that is exactly how it is done, I’m sorry if I did not explain it correctly. There are two sets of two wheels…one for the current rack (or run, if you will) and one for your total score.
Robot Arm – As I reread your post, I came to the same conclusion CurtC did. I understand that if you foul at the end of your inning, you do get the points. I just shot back to the BCA rules page and I didn’t read anything that would suggest that you would loose your points in your current inning if you foul at the end of it. Not that I am calling you a liar, but I am curious where you came up with this. Thanks!
The score is deducted from his score on the previous inning. As long as I am shooting it is one inning. Therefor, if I have a foul at the end of my inning, I get my points, and you then loose a point from my previous score.
3.37 PLAY BY INNINGS (under general rules)
During the course of play, players alternate turns (innings) at the table, with a player’s inning ending when he either fails to legally pocket a ball, or fouls. When an inning ends free of a foul, the incoming player accepts the table in position.
Also note that it states that if I foul when I have not pocked a ball I loose my point from the previous inning. Also, If I pocket a ball and foul at the same time, that ball is respotted, and I loose my point from the previous inning. It makes no statement about not getting my points for balls pocked earlier in the inning.
Yeah, Robot Arm, I read (and knew) the same rule. It’s saying that if I start an inning with 23 points, and don’t pocket any legally but foul, I’ll then have 22 points. And if I start an inning with zero, I’ll have -1. But the other rules clearly state that if I pocket ten balls legally, then foul, I net nine points. When playing with the scoring wheels, you’ll take the foul off the cumulative wheel, not the rack wheel, so that the rack totals always indicate the number of balls sunk out of the current rack.
I read it differently than that. I’ve always played that the foul is considered part of the current inning, and you lose any score from that inning with the penalty of -1 taken against your score at the end of the previous inning.
kinoons and CurtC, I don’t really see it as cut-and-dried as you both are claiming. I’ll look for more evidence.
I agee with all of Large Marge’s interpretations except the last one. If you can call your last ball in a pocket AND call the rebound of the cue into the 8 and the 8 into a pocket (including any banks or kisses or hitting off your opponent’s ball) then that is a valid shot. You win (provided of course that you made contact with your ball first).
One other thing: If you are playing in a tournament, it makes sense to use official rules or at least modify the bar rules (like maybe going to ball in hand) for the reasons **Sam Stone ** mentioned. But bar rules are just fine for playing in a bar.
The “honor thing” is part of the enjoyment; part of the game. There’s not that many instances left where “honor” is still even considered. In bar pool either you are honorable, or you are a fuck-upped asshole.
You want to come in and play a game or two where you scratch on purpose or hit the cue ball only 1/2 an inch? Fine. People will give you dirty looks, but if that’s how you like it, fine. But maybe don’t ever come back to the bar after you acted like such a twit.
No, you probably won’t get beat up (maybe in some bars you will), but you will have ASSHOLE effectively tattoed on your forehead, and no one will want to play you. That, or they will derive great satisfaction from beating such a schmuck (they are usually easy to beat too. I’ve found that people who play that way. or people who insist on playing BCA rules in a bar aren’t very good. Good players who are used to, and prefer playing BCA rules know enough not to try to play that stuff in a bar.)
I’ve coined a new phrase!! fuck-upped!!! Yeee----hiiii! (wait— there’s another one!!)
So, do you consider safety play honorable? If I intentionally play to hook you, rather than to try to make one of my balls?
In ‘bar rules’, safety play is frowned upon, for some strange reason. People think it’s ‘dirty pool’. And in fact, with no penalties for fouls and no ball-in-hand rules, safety play is pretty much impossible.
Pool without safety play is a crippled game. That’s the real problem with ‘bar rules’. For some reason, bar players think it’s all about just trying to sink balls no matter what. But pool is supposed to be a strategy game, not just a race to see who can pocket their balls as quickly as possible.
