era/ability raised this aspect of the game to an art form, one
which I enjoy dearly.
In answer to your post, I used the term "intentional scratch" with
purpose, but it truly is synonymous with "intentional foul." What
differs is a "deliberate foul." These are a whole 'nother category. An
example, in straight, is touching the cue ball or any other ball with
any part of the stick other than the tip (like shooting over a ball).
This, whether intentional or not, is defined as a "deliberate foul" and
subject to the 15 point penalty for such. I know, I did it twice in one
tournament game, called it on myself, much to my opponent's
bewilderment, and lost the match 100 to 70. (yeah, I'd call it again.)
By the way, this is not to be confused with positioning the cue ball
while it is 'in hand' within the head string. This is allowed.
Additional types of deliberate fouls, some quite flagrant, were
mentioned by others. I suspect that in refereed matches, these are not
tolerated and after appropriate warnings can, and should result in
disqualification. In unrefereed matches when these occur, you just
finish that game as well as possible and find another opponent.
Now, on the other hand, if your question is, is there an additional
penalty for what we'll call an intentional scratch, the answer is no.
That's the job of the three foul rule. It allows safety play (which may
include intentional scratches) within limits. Those limits were chosen
as two successive by a single player without further penalty. With
three, you get eggroll and a chance to practice your break shot. As I
mentioned before, sometimes (though usually not) it's to your advantage
to take that third scratch - but you'd better have a lock-up break or be
great at crossing the corner ball into the head pocket.
Fred, best regards,
Roger
delete 'no' if replying by email
> First of all, I agree with you. Second of all, I'm not older than 35, but I
> still support both of your position. Straight pool and Rotation were the
> only games I knew when I first learned to play (18 years ago!).
>
> The confusion is in the term "intentional foul". You properly call this an
> "intentional scratch" which is what I call it. BTW, is there a penalty for
> an "intention foul" in straight pool other than to scratch a point and a slap
> in the wrist?
>
> --
> Fred Agnir
>
Stephen Tu
<36369A...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net>, "Roger M. Orsulak"
<noma...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>In answer to your post, I used the term "intentional scratch" with
>purpose, but it truly is synonymous with "intentional foul." What
>differs is a "deliberate foul." These are a whole 'nother category. An
>example, in straight, is touching the cue ball or any other ball with
>any part of the stick other than the tip (like shooting over a ball).
>This, whether intentional or not, is defined as a "deliberate foul" and
>subject to the 15 point penalty for such. I know, I did it twice in one
I don't think so.
The rules state:
A player may not catch, touch, or in any way interfere with a ball as it
travels toward a pocket or the rack area on a shot (to include catching
a ball as it enters a pocket by having a hand in the pocket). If he
does, he is charged with a special "deliberate foul" and is penalized
...
This doesn't seem to require a 15 pt penalty w/ rebreak if you foul by
unintentionally grazing an object ball with your shirt while shooting,
just the normal 1 pt foul penalty.
--
Stephen Tu
ste...@jps.net
Bob Jewett
: ... What
: differs is a "deliberate foul." These are a whole 'nother category. An
: example, in straight, is touching the cue ball or any other ball with
: any part of the stick other than the tip (like shooting over a ball).
: This, whether intentional or not, is defined as a "deliberate foul" and
: subject to the 15 point penalty for such.
The touching has to be intentional for it to be a "deliberate foul".
Often when bridging over most of the rack to shoot the cue ball away
from the rack, the ferrule or shaft will touch a ball by accident.
This is a standard foul and a one-point penalty.
Bob Jewett
Roger M. Orsulak
authority on the current version. My comment, and the incident that I
described were based on the rules in force in the early to mid 70s. (The
afoerementioned tournament was ca. '73.) I had mistakenly assumed that
this rule had not changed.
The '76 rule book, under the heading interference, states:
"If a player accidently disturbs in any manner the cue ball or an object
ball with his necktie, coat, his hand or any part of his body or
clothes, he has fouled. He loses his inning and forfeits one point.
If a player touches the cue ball or any object ball with any part of
the cue other than the tip it shall be declared a deliberate foul. The
offender shall be penalized 15 points and be required to break as of the
opening break."
The rule was explicit in its distinction that incidental contact is a
one point foul EXCEPT for the cue stick. That SHALL be delcared a
deliberate foul.
I guess I should go out and buy a new rule book. I have somewhat of a
collection of them but nothing recent. I do agree that incidental
contact with the stick should result in a one point penalty and am
grateful that this rule has been changed. Thanks for setting me
straight.
Roger M. Orsulak
incidental contact with clothing was a 15 point foul. I DID mean to
imply that incidental contact with the cue, other than the tip, is a
deliberate foul, subject to a 15 point penalty. This was my
understanding based on the 1977 rules (see my reply to Bob Jewett). I
understand from Bob, that this is no longer the case, and that
incidental contact with the cue is a one point foul.
Roger
delete 'no' if replying by email
Bob Jewett
: Bob: I don't have a copy of the most recent rules, and I'll bow to your
: authority on the current version. My comment, and the incident that I
: described were based on the rules in force in the early to mid 70s. (The
: afoerementioned tournament was ca. '73.) I had mistakenly assumed that
: this rule had not changed.
: The '76 rule book, under the heading interference, states:
[any shaft-ball contact is a 15-point foul, etc.]
The BCA rules went through a bleak period around 1976. That was the
time that the majority of 14.1 players (Mizerak, Hopkins, Crane, Margo)
broke away from the BCA (over the U.S. Open, mostly) and formed the
PPPA. The powers that were at the BCA decided to mess with the rules.
I suspect that the particular wording you quoted was just a bad think-o
on the part of whoever was revising them. To the best of my knowledge,
never has 14.1 been played in tournaments where such a foul, when
accidental, was a 15-point penalty.
