Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
USCARules · US Croquet Association Rules Committee
  • Members Only
  • Post
  • Files
  • Photos
  • Links
  • Database
  • Polls
  • Members
  • Calendar
  • Groups Labs (Beta)
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

   Messages Help
Message #
Search:
Advanced
Messages 4569 - 4598 of 4598   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Messages: Show Message Summaries   (Group by Topic) Sort by Date v  
#4598 From: "huffrules" <dochuff@...>
Date: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:12 am
Subject: Re: Rules Questions 		huffrules
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
Hi Guys;


If you are live on the object ball, (with the old rule book in play) it would
have been a roquet and (immediately) ball in hand so no crush would have
occurred.

We rewrote the rules (specifically rule 6.2.b) which allows the striker ball to
continue to do "damage" after the roquet and only becomes ball in hand when it
comes to rest.

I agree with Steve that the first shot is a double tap (maybe even a triple
tap).  It was also likely a crush as well.

With the benefit of multiple replays  it's still difficult to call shot #1 a
crush when you see it in real time.

Just my 2 cents worth.  I'm fine with a clarification or rewrite


J. Huff


as far as question #2, no rewrite is necessary.  Rule 2.1.b says a player's turn
STARTS when the previous player's turn ENDS.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4597 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Sat Aug 22, 2009 8:51 am
Subject: Re: Rules Questions 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Steve - I comment below - Bob K.
 
In a message dated 8/21/2009 2:01:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, johnston1160@... writes:
SO .. either adopt the AC ruling with clear language, or eliminate the "hitting another ball lying beyond the wicket in a wicket shot" clause.  I personally find it impossible to impose the crush rule, as even instant replay, if available, would not suffice.  Either way is fine with me. 
I favor the former.  As mentioned earlier, the reason we don't fault double tapping when hitting a ball on the non playing side of the wicket or balls not in the game hitting each other is due to the demands on the referee to make an accurate call.  A revised AC ruling should be a chip shot.  As we know, I write at a good 6th grade level.  If no one else is willing to do a rewrite (assuming we agree to one), I'm willing to give it a go. 
 

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4596 From: Garth Eliassen <eliassen@...>
Date: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:08 pm
Subject: Re: Rules Questions 		gartheliassen
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
I would call the first shot as a fault. It is definitely a double tap
and possibly a crush as well. The exaggerated follow-through of the
mallet, pushing the ball through the hoop, would be the main oncourt key.

The second shot would be harder in an oncourt situation. The main things
I would be looking for as a ref are did the striker ball clear the
closest upright - and it clearly did - and the stopping point of the
mallet. There didn't seem to be an exaggerated follow-through. Although
in slo-mo it certainly shows to be a double tap, I would have doubts in
an oncourt situation and would give the affirmative ruling, allowing the shot.

Don't think rule book clarification is needed.

-Garth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
--------------------------------
Where Speed & Service Have Always Mattered @ http://www.ados.net

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4595 From: johnston1160@...
Date: Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:59 pm
Subject: Re: Rules Questions 		scj_1160
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Here we go with some semantic discussion.  The AC rules could probably be argued several ways. What is ANOTHER OBJECT?  The hoop, a dropped clip or hat, your pants cuff,  a Robin on the wing,  etc., etc.,etc.  However, they are their rules, not ours.

Per Stuart's comments, whatever the committee's intentions when writing this USCA rule, it is clear, and without exception, that a double tap was purposefully defined as not being a fault.  Without research, I would agree with Stuart that the striker ball hitting the hoop, with or without a crush, was probably not considered. But there it is.

I composed my original response, and made the observations about the two separate video examples, partly because JCO brought up the scenario of removing the double tap as an issue and considered the crush question separately.  That's why I played and replayed, frame by frame, both shots, and in my opinion the first was a crush and the second was not.  Now, if the second scenario is not a crush, under what rule could it be called a fault?

