|
world rules
|
| jonny p |
Posted on 01-08-2008 06:21
|
Quite The Regular
Posts: 65
Joined: 24.06.08
|
on a thursday down the folly run by jerry fryer, theres a knockout tourlament and there's been a dispute with the rules ( they play the same world rules as in the league). I wasn't playing but the player broke off and done an illeagall break off with 2 balls touching the cuision and the white never went in and he never potted a ball off the break, Jon hearsey said the player coming on next has the right to taking the re-rack OR taking 2 shots from where it lies. Me thinks this is wrong and bet a tenner on it with him but I need to clarrify the situation cause it got heated (and I hope to win a tenner), I do believe if a foul break is called there is no situation where you can carry on and take the 2 shots, you have too re rack and start again with the player who did'nt foul break getting the break with 2 shots and he has to perform a legal break....please confirm...or make me run away to skegness and owe jon hearsey a tenner |
| |
|
|
| Spudangles |
Posted on 01-08-2008 13:27
|
Home From Home
Posts: 206
Joined: 04.11.07
|
You're correct, John is ermmmmm just John  |
| |
|
|
| Teach |
Posted on 02-08-2008 16:27
|
Home From Home
Posts: 484
Joined: 16.10.07
|
Here's another argument that came up recently:
Player is at the table clearing the balls to win the game and draw the match 5-5. As he plays and pots his penultimate ball, the other player complains that his sleeve was all over another ball whilst playing the shot.
Player playing the shot is unaware of this (so couldn't own up), and the opposition ref was positioned on the other side of the table and couldn't see the alleged offence. The team at the table had in fact forgotten to put in their own ref so there was only one ref officiating the game (this was only realised at this point).
So:
1) Should the opposition ref have re-positioned herself so she could see the offence?
2) Should the playing team have been punished for forgetting to have a ref in place?
and crucially....
3) If the playing team had of had a ref in place, should they be calling fouls for their own team???
What do people think? |
| |
|
|
| andye |
Posted on 02-08-2008 18:10
|
Home From Home
Posts: 394
Joined: 02.10.07
|
if your ref isn't there to confirm either way then you have to accept what the ref says... then blame your ref for not seeing you didn't touch it!!! |
| |
|
|
| Sass |
Posted on 02-08-2008 23:51
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1804
Joined: 10.09.07
|
The only person who can call the foul is the ref. If the ref doesn't see it the ref cannot call it. |
| |
|
|
| andye |
Posted on 03-08-2008 18:16
|
Home From Home
Posts: 394
Joined: 02.10.07
|
Sass wrote:
The only person who can call the foul is the ref. If the ref doesn't see it the ref cannot call it.
wrong... you can call a foul on yourself! |
| |
|
|
| Horseradish |
Posted on 03-08-2008 19:43
|
Just Popping In
Posts: 9
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Teach wrote:
3) If the playing team had of had a ref in place, should they be calling fouls for their own team???
Yes, of course they should. If a ref sees a foul it he or she should call it. |
| |
|
|
| Sass |
Posted on 03-08-2008 23:48
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1804
Joined: 10.09.07
|
andye wrote:
Sass wrote:
The only person who can call the foul is the ref. If the ref doesn't see it the ref cannot call it.
wrong... you can call a foul on yourself!
Wrong ... in the given situation the player was unaware they had committed a foul. Generally speaking you are of course correct. |
| |
|
|
| Bink286 |
Posted on 01-05-2009 17:27
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 38
Joined: 22.06.08
|
Hi
I'm having a little trouble interpreting the touching ball rules.
I'm OK with the rules if the white ball is to be played away when touching one ball, or indeed when the white is in contact with one of my balls and at the same time one of my opponent's balls (where I can play into the opponent's ball and move it just so long as I don't move mine as I play the shot).
What the rules do not seem to cater for is the following:-
1) Touching two of my own balls. My guess is that I've got to play away in such manner as to avoid moving either of them, as an inference from the rule about touching one of mine and one of yours at the same time, and as with touching just one of mine, it will be deemed to be legal as long as I touch a cushion with something. However, it could also be inferred that I'm allowed to move one of mine, as long as I don't move my other one?
Please could someone clarify this for me?