Watch a one-pocket match some time. It’s all about safety play. Or watch the opening break in snooker. In 9-ball, you can actually play safe to win, because you can win a game by forcing your opponent to foul three times consecutively. Safety play is a HUGE part of 9-ball and 8-ball.
CurtC said:
8-ball has more luck involved because the players are shooting at different sets of balls. Usually, after a break one set of balls (solids or stripes) will be in a much better position to run the table than the other set. This puts one player at an instant disadvantage. In games like 9-ball and straight pool, the players are shooting at the same balls, so the layout of the table doesn’t matter.
I used to play in the VNEA pool leagues, with some very, very good players. At that level, if you broke and your balls were tied up and your opponent’s balls were open, there was probably an 80-90% chance you were going to lose. If a player broke, made a ball, and had his balls open, he would run out at least half the time. In comparison, in 9-ball if you don’t make the 9 on the break you have to get lucky and have a shot on the one AND have all the balls open, and even then a runout is harder because you only ever have one ball to shoot at. In 8-ball you have numerous ways to work your way through the balls.
With straight pool you don’t have to have well-matched opponents, because it’s a very easy game to handicap. One of my old playing partners was one of the best snooker players in Canada, and one of the top 30 9-ball players on the pro circuit. He was a very, very good straight pool player. So when we’d play a match to 100, he’d spot me 70 balls (-:. I’d still usually lose, but the matches were always competitive. Since I could routinely run 10-20 balls, and occasionally put together runs of 30-50, he had to play at a high level to beat me.
In contrast, handicapping 8-ball or 9-ball is harder, because even if you spot the other guy a couple of games in a race to 5, if you can routinely run out when there are only 4 or 5 balls left on the table and the other guy can’t, he’s rarely going to win a single game. So then you wind up having to spot the other player balls, like “I have to run to the 9, and you only have to run to the 6”, but that changes the whole nature of the game.
Now, one-pocket is a useless game unless both players are not only evenly matched, but both play at a very high level. When I played my buddy one-pocket, he routinely kicked my ass regardless of what kind of spot I’d get.
The way most players will be associated with BCA rules (at least around here) is by playing a recreational handicap league like the Bud Light League. Every player has a handicap, much like golf. That ensures that many league players will happen to be at novice level.
So, yeah, it’s not a shock that a novice pool player might happen to be bandying about the BCA rules in bar room. However, I can’t remember anyone ever trying to coerce a stranger into submitting to BCA rules in a “friendly” bar game (as of maybe 15 years ago). I know that participation in amateur leagues has been rising for quite a few years, though.
Back in the day, on my scene, the players who preferred BCA rules sought ought other league players. My regular partying/pool-shooting group was about 6 to 8 league players, so getting a BCA-rules game was rarely a problem – even when we decided to ditch the pool hall and hit the one-table-in-the-corner dives.
But if we did have to play a stranger in a bar to take over the table, we’d go with bar rules. The only exception was if we recognized that another league player happened to have control of the dive’s table at the time. Then we’d have a quick discussion to reach agreemenrt on the rules.
Looks like even “bar rules” can vary from place to place. Playing defensively is not looked down upon around here. If you don’t have a shot just don’t leave one for your opponent either. Playing smart.
I play in an 8-ball league where slop shots are allowed. We always look at each other and groan when a ball just caroms about and luckily falls into a pocket. Whether it’s our shot or theirs. League play is fun but not as challenging as the pool after league is over for the evening.
Hi Sam Stone. 
I don’t know what the “any number of other questionable things” are, but see I Love Me’s post from today at 12:40 p.m.; he/she beat me to the answer. I couldn’t agree more.
You bank it. You take what you’ve got. I see this as just part of the game - and difficult bank shots are part of it. If you don’t have a shot, you make damn sure to leave the table so the other guy doesn’t have a shot, either. Again, just part of the game, not “dirty pool.” I would expect an opponent to work against me.
