|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Apr 26, 2017 8:59:57 GMT
An interesting one last evening at a local match concerning rules 110 d) and j). As rules guru I was phoned.
A ball is not in play until it does not overhang the "D" and it is not a foul shot until a ball travelling towards the "D" overhangs the "D".
Player 1 played an up and back shot that stopped under an inch short of over hanging the "D".
Player 3) attempted to clear the ball but mindful of a push shot stabbed at the cue ball instead. The result was that the cue ball shifted the object ball up the table but the cue ball stopped dead, still overhanging the "D", without scoring.
Was a foul shot committed as the cue ball never left the "D" under 110 j) as part of it was overhanging the "D".
What should the scorer have done? should the cue ball have been removed?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjimsilverfox on Apr 26, 2017 9:12:46 GMT
An interesting one last evening at a local match concerning rules 110 d) and j). As rules guru I was phoned. A ball is not in play until it does not overhang the "D" and it is not a foul shot until a ball travelling towards the "D" overhangs the "D". Player 1 played an up and back shot that stopped under an inch short of over hanging the "D" without scoring. Player 2) attempted to clear the ball but mindful of a push shot stabbed at the cue ball instead. The result was that the cue ball shifted the object ball up the table but the cue ball stopped dead, still overhanging the "D". Was a foul shot committed as the cue ball never left the "D" under 110 j) as part of it was overhanging the "D". What should the scorer have done? should the cue ball have been removed? Very interesting!! Does the edge of the "D" constitute a continuation of the baulk line? If it does then I would call a foul as the cue ball is ovehanging and thus out of play? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Apr 26, 2017 9:17:25 GMT
That was my judgement too, but thinking on it afterwards the cue ball was never technically in play as it was overhanging the "D" at all tines.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjimsilverfox on Apr 26, 2017 9:35:03 GMT
That was my judgement too, but thinking on it afterwards the cue ball was never technically in play as it was overhanging the "D" at all tines. Surely if the ball has made contact with a ball in play it must have been or the object ball muct have been overhanging also? |
|
|
|
Post by daveuk1 on Apr 26, 2017 10:01:41 GMT
Surely common sence comes into play here.
The cue ball was played from the D, it made contact with another ball and was therefore in play and if the cue ball then comes to rest overhanging the D or baulk line it is out of play and therefore a foul shot has been committed, I assume as the ball finished up overhanging the D it was then removed.
But hey ho what do I know
|
|
|
|
Post by barbelman on Apr 26, 2017 10:02:12 GMT
At one time (I'm sure'ish) this could not have happened. Although the object ball was still in play, if the next player could not place his cue-ball ANYWHERE HE WISHED on the D then the object ball was returned to the tray and he played another (or indeed got the break back). An analogy would be the leaning peg rule.
That's what I always played to but maybe it was a local rule rather than national.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Sav on Apr 26, 2017 10:50:02 GMT
At one time (I'm sure'ish) this could not have happened. Although the object ball was still in play, if the next player could not place his cue-ball ANYWHERE HE WISHED on the D then the object ball was returned to the tray and he played another (or indeed got the break back). An analogy would be the leaning peg rule. That's what I always played to but maybe it was a local rule rather than national. Yes I remember something like that as well but again it may have been local. In this case the object ball was not overhanging the "D" and not preventing the cue ball from being placed anywhere in the "D". however when struck the cue ball is not technically in play until none of it overhangs the "D" not when the base leaves the "D" (as with ball travelling in opposite direction) and it never got that far. Common sense in this case has to prevail I agree, but I am very wary of penalising a player for something that is not in rule 110. An interesting one to have scored for! |
|
|
|
Post by daveuk1 on Apr 26, 2017 12:29:59 GMT
May be thats the trouble with rules, they are there to be abused, twisted and just confuse things at times.
In Sudbury I hope we would use common sense along with our rule foul shots for players losing their break.
2.8 The player causes any ball to move other than a shot played correctly from the 'D'.
We would say the player has caused the object ball to move but it is a foul shot as the ball has not left the D, then we would shake hands and buy another beer
|
|