Back to semantics.  Our rule says   ".. if the CAUSE of the second hit is the result of .. hitting another ball lying beyond the wicket".  I choose to interpret that a stationary inanimate object, namely the wicket, can not CAUSE anything to happen.  The second hit was caused by the action of the striker's mallet.  Obviously, a wicket can not hit a ball into a mallet.  The second hit is a result of the first hit, as reflected in the rule's wording.

Summary of the question as I see it at the moment.

1.  If someone suggests adopting the AC wording, I would recommend the words "another object" be made specific.  Why not just say it's a fault to double tap if striker ball hits the hoop between taps .. or some such wording.
2.  Consider that the AC rule does not stipulate making a roquet "in a wicket shot", as the USCA rule does.  Why, I have no idea.
3.  I sympathize with the difficulty .. impossibility .. of calling a crush under the circumstances demonstrated in the two videos, one of which I think is a crush, and the second is not.

SO .. either adopt the AC ruling with clear language, or eliminate the "hitting another ball lying beyond the wicket in a wicket shot" clause.  I personally find it impossible to impose the crush rule, as even instant replay, if available, would not suffice.  Either way is fine with me. 

Plus, this question changes totally if striker is alive or dead on the ball beyond his wicket.

-----Original Message-----
From: BobKroeger@...
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 7:31 am
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Rules Questions

 
Hi Steve,
 
I think the reason it's a fault in AC is due to the challenge of knowing with certainty that the ball caused the double tap, not the hoop.  Hence the rule Stuart culled from the AC Laws book:
1. Contact between the mallet and the striker's ball is not a fault under Laws 28(a)(7) or 28(a)(8) if it occurs after the striker's ball:
         A. makes a roquet; or
         B. scores the peg point; or
         C. hits a ball pegged out in the stroke.
      However, exemption (A) does not apply if the striker's ball has hit another object after making the roquet.
 
I don't believe that the committee intended the current USCA rule to exempt a double-tap in the case illustrated by the video. I will go back in the archives to research this when I have time.
 
I too don't think the committee intended to allow what happened in the video to
be allowed.  I think adopting the AC language could make this a non issue.
I remember lobbying successfully to have double taps allowed when hitting a ball clear of the non playing side but never considered the shot in the video.  The other I lobbied for was allowing double taps with balls for #1.  The reason was to take pressure of referees to make such calls.
 
Thanks,
Bob K.
 
 
In a message dated 8/21/2009 5:09:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, johnston1160@aol.com writes:
 
Well, well-

I looked and looked, and then looked again.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  It took me a while, but WE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT SHOTS. The first fast-then-slow sequence shows blue stopping inches past the hoop, while the second fast-then-slow sequence (from another more vertical view) shows blue running out much further past the hoop.  Note the white spot on the ground just past the non-playing side. In the first sequence, blue stops on it.  In the second, blue roles well past it.

It appears to me that in the first sequence blue may well be in contact with the hoop when the mallet strikes it a second time, while in the second sequence it appears that blue may well have bounced back off the wire before the second mallet contact.  Note that in the second sequence blue appears to travel through the hoop in the same line as the mallet, which I don't think could happen if it were crushed.  Also, if blue had bounced off the near side, across the hoop, and was in contact with the far side at second contact, the mallet appears clearly, to me, striking away from hoop, which is not a fault.

If I had refereed either, I probably would have ruled both legal under 11.5a)7).  Now, with the benefit of "instant replay", I am tempted to say that the first sequence appears to be a crush, and the second does not.  No question of a double tap, but the fault, if any, was covered by 11.5a)8).

Even after replaying perhaps 50 times, I still can't determine if sequence #1 shows blue in contact with the near wire or not, although I think it was.  It seems to me it could only be a referee's judgment call, and play on. And I'm sure it would be ruled differently from one ref to another.  I have no idea how we could use this video to rewrite the rule.