But I’ve never played for money, and I believe you said that that’s why you “need unambiguous rules that include punishments.” That doesn’t sound like much fun to me. I play pool because I enjoy it, and it’s not fun when your opponent is whining about not being left a clean shot and having to work a bit harder with a bank shot.
This is not allowed in bar pool, at least not the bars in which I’ve played. You must make contact with a ball or a rail. You can’t just nudge it an inch.
Not if I leave my ball between the cue and the 8. 
(I guess when you play bar pool, you get pretty good at the bank shot.)
That does suck. Where was that? Not the bar name, but the town?
To which I would reply, “Because it’s shitty!” meaning, it’s poor sportsmanship. Would you really play that way? I don’t think you would, and most people don’t because they know they would be perceived as poor losers. But if someone did, the response from the other bar rules players would be as I Love Me described. It’s in bad taste.
That’s ridiculous. People don’t play by bar rules because they don’t have an official rule book handy. They go to the bar to play pool - to play by bar rules - because they enjoy it. If they wanted to play by BCA rules, they would play somewhere where others play by those rules.
Completely off topic, but I’m dying to know if I’m right: Are you a Scorpio?
jimpatro, are you saying that you play safety shots according to bar rules? How do you do that? What separates an allowed safety shot from one of the “dirty pool” safety shots, such as bumping the cue ball 1/2"?
To me, honor means not cheating. It means not trying to distract your opponent by moving into his sight line. Not playing mind games or intimidation. It does NOT mean ‘taking the hard shot because that’s what a man does’. I like to play by a set of rules that are well defined, spell out exactly what you can and can’t do, and which lay out appropriate punishments for not following them. Anything within the rules is fair, and the rules define acceptable strategy and tactics for playing the game.
Sure they are. But the reason I was put into this situation in the first place is because the other player decided to intentionally foul, and the rules didn’t stop him. That’s the real problem. If instead of fouling he had given me that tough bank by playing a legal shot, I’d have no complaints.
Hell, if it’s an ‘honor’ thing not to do intentionally foul, but there’s no penalty for it, a good pool hustler will know how to ‘miscue’ to get the result he wants. Since there’s no formal penalty, and since you think it was an accident, you just got put in a tough situation unfairly. Again, with a good rules system, it doesn’t matter why it happened - if the opponent hits your ball first, or doesn’t contact a rail, you get a ball in hand. Period. No ambiguity, no fights, no misunstandings, no angling. That’s the way it should be.
As an analogy, imagine if baseball were played on the ‘honor system’. You’re supposed to touch the bag on your way around the bases, but if you don’t, well, that’s not nice. But there’s no penalty. How many players will cut those corners? Do you think that would make the game better?
Absolutely, but without the correct rules, you can make ‘damned sure’ in many ways. For example, it’s trivially easy to make sure you scratch the cueball by ‘accident’. If you’ve got one ball left and it’s behind the headstring, and I’ve got two balls tied up, I might just break them open in such a way as to scratch the cueball. Then you have to shoot a bank from behind the headstring, which you’ll probably miss (even the best players rarely pocket balls from long cueball banks), and I’ll run out on you. This is unfair, and should not be allowed.
By ‘punishment’ I simply mean rules that set out penalties for things that should be penalized, like scratches, double-hits with the cue, etc. Again, in bar rules there’s nothing stopping you from double-hitting the cueball. It’s an ‘accident’, and there is no penalty for doing it. That gives a good player a powerful weapon, because knowing how to double-hit the cueball can solve a lot of problems. You shoudn’t be able to do it.
And if you do, what happens? How is this dilemma resolved? What if the other player ‘miscues’, and the cueball only moves an inch? Do you accuse him/her of doing it intentionally, and perhaps provoke an argument? Or do you just accept it and go on?
Bank shots are always low percentage shots, except for the most simple, directly wired ones. Watch a professional game sometime, and you’ll notice the marked absense of bank shots - professionals don’t like taking chances.
