What is your opinion of this ruling adopted by our Pool League?

[DocJ]

Here's my post on this from a previous thread..........

I was hoping I wouldn't be asked to explain this

The Blackball rules state that any deliberate attempt to play a shot that isn't legal will result in a loss of frame foul. The definition of a legal shot is that you must hit your own ball first and that after hitting said ball any other ball must hit a cushion or you must pot one of your own balls.

Now, consider this situation - A red ball is completely covering a corner pocket. You're yellows, and you have a yellow touching this red. There's no way you can squeeze the yellow past but to play the yellow and pot the red would be a deliberate foul - wouldn't it? Well, a legal shot is fulfilled if you hit your ball first and then hit a cushion afterwards. It's still a foul but NOT a loss of frame foul. The key argument is whether you attempted to play a legal shot or not.......you could say you were just trying to skim the yellow or something similar.....basically nobody can prove that there wasn't an attempt.

Unfortunately the rules contradict themselves, which is why we contacted the blackball people to try to sort it out. Obviously hitting an opponents ball or the black deliberately is still a loss of frame foul......but when you hit your own ball first, you can now do what you like

Hopefully that helps!

Perhaps after re-reading that post, there isn't quite a contradiction there but the rules go pretty close to it. For years we played that deliberately potting your opponents ball was a loss of frame foul but as long as you hit your own ball first, it's not.............and so the TF (tactical foul) was born

[old school]

I agree with DocJ , foul break and break and foul are however two different things.In foul break scenario,i.e.not enough balls reaching the cushions I would advocate a re-rack and no free ball,break should go to the opponent.In the case of "in off" or "white off the table" following the break then "foul two visits carried,free ball/open table" to your opponent ,no re-rack ,(potential to move white behind baulk or play from position of rest i.e. where white stops) might be the solution.But this is still a step back in time to older rules.The application of ,in essence,removing DFs may make the game more open OR it could lead to players deliberately jamming pockets and slowing the game down.It could also increase the "skill" level of the game because at the moment there is no incentive to get out of a really difficult snooker ( or to lay one). The arguments,both for and against DFs or not ,are many and complex and each has their own advocates.My advice is still to see what "the players" think by setting a trial period of play with the "new rule" and asking for feedback afterwards.

[DeanH]

Player "A" breaks commits foul break - oncoming Player "B" balls are re-racked and two shots given Player "B" has two shots and "FREE BALL" under this adopted rule so which ball is the "FREE BALL" ?

In EPA and World Rules, a foul break is followed by the opponent getting two visits (EPA as "one free shot"), re-rack, and achieve a fair break.

World Rules "4(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."

No freeball as such because the table is Open and no colour decision has been made yet.

[Mick Dundee]

With regards to this you can play your ball directly onto the ball
In the pocket because you could be playing a skill shot by following
the ball in which is perfectly legal
However if a referee deems that no attempt to play a legal shot has been
made whilst playing the shot he is within his rights to call the frame
Admittedly this is hard to call but can happen
If you know you've played the shot just to pot the ball in the pocket and
leave yours in there nobody would know but you
And would be up to the ref to decide upon
As I said this would be a big call and not likely to happen in a local league

[DocJ]

With regards to this you can play your ball directly onto the ball
In the pocket because you could be playing a skill shot by following
the ball in which is perfectly legal
However if a referee deems that no attempt to play a legal shot has been
made whilst playing the shot he is within his rights to call the frame
Admittedly this is hard to call but can happen
If you know you've played the shot just to pot the ball in the pocket and
leave yours in there nobody would know but you
And would be up to the ref to decide upon
As I said this would be a big call and not likely to happen in a local league

Playing your ball directly on to your opponent's ball over the pocket and potting it would be legal but not because of a skill shot attempt. The balls have to be lined up exactly for that to work, and if not, the skill shot isn't on, so a player can't possibly say that they were attempting it. The reason that the shot is legal is because you've played an 'on' ball and then hit a cushion afterwards, which fulfils the requirement of a legal shot. If you didn't hit a cushion, it wouldn't be legal but it would have to be a pretty bad shot to not hit a cushion. It's irrelevant whether or not you were attempting to clear the pocket to gain an advantage - it's legal. We had it confirmed by someone at the EBPF because it was causing such a debate in our league.

[Mick Dundee]

Not according to one of the refs at the bapto
This year
He told me when asked about the same situation
That it was at his discretion to call the game
As I said not likely but possible otherwise
The wording of the rule would be changed
The rule also includes being able to call the game
If for arguments sake the black was in the pocket
With an opponents ball over it but not covering
It enough to be a re rack but enough to make
It nearly impossible to hit
If the player on the black falls short and the ref thinks
He has done this deliberately he could call the game
As the player hasn't tried to play a legal shot
Again unlikely to be called but allowed by the wording of the rule

[DocJ]

That's probably because he didn't fully understand the rule. Whatever the player is attempting to do is irrelevant - if a player hits his ball first and any ball hits a cushion afterwards, the requirements of a legal shot have been fulfilled, so a loss of frame foul can't be called, unless the black is potted of course.

In your other scenario, of course a loss of frame foul could be called because no balls have been hit. The two situations are completely different.

[cyprus-dodger]

As expected at the first league match under these pathetic rules total confusion - it really is full of flaws.

dodger