A similar example is the wording a few years ago of the requirement for
a foot on the floor. It was actually written in a way that required
you to have both feet on the floor.
Another rule that was changed then (and is now changed back,
thankfully) was the penalty for three consecutive fouls. It was
changed to 20% of the game length, and I believe the non-fouler was
given the option of shooting with the balls in position.
Bob Jewett
Roger M. Orsulak
>
<snip> To the best of my knowledge,
> never has 14.1 been played in tournaments where such a foul, when
> accidental, was a 15-point penalty.
>
no wonder I felt like I was the only one playing that way... I WAS. I do
recall getting some very strange looks from some very knowledgeable and
talented people when discussing this years ago. Guess I should have
listened - they were over 35. :-)
<snip>
> Another rule that was changed then (and is now changed back,
> thankfully) was the penalty for three consecutive fouls. It was
> changed to 20% of the game length, and I believe the non-fouler was
> given the option of shooting with the balls in position.
>
You are correct on both counts, and I too applaud the change back to 15.
Thanks for the insight.
Roger M. Orsulak
I have always used foul and scratch pretty much interchangebly. The
version of the rule book that I was quoting, '77, seemed to do the same.
For example:
"Frozen Cue Ball: ... Failure to comply with this requirement is a
foul. Penalty: loss of one point."
"Loss of Points: When a player has scratched, he loses his inning,
forfeits one point ..."
Interestingly enough, the '77 book calls for a penalty of 25 points for
3 successive "scratches" with the requirement of the offending player to
break as of the opening break. The incoming player has the option of
that penalty (25 + break) or accepting the balls in position. This was
the same in '78. By '82, the 25 balls had been changed to 20% as Bob
Jewett noted.
Now, the '82 book, in the section formerly entitled "Loss of Points,"
which deals with the 3 successive fouls/scratch issue, the section is
re-titled "Successive Foul Penalties." There is also a section
entitled "Penalties for Fouls," which states: " One point deducted for
each foul; NOTE: more severe penalties for deliberate fouls (Rule of
Play #5) and third 'Successive Fouls' (below). Incoming player accepts
teh cue ball in position unless the foul was a jumped cue ball, pocket
scratch, deliberate foul (Rule of Play #5) or third successive foul."
The "Rule of Play #5" deals with deliberately interfering with the path
of a ball, e.g., sticking your hand in the pocket to prevent a scratch,
- 1 point for the foul, and an additional 15 for it being stupid
(deliberate).
From my reading, historically, foul and scratch have been used
synonymously. Foul seems to be more encompassing since we normally
think of "scratch" as a pocket scratch. The rule books that I have seem
to be consistent in the treatment of "deliberate fouls" as being
separate and distinct from either a "scratch" or plain old
run-of-the-mill "foul."
Roger
delete 'no' if replying by email.
fred....@nypro.com wrote:
>
> I had a mentor that specifically separated a foul and a scratch.
>
> Scratch: Any legal part of the game which results in a loss of a point(s) or
> other penalty, e.g. not making contact with a cushion
>
> Foul: Any illegal action.,. e.g. double hitting the cue ball, spitting in
> the chalk, placing an aiming device on the rail etc..
>
> I remember Danny Diliberto saying the exact same thing, so I assumed that all
> straight pool players used this distinction. In fact, in previous BCA
> rulebooks, "scratch" and "foul" were definately two different animals. All
> fouls are scratches, but all scratches are not necessarily fouls.
>
> Deliberate fouls are exactly that: deliberate illegal actions in the game.
> Again, the initial confusion from the first post is the term "deliberate
> foul".
>
> My question is: Is there any written penalty for a deliberate foul ( not a
> deliberate scratch).
>
> --
> Fred Agnir
>
fred....@nypro.com
jew...@netcom.com (Bob Jewett) wrote:
<snip>
> Another rule that was changed then (and is now changed back,
> thankfully) was the penalty for three consecutive fouls. It was
> changed to 20% of the game length, and I believe the non-fouler was
> given the option of shooting with the balls in position.
>
>
>
Correct me if I'm wrong (that goes without saying) but I believe that during
the period of that "20%" rule, there was an additional ball-in-hand penalty
either in the rulebook, or maybe just at the U.S. Open that year.
--
Regards,
Fred Agnir
Ron Shepard
noma...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net wrote:
>I have always used foul and scratch pretty much interchangebly. [...]
I learned this too, but now the term "scratch" is limited to the cue ball
dropping into a pocket. The only additional situation is when the pocket
is full and the cue ball touches a ball that has already been pocketed.
This is still a "scratch" even though the cue ball is still rolling around
the table and may still affect other aspects of the shot (affect the
trajectories of other balls, break up clusters, etc.).
However, speaking of interchangeable terms, I usually use the terms
"deliberate" and "intentional" as synonyms. Maybe it's just me, but I
would like to have a more obvious term for the type of foul that incurs
additional penalties. I like the term "Dastardly Foul" myself -- little
chance for confusion there.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
jimfl...@gmail.com
Since as we all know, straight pool values or appreciates the well chosen intentional scratch: I set the cue ball on the rim of a corner pocket in the kitchen and press it wedged behind the point with my cue. Really a push shot. So that’s a foul. Plus I don’t contact any object ball. Or cross the line or try to.
From what I find online which is a bit messy: my idea results in ball in hand for opponent in the kitchen? (He’s still on 2?) And I may even get unsportsmanlike conduct?
Pretty seriously different treatment for the same general idea of the well chosen push shot no rail foul (a la Crane et al). Okay maybe it’s too creative and too powerful to corner hook someone on 2. But unsportsmanlike conduct?