Intentional Foul?

[reverse_side]

to save me getting my rule book out; can someone explain why this happened to me last night.

My oppoent had potted my ball (with an apology) and then double-baulked me, I came to the table thinking that I should have a re-spot. Nope. I asked and was told that it was a ridiculous rule (at least he didn't say, "you should know the rules") but that I had to try and hit either of them.... or be allowed to play an intentional foul.

I went up and down the table but managed to find the gap between them; only about 3 balls widths between them.... cliche #76.

My opponent then had an easy pot-red, screwed back for an easy in-off to middle and got about 35 from that situation.

I recovered from that and only fell short 100-to-97 but he said that he lost a match because of that a short while ago.... is all this right? If it is, what possible justification is there for condoning an intentional miss.... even if it gets you 2 points it might cause you a huge problem. What should replace it and can I replay my game!

[RaNeN]

Well thats a lot of ""ENGLISH" there which I couldnt understand. But in simple are you trying to tell me that your opponent potted your cue ball and then got both his cue ball and the red behind the baulk line by intentionally making a foul?
If I get you right the red must have been behind the baulk and your opponent must have used either right or left side spin to get his cueball behind the baulk which did not make contact with the red ball and is a foul , for which you could not get the balls re-spotted? Am I right here?

Well all I can say that its a rule when the player whose chance it is to play has ball in hand cant ask for the balls to be replaced even though his opponent has made a foul. Its just because you have ball in hand.
This applies even when the balls are not behind the baulk line your opponent makes a foul , where you cant do anything , but you have your cueball in hand , you cant ask for the balls to be respotted.

Hope this is enough explanation?

In case you know something more or if I am wrong about this rule please let me know.

[reverse_side]

well, not particularyly sorry for using my native language for explaining a situation that I couldn't use Urdu, Swedish or any other foreign tongue any better.... but the way I painted the situation is pretty much self explanatory....

Just to re-cap... my opponent potted my ball then hit the red in baulk to keep both behind the baulk line... I had my ball in my hand, but couldn't have the balls respotted even though I couldn't hit a ball without coming off a cushion first. What a stupid rule.... anyone with a decent explanation why this happens?

Thinking about it now, I guess the fact that they've done nothing as a foul, then it'd be difficult to justify giving the next player an advantage for having the balls put in open play.

[LuckyPhil]

Just to re-cap... my opponent potted my ball then hit the red in baulk to keep both behind the baulk line... I had my ball in my hand, but couldn't have the balls respotted even though I couldn't hit a ball without coming off a cushion first. What a stupid rule.... anyone with a decent explanation why this happens?

Yes, it's called safety play.

Either intentionally, or unintentionally you can find yourself in a situation with only your cue ball and the red on the table. You then only have 2 options - either try to score 45 more points (15 hazards) by potting and/or going in off the red, or to play safe by leaving the balls in a position from which it is difficult to score from, the best of which is probably the double baulk. This is the billiards equivalent of being snookered.
From the double baulk situation you can then either try to hit the balls, and possibly score, by coming off a cushion or cushions, or you can play a 'miss' by simply pushing your cue ball to somewhere relatively safe.

You cannot have the balls respotted after a miss, but you can after a foul. A miss IS a foul, except when the player is in hand and there is no ball out of baulk.

[reverse_side]

On Sunday you were confused because after I played an in off white, your white also went into a pocket. My ball then had to be played out of hand, the red ball being behind the baulk line meant that I had to go up the table to the black spot end and down again to try and hit the red, even though I missed and left both balls behind the baulk line this is not a foul as such

Yes, it's called safety play..

bet you're popular at parties.

I've remembered an extra element as to why I felt a re-spot would be fair... it was because my opponent went in-off my ball, but accidentally potted my white too, as the red was in baulk, he had a more difficult shot than he should've... he missed it but left both in baulk.

This situation to me seems to beg for a re-spot as it also encourages an intentional foul by offering me the choice to play out of baulk to a safer area of the table.... I'm not au fait yet with what constitutes making a difference between missing and fouling depending where your white is; but that'll come.

There are probably other strange circumstances, but history and tradition imparts a considerable amount of inertia.

I would also say that an in-off should be scored off the last ball it touched... although thinking of the snooker analogy, going in-off the break by catching the blue isn't counted as a 5 point penalty.

Another anomaly would be that playing canons off different balls should carry differing points. ie a cannon hitting your opponent's ball first will leave your white in closer proximity to the red if you miss it, so an easier cannon for your opponent, conversely, a cannon of the red first will leave your ball further away from the red and therefore a more difficult cannon.

I would therefore say making a cannon off your opponent's ball should be worth 3 and one off the red should be just 2.

ANOTHER one while I'm high on naive fuel.... why award more points for going in-off the red than your opponents ball? Why is there a difference in the amount given for potting too - is it to encourage keeping your opponent's ball on the table? Why is it considered bad play to pot your opponent's ball? Has anyone got some footage of some brilliant players? Any footage of where a player runs a series of cannons around the table up all the cushions? What's the 4 to 5 cushion angle from within the D to get into the corners of the table? What are some of the dark arts? What's the top 5 or 10 tips of billiards? What's the top 10 worst things to do in billiards? What 3 things take years and years to learn and master? What separates the great from the good? How to the weight of balls affect matters? Will a variation cause problems or is it whether they're all too light or too heavy? Can you play well without using any side? Is the yellow ball an international standard or is the spotted white still used?

Over to the Billiard Maestros....

(Columbo moment, "one last question" .... why is it that you can get a break of 500 say, but if you've accidentally used the wrong ball all the way through, you get nothing and the Ref hasn't called a foul on the first shot.... or am I wrong here?)

[RaNeN]

Now I am confused. Suppose the red is behind the baulk and the opponents cue ball is in hand , I try to touch the red by using the 'black' cushion but I miss. So now is this a 'foul' or a 'miss'? In billiards is a foul given a miss when the opponent is playing safe?

[The Statman]

In billiards, a "Foul" means that you can have a re-spot, whereas a "Miss" is a foul (still two points away) but where the player cannot re-spot. The only situation where this arises is if you are double-baulked.

So when you came to the table, double-baulked, the fact that your opponent has potted your ball has nothing to do with it (unless it was a foul).

You now have to decide whether to try to hit one of the 'baulked' balls or not. You can, quite legitimately, make no attempt to hit either ball – just play your white up the table to a safe position. That is why it is a "Miss" and not a "Foul".