2) Touching two of my opponent's balls. My guess is that I can move one of them but not both as I play my shot, and then have to make contact with my own object ball in order to be a legal shot. Once again this is inferred from the rule about being allowed to move an opponent ball but not my own from the rules. However, it could also be inferred that I'm not allowed to move either, as there isn't anything specific about it in the rules and each of the opposition balls can be looked at individually as though I was just touching one, under that rule?
Please, again, could someone clarify.
3) Touching one of my balls and the black at the same time. Does the touching two balls rule permit me to move the black as I strike the cue ball, or not, as it is not an opponent's ball under a strict interpretation of the rule?
Yet again, please could this be clarified.
4) Touching one of my opponent's balls and the black.
Is the answer to this the same as the answer to 2, until such time as the black is my object ball, at which time the black becomes one of my balls and we can clearly revert to the rules?
Obviously, the time taken to answer this question for me will not eat into the one minute allocated for your next shot.
hth |
| |
|
|
| longshanks |
Posted on 01-05-2009 18:16
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 709
Joined: 07.10.07
|
2) surely it must be a foul if you are touching two opponents balls and you move one before striking one of yours. |
| |
|
|
| Fat-Dart |
Posted on 01-05-2009 18:17
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1308
Joined: 05.10.07
|
S. Touching Balls
1. GENERAL
a) If the Cue Ball is touching an Object Ball, the player is obliged to "Play Away" from that Object Ball at an angle of more than 90 degrees. (That is, play the shot without causing the Cue Ball to make any initial further contact with that Object Ball)
b.) If, when playing away from a touching ball, the touching ball rocks or moves without being contacted further, but simply because the Cue Ball is no longer there, no penalty will apply.
2. Playing away from two or more touching Object Balls:- If any of the touching Object Balls are of the player's Colour, the player will be deemed to have played away if the player plays away from any one of the touching balls of the player's Colour. That is, the player may play into any of the other touching balls. The player needs then to only pot a ball or cause any ball to strike a cushion to fulfil the requirements of a Legal Shot.
If the cue ball is touching the opponent ball(s), then you have to play away regardless, as any further contact would be a foul, as you obviously have to hit your own colour, not theirs. In the scenario you mention, in contact with yours and theirs, then it's deemed that you have already hit yours, hence you can 'play through' their ball. Same with the black involved, unless you're on the black of course.
If the balls are in such a position that you can't play away from them, then you have no option but to play a foul...
W. Impossible Shot
A situation may arise during a frame where it is impossible for a player to play a shot without fouling. In such a situation the player has no other option but to commit a foul.
Edited by Fat-Dart on 01-05-2009 18:18 |
| |
|
|
| Fat-Dart |
Posted on 01-05-2009 18:39
|
FORUM ADDICT!
Posts: 1308
Joined: 05.10.07
|
Spudangles wrote:
You're correct, John is ermmmmm just John
Exactly. Jeeves, he owes you a tenner.
Here's an extract taken from World Rules:
b.) If the Break is not a Fair Break it is a Non-Standard Foul AND:-
i) The opponent is awarded two visits.
ii) The balls are re-racked.
iii) The opponent re-starts the game and is under the same obligation to achieve a Fair Break. |
| |
|
|
| Bink286 |
Posted on 01-05-2009 18:58
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 38
Joined: 22.06.08
|
Fat-Dart wrote:
S. Touching Balls
1. GENERAL
a) If the Cue Ball is touching an Object Ball, the player is obliged to "Play Away" from that Object Ball at an angle of more than 90 degrees. (That is, play the shot without causing the Cue Ball to make any initial further contact with that Object Ball)
b.) If, when playing away from a touching ball, the touching ball rocks or moves without being contacted further, but simply because the Cue Ball is no longer there, no penalty will apply.
2. Playing away from two or more touching Object Balls:- If any of the touching Object Balls are of the player's Colour, the player will be deemed to have played away if the player plays away from any one of the touching balls of the player's Colour. That is, the player may play into any of the other touching balls. The player needs then to only pot a ball or cause any ball to strike a cushion to fulfil the requirements of a Legal Shot.
