FORUM CLOSING ON 14th JANUARY

PoolQueen · Ultimate Poster (1-0 up in a best of 7)

RE: Who'll win the 2010/11 Abingdon League?

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

This was the wording used in the E&UKPF Rules that were inforce prior to Blackball Rules

7. Loss of Game

(a) If a player pockets the 8 ball (black) before he/she pockets all the balls in his/her own group, except as allowed under rule 4(g), he/she loses the game.
(b) A player going in off the 8 ball (black) when the 8 ball (black) is potted, loses the game. (c) A player who clearly fails to make any attempt to play a ball of his/her own group will lose the game.
(d) If a player seeks to gain advantage by deliberately touching a moving ball or retrieving a ball dropping into the pocket he/she shall lose the game.

DocJ · Veteran Poster (Pots the first red)

PoolQueen wrote:

How can it be classed as cheating if it's allowed in the rules? The only people that think it's cheating are those who don't know the rules properly.

I'm not saying it is cheating.

At the moment, in the Abingdon league, we're told that this type of shot is allowed - so although I don't like it or agree with it, if i'm reffing a game and it happens, I won't call a loss of frame foul because they're the rules we play. BUT........as I said earlier, if you follow the rules to the letter, there will be occasions where a loss of frame foul should be called because a skill shot is impossible and someone will just knock their opponents ball in, leaving their own ball covering the pocket, making NO ATTEMPT to play a legal shot. This, as defined in the rules is a loss of frame foul.......it's got nothing to do with knowing the rules, it's how you interpret them.......and this is where we need clarification from a higher power. If we're told categorically that this shot IS allowed, end of argument.....although the wording of the rules needs updating, surely?

I think the old rules that Kev, posted make it more clear what is and isn't allowed.

It's no good just saying people don't know the rules properly without backing up your argument with facts or explaining how you interpret them to mean what you think they mean.......

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

DocJ wrote:
if you follow the rules to the letter, there will be occasions where a loss of frame foul should be called because a skill shot is impossible and someone will just knock their opponents ball in, leaving their own ball covering the pocket, making NO ATTEMPT to play a legal shot.

How improbable (perhaps a better word) the success of a skill-shot is isn't the question. As I said earlier; if Player A, having played an 'on' ball, knocks his opponents ball in AND a ball hits a cushion then a Legal Shot, as defined in the Rules, has been completed.

A Legal Shot as defined must be played on every shot otherwise a foul is committed, everyone's clear on that. Unfortunately the perceived non bona-fida attempt at a Legal Shot has been added to the Loss of Frame Fouls even though the same said rule states A player who clearly fails to make any attempt to play a ball of his/her own group or an 'on ball will lose the game which should suffice, unless the rule makers were trying to stop the 'tactical foul'. However as I've pointed out as long as Player A hits an 'on' ball first then a ball hits a cushion, or attempts to hit a cushion, he has indeed played a Legal Shot. Which leads me to believe that they weren't and some over sealous ex-World Rules gimp had a hand in drafting the rules...

DocJ · Veteran Poster (Pots the first red)

Hmmmmm? I suppose, being ultra picky (which I usually am biggrin ), you could say that a legal shot has been made if a cushion has been touched. My argument still centres around the intent behind the shot though.......you can't tell me that a players main aim when playing this type of shot is to hit a cushion. The whole reason the shot is played is to clear the pocket......the fact that a ball hits a cushion is merely a by-product........

The verdict -

Legal shot requirement fulfilled - yes, attempt to play a legal shot - not convinced. So, the rules do nothing but contradict eachother hmm

-- Edited by DocJ on Thursday 7th of October 2010 10:03:39 AM

Super Midget CCCC · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

Here's what happened on sunday .........

Simon rowe was playing m.wheeler and simon was in control the whole frame.

Then simon was playing a shot where he got accidently pushed from behind from one of the many drunks in the midget!

He only just clipped the cue ball and before i could say something m.wheeler just picked the cue ball up and said that's a foul.

Now i'll be honest i've never seen this happen so i assumed it would be a fair point to have the white moved back to it's original spot and the shot would be taking again?

Obviously this caused an arguement in the pub and the Fitz were clearly having none of it as they needed the frames to stay in the match, but then in the end justice came in our favour and we won the match which had everything, banter, arguements and even blood ( just ask fulla )!

Please tell me what should of happened???

I'm just assuming in that situation it would be sportsmans like to have the shot played again???

Case closed!

Milhouse · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

The rules clearly state that if there is outside interference (being nudged by a drunk) then the balls are replaced.

Milhouse · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Here is the moment everyone has been waiting for........ an answer from Blackball!

Hi,

Yes, it is regarded as a legal shot.

It would be possible to claim that they intended a skill shot, but there's no need to make such a claim.

If the red had not dropped the legality of the shot would have been determined by whether a ball had struck a cushion.

They have given away a foul and so are penalised for that of course..... but they presumably saw an advantage in

clearing the red from the pocket, even though it resulted in a foul.

Best regards,

Bill

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Super Midget CCCC wrote:

Here's what happened on sunday .........