Edmonton, but it doesn’t really matter. The problem was the result of a tournament with a director who didn’t know what he was doing, and didn’t realize that ‘bar rules’ were hopelessly inadequate for a money tournament. The result was a disaster, and that particular establishment soon found that it could not attract good players any more for its weekly ‘bar rules’ tournament, and that the tournaments it did have were constantly wracked with controversy, argument, and frustration.
“It’s in bad taste” doesn’t cut it in tournaments or in money games. When the rent is on the line, it’s amazing how quickly people will shed their inhibitiions about being a ‘jerk’. Again, that’s why you need formal rules that balance all aspects of the game. It also just makes the game more fun, because everyone always know where they stand. Nothing is left to interpretation or judgements about motives or whether some play was an accident or not. So there are never hard feelings, and the play of the game is consistent from day to day, opponent to opponent.
They play ‘bar rules’ because most of them don’t even know there IS a rule book. And yes, when you’re just playing your friends for fun, who cares? So no one gets mad, no one tries to cheat their friends, and all is well. Until a hustler comes along wanting to be your ‘friend’.
But once you get comfortable playing with real rules, you’ll quickly discover how much better the game is.
Nope. I did, however, like Hank Scorpio on the Simpsons. Does that count? 
Nice chatting with you about this. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree. I’ve played bar rules pool and tournament pool for a long, long time and you’re not going to change my mind. And I doubt I’ll change yours, so let’s just agree that pool is fun no matter how you play it.
CurtC, as Large Marge mentioned, you must make contact with the object ball or rail.
So if you just have to make contact with an object ball, if you have one of your balls half an inch in front of the cueball, it’s okay to just nudge the cueball so that it just touches your ball?
The proper rule is that you must hit an object ball, and AFTER the hit, at least one ball must contact a rail. Anything else is silly.
In bar pool, it is not ok to cheat, and that includes standing in someone’s line of sight. Bar rules players understand the definition of honor, too.
And if a team had a reputation of skirting the bases without touching them, how many other teams do you think would want to play against them? They’d be the joke of the league, and they wouldn’t be considered very good players, either, since they had to rely on cheating to win. If a player acts like that in pool, no one will play him (see I Love Me’s post).
Rarely has the table been run on me, but it sounds like you are a much more skilled player than I and most of the folks I’ve played with.
But when the table is run on me, I just don’t care much. I put my 75 cents back up on the table and try it again. What’s the big deal? And typically, if there is a player in the bar that night running the tables, he won’t do it long. He’ll be in for a two or three games, and then he’ll hand the table over to the best loser or the one he perceives to be the most skilled.
I guess these details are just not an issue for me, perhaps because that is how I’ve always played, and I love the game with all the personality aspects, not completely santized.
No, because that would be petty. I’d just accept it and go on. Beating him is the best revenge, but if I think he’s playing shitty, as you described, I wouldn’t play him again, nor would the others. People like that don’t last long at the tables. They aren’t liked, and that matters to some extent at bar pool. I’ve seen bouncers throw out people who play like that.
I do watch televised professional pool occasionally, and I have noticed the reduction in bank shots. But here’s the thing: I like trying and making the bank shots! Winning a “safe” game isn’t nearly as much fun.
I’ll give you this. When playing for money in a tournament, I think official rules are in order. Perhaps that’s why I don’t play for money. I don’t think it’s fun.
This is true.
Everything I’ve said about bar rules was not based on “playing with my friends.” That happens rarely, and I don’t find it to be as much fun as playing a stranger. Most are people you’ve never seen before in your life, especially if you play in a wide variety of bars.
That sounds a bit condescending, and I could say the same about you and bar rules, but I don’t think it’s necessary. It’s not a matter of comfort; it’s about the kind of people who play that game. I’m not interested in playing with those personalities. I’m just not an “official rules” kind of gal.
I agree. I’d love to play you a game someday, though, just to see who’d come out on top.
Sanitized of what?