If the cue ball is touching the opponent ball(s), then you have to play away regardless, as any further contact would be a foul, as you obviously have to hit your own colour, not theirs. In the scenario you mention, in contact with yours and theirs, then it's deemed that you have already hit yours, hence you can 'play through' their ball. Same with the black involved, unless you're on the black of course.
If the balls are in such a position that you can't play away from them, then you have no option but to play a foul...
W. Impossible Shot
A situation may arise during a frame where it is impossible for a player to play a shot without fouling. In such a situation the player has no other option but to commit a foul.
Very helpful indeed.
Thank you. |
| |
|
|
| JugglingSpence |
Posted on 01-05-2009 21:44
|
Home From Home
Posts: 271
Joined: 05.10.07
|
The reason you can't move any touching balls that are in contact with the cue ball is because it is a push shot so ALL balls that are touching the cue ball should stay perfectly still when it is played.
If the contact is with a ball of your target colour then the shot starts with that box ticked (just like the point where the cue ball makes contact in a normal shot). Once you've made contact with a ball of your colour the cue ball can hit any ball.
Edited by JugglingSpence on 01-05-2009 21:50
As happy as a single man living above a chip shop |
| |
|
|
| Shaggy |
Posted on 01-05-2009 22:41
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 888
Joined: 02.10.07
|
So to clarify, if you are touching two of your own balls, you are deemed to be touching one (either of them) and can play directly into any other ball on the table including the other half of the touching ball scenario.
House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| |
|
|
| Bink286 |
Posted on 09-06-2009 21:30
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 38
Joined: 22.06.08
|
I was present at the meeting at which Scottish doubles was approved as the official format for CPL doubles knockout games.
At the time, the powers that be suggested (amid a fair amount of derision from the floor) that there was a rule as to whom should nominate if the team breaking were to pot a ball from the break.
The rule, we were told, was that the player who had potted the ball should nominate and his partner should then continue the visit, so instructed.
It would appear that there is still some confusion about this, as in a match last night, the team that failed to nominate at all were of the opinion in the ensuing conversation that the player that was coming to the table should have nominated, whereas I was of the opinion that the player who had potted the ball should have nominated....
No agreement was reached, and in any event the conversation could not continue, obviously, with the more pressing one minute rule taking precedence over such friendly banter....
Does anyone know the rules over who should nominate in a scottish doubles' game? |
| |
|
|
| JugglingSpence |
Posted on 09-06-2009 21:51
|
Home From Home
Posts: 271
Joined: 05.10.07
|
I think it is the player who breaks that nominates...
And the 1 minute rule doesn't apply to the Singles and doubles KO cup as there isn't a referee so you could have had your friendly banter if you wanted.
As happy as a single man living above a chip shop |
| |
|
|
| Dogger |
Posted on 09-06-2009 22:19
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 805
Joined: 02.10.07
|
yeah i thought it was the player that brakes and pots has to nominate. but NO confering between the break off shot and the next shot, thats correct isnt it? we had to point that out to two guys last night who didnt agree and thought they could discuss what to go for. |
| |
|
|
| longshanks |
Posted on 09-06-2009 22:27
|
Must Get Out More
Posts: 709
Joined: 07.10.07
|
Correct. Breaker nominates and no conferring. |
| |
|
|
| Bink286 |
Posted on 30-06-2009 16:24
|
Getting The Hang Of It
Posts: 38
Joined: 22.06.08
|
I think that this Scottish doubles format of ours has a rule which is basically unenforceable, and that it needs to be removed.
The rule is that with respect to 'no conferring during the visit'.
I observed a game last night, where I saw players conferring mid-way through their visit. I was not playing, I have no idea if their opposition had noticed, or even if they were aware of a breach of the rule, but without an independent referee at doubles fixtures, if the opposition had attempted to claim such 'foul' and a two shot penalty, this could easily have led to precisely the sort of argument that can result in fisticuffs.
As it was, our secretary told me he thought that our lads were also in breach of the rules, and that they had spoken during a visit.
My own doubles partnership could become fully aware that if one of us apologises to the other once; it means that he thinks the incoming player should take the object ball nearest the white, or apologises twice; to choose an object ball further away. It would appear that many of the doubles teams don't know the rules, or worse can't be bothered with utilising this level of subtlety.
I think that the rule is basically unenforceable, and should be scrapped. |
| |
|