Simon rowe was playing m.wheeler and simon was in control the whole frame.

Then simon was playing a shot where he got accidently pushed from behind from one of the many drunks in the midget!

He only just clipped the cue ball and before i could say something m.wheeler just picked the cue ball up and said that's a foul.

Now i'll be honest i've never seen this happen so i assumed it would be a fair point to have the white moved back to it's original spot and the shot would be taking again?

Obviously this caused an arguement in the pub and the Fitz were clearly having none of it as they needed the frames to stay in the match, but then in the end justice came in our favour and we won the match which had everything, banter, arguements and even blood ( just ask fulla )!

Please tell me what should of happened???

I'm just assuming in that situation it would be sportsmans like to have the shot played again???

Case closed!

4n INTERFERENCE AND MARKING A TABLEThere is NO penalty if balls are moved in these circumstances ....(a)

By persons other than the players taking part in the frame OR

(b)

As a result of players being bumped OR

(c)

Events deemed not within a players control.The referee will return balls as closely as possible to their original positions.A player may not use chalk or other object as a marker

.

It is not a foul to place chalk on the table while in control but it should be

removed before an opponent addresses the table.

Intentional marking, such as positioning chalk to aid a shot, is a foul.

Clearly you and your team don't know the rules tut tut!

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Milhouse wrote:

Here is the moment everyone has been waiting for........ an answer from Blackball!

Hi,

Yes, it is regarded as a legal shot.

It would be possible to claim that they intended a skill shot, but there's no need to make such a claim.

If the red had not dropped the legality of the shot would have been determined by whether a ball had struck a cushion.

They have given away a foul and so are penalised for that of course..... but they presumably saw an advantage in
clearing the red from the pocket, even though it resulted in a foul.

Best regards,

Bill

THE END

Super Midget CCCC · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

Hence why i called him a cheat!

the apprentice · Veteran Poster (Potting like a demon)

So playing your ball first and potting your opoonents to take control of a pocket.

OR

Stroke a horrendous, accidental miscue and feather the white so it moves 1mm.

One results in a foul and the other in a loss of frame?!

Theres rules are as crud as World Rules. Might have to take up Badminton or something...

DocJ · Veteran Poster (Pots the first red)

Hooray for Bill!

So, Kev was right then - don't you hate it when that happens? biggrin

What's going to be introduced next in the conversion to 'blackworld' rules? Foul snookers? Two shots carried? biggrin

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Super Midget CCCC wrote:

Hence why i called him a cheat!

He was, along with the other players in attendence, unaware of the playing rule regarding this incident, so can hardly be called a cheat... unsporting perhaps! but then we're into the realms of Black kettles and pots...

And you are a clown of a referee and you have a clown for a Captain who along with the rest of the Daptains don't bother to read the League's Rules which detail the action to take where a dispute takes place...

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

the apprentice wrote:

So playing your ball first and potting your opoonents to take control of a pocket.

OR

Stroke a horrendous, accidental miscue and feather the white so it moves 1mm.

One results in a foul and the other in a loss of frame?!

Theres rules are as crud as World Rules. Might have to take up Badminton or something...

So how does one lead to the loss of frame...

the apprentice · Veteran Poster (Potting like a demon)

Because it can be classed as not making an attempt to play a legal shot...

The Pool Shark · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

Thanks for posting that, Milhouse. Now we all know the answer and whether we agree or not with the rule, at least we now know that it is a tactical shot (with a penalty) that can be utilised by players on the odd occasions that it might be worthwhile playing. After all, tactics play a big role in the game - which is why, in my opinion, it's one of the best sports out there.

Credit to 'Blackbool' for providing such a swift answer - perhaps they'll consider clarifying their rules wording so it's not quite so ambiguous?

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

the apprentice wrote:

Because it can be classed as not making an attempt to play a legal shot...

Now you're just being ridiculous, so if you miscue on the break and the white flies into the corner pocket without hitting the pack, it's loss of frame is it?

A bit of common-sense needs to be applied, I know that's an alien concept to some of you.
Perhaps you need to fetch a dictioary and look up the term... Reading

the apprentice · Veteran Poster (Potting like a demon)

Well Kev, according to the rules, apparently it is....

The people who are being ridiculous are the people that need to play an "apparently legal" shot to try and win a frame. I'd rather lose than win that way. Honest is the best policy.

The Pool Shark · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

MING wrote:
Perhaps you need to fetch a dictioary and look up the term...

Ah yes, a 'dictioary'. They also help you spell words correctly. Words like 'dictionary'. wink

Beefy · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

DocJ wrote:

Hmmmmm? I suppose, being ultra picky (which I usually am ), you could say that a legal shot has been made if a cushion has been touched. My argument still centres around the intent behind the shot though.......you can't tell me that a players main aim when playing this type of shot is to hit a cushion. The whole reason the shot is played is to clear the pocket......the fact that a ball hits a cushion is merely a by-product........

The verdict -
Legal shot requirement fulfilled - yes, attempt to play a legal shot - not convinced. So, the rules do nothing but contradict eachother

-- Edited by DocJ on Thursday 7th of October 2010 10:03:39 AM

There is a great accounting saying "substance over form" and to be fair this is similar as absolute interpretation of these rules allow the shot but on the other hand by playing it your not breaking the unfair sportmanship rule which is loss of frame but as your opponent is not going to admit it you can't prove it !

Beefy · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

Super Midget CCCC wrote:

Case closed!

I am not sure about that sounds like the team may be guilty of bringing the game into disrepute if blood was spilt !

correct me if I am wrong but KEVIN warned against such behaviour when we had something similar last year in the summer league and funily enought the same team were involved........

DocJ · Veteran Poster (Pots the first red)

Beefy wrote:

There is a great accounting saying "substance over form" and to be fair this is similar as absolute interpretation of these rules allow the shot but on the other hand by playing it your not breaking the unfair sportmanship rule which is loss of frame but as your opponent is not going to admit it you can't prove it !

I know - I work in accounts yawn

The Pool Shark · Ultimate Poster (Breaks off in decider)

Beefy wrote:
There is a great accounting saying "substance over form"...

Gosh, do tell us more of these great accounting sayings! yawn

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

the apprentice wrote:

Well Kev, according to the rules, apparently it is....

The people who are being ridiculous are the people that need to play an "apparently legal" shot to try and win a frame. I'd rather lose than win that way. Honest is the best policy.

Firstly, since when has a miscue be deemed not making an attempt to play an 'on' ball (are you talking from experience), obviously said player must have been aiming at something.

By your logic any shot where a player doesn't pot a ball or hit a cushion could be deemed an illegal shot.

Secondly, there's nothing 'apparently legal' about it, it's LEGAL

IMO, the term Legal Shot was wrongly added to the loss of frame rules as the making no attempt to play an 'on' ball was already catered for

So as I have said since before the inception of Blackball Rules (the same applied to Federation Rules), as long as you play your own ball first you can do what you like, including giving away a foul.

And finally, should you's in the Abingdon League i.e. Jamie, who do not pocess any common sense have a position were your conscience is troubling you, just follow the guidelines provided within the League's Rules...

Oxpac · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

Beefy wrote:

Super Midget CCCC wrote:

Case closed!

I am not sure about that sounds like the team may be guilty of bringing the game into disrepute if blood was spilt !

correct me if I am wrong but KEVIN warned against such behaviour when we had something similar last year in the summer league and funily enought the same team were involved........

"Correct me if I'm wrong" says Mr Hollis - As usual beefy you are wrong, maybe best to get your facts straight before mouthing off on here - but then that's no real surprise!

The blood spilt was a self inflicted wound caused by Mr Fuller striking himself on the forehead with his cue, after missing a black against me.

With regard to your comment about previous incidents - please don't infer that we are the problem as 2 out of our last 3 visits to play the team you represent have resulted in our players being threatened. Not going into further discussion on the past as these are old situations, but I repeat none of our players have physically threatened any one in any games that I have been present at. So think about what you're saying Mr Pot.

While I'm ranting on, not overly happy that people are calling one of my players a Cheat. Its my understanding that its a referee's job to stop these situations arising. If you felt so strongly about it, you could have corrected Mike when he said "thats 2 shots then?" The ref didn't, Mike cleared up, end of story. That doesn't make him a cheat, at worst not knowing the rules properly, but if thats the case, the same would be said of the ref!

That whole situation did not cause an argument, a quick conversation between Tash and Mike, where they disagreed and me and Tash but we moved on, therefore surprised these comments are made on here and not direct to Mike at the time!

Anyway not getting into a big argument on here, if people want to discuss the behaviour of my team please call me or complain through the correct channels.

MING · Ultimate Poster (2-0 up in a best of 7)

Boxing
Just looking on ebay for a boxing ring to bring along to Finals Night to add to the entertainment. Players could then challenge any alleged "cheats", "tactical foulers", or "equipment abusers" and sort their differences out in a gentlemanly fashion.

Ding Ding, Round One

-- Edited by MING on Friday 8th of October 2010 07:27:16 PM

bigbossman · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

Firstly, since when has a miscue be deemed not making an attempt to play an 'on' ball (are you talking from experience), obviously said player must have been aiming at something.

When your playing snooker and have been called foul and miss twice your warned IF YOU DONOT HIT BALL ON THIS SHOT YOU LOSE THE FRAME ( This also includes a MISCUE) So as a ref I wouyld have to say no legal shot was played

Super Midget CCCC · Regular Poster (Wins the toss)

Ming as your usually as good as your word.......

When is the most wins table going to be available???

PoolQueen · Ultimate Poster (1-0 up in a best of 7)

bigbossman wrote:

Firstly, since when has a miscue be deemed not making an attempt to play an 'on' ball (are you talking from experience), obviously said player must have been aiming at something.

When your playing snooker and have been called foul and miss twice your warned IF YOU DONOT HIT BALL ON THIS SHOT YOU LOSE THE FRAME ( This also includes a MISCUE) So as a ref I wouyld have to say no legal shot was played

But this is pool, not snooker.