-----Original Message-----
From: Twenty6to2@aol.com
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 20, 2009 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Rules Questions
 
Well-
 
This is kind of interesting. Let's just say, for a moment, that we take the double-tap issue out of the question. To me, visually, this sure looked like a crush. If, or were I to be correct about this, I would certainly call it a fault. Now, adding the double-tap issue back into the equation...if I were to call a fault due to a crush, I would certainly also call this a double tap given that the 'last action' was due to the wicket.
 
I think the rules are fine in regard to question number two.
 
-JCO 

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4594 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:31 am
Subject: Re: Rules Questions 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Steve,
 
I think the reason it's a fault in AC is due to the challenge of knowing with certainty that the ball caused the double tap, not the hoop.  Hence the rule Stuart culled from the AC Laws book:
1. Contact between the mallet and the striker's ball is not a fault under Laws 28(a)(7) or 28(a)(8) if it occurs after the striker's ball:
         A. makes a roquet; or
         B. scores the peg point; or
         C. hits a ball pegged out in the stroke.
      However, exemption (A) does not apply if the striker's ball has hit another object after making the roquet.
 
I don't believe that the committee intended the current USCA rule to exempt a double-tap in the case illustrated by the video. I will go back in the archives to research this when I have time.
 
I too don't think the committee intended to allow what happened in the video to
be allowed.  I think adopting the AC language could make this a non issue.
I remember lobbying successfully to have double taps allowed when hitting a ball clear of the non playing side but never considered the shot in the video.  The other I lobbied for was allowing double taps with balls for #1.  The reason was to take pressure of referees to make such calls.
 
Thanks,
Bob K.
 
 
In a message dated 8/21/2009 5:09:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, johnston1160@... writes:
 

Well, well-

I looked and looked, and then looked again.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  It took me a while, but WE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT SHOTS. The first fast-then-slow sequence shows blue stopping inches past the hoop, while the second fast-then-slow sequence (from another more vertical view) shows blue running out much further past the hoop.  Note the white spot on the ground just past the non-playing side. In the first sequence, blue stops on it.  In the second, blue roles well past it.

It appears to me that in the first sequence blue may well be in contact with the hoop when the mallet strikes it a second time, while in the second sequence it appears that blue may well have bounced back off the wire before the second mallet contact.  Note that in the second sequence blue appears to travel through the hoop in the same line as the mallet, which I don't think could happen if it were crushed.  Also, if blue had bounced off the near side, across the hoop, and was in contact with the far side at second contact, the mallet appears clearly, to me, striking away from hoop, which is not a fault.

If I had refereed either, I probably would have ruled both legal under 11.5a)7).  Now, with the benefit of "instant replay", I am tempted to say that the first sequence appears to be a crush, and the second does not.  No question of a double tap, but the fault, if any, was covered by 11.5a)8).

Even after replaying perhaps 50 times, I still can't determine if sequence #1 shows blue in contact with the near wire or not, although I think it was.  It seems to me it could only be a referee's judgment call, and play on. And I'm sure it would be ruled differently from one ref to another.  I have no idea how we could use this video to rewrite the rule.




-----Original Message-----
From: Twenty6to2@aol.com
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 20, 2009 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Rules Questions

 
Well-
 
This is kind of interesting. Let's just say, for a moment, that we take the double-tap issue out of the question. To me, visually, this sure looked like a crush. If, or were I to be correct about this, I would certainly call it a fault. Now, adding the double-tap issue back into the equation...if I were to call a fault due to a crush, I would certainly also call this a double tap given that the 'last action' was due to the wicket.
 
I think the rules are fine in regard to question number two.
 
-JCO 

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4593 From: johnston1160@...
Date: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:08 am
Subject: Re: Rules Questions 		scj_1160
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Well, well-

I looked and looked, and then looked again.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  It took me a while, but WE ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT SHOTS. The first fast-then-slow sequence shows blue stopping inches past the hoop, while the second fast-then-slow sequence (from another more vertical view) shows blue running out much further past the hoop.  Note the white spot on the ground just past the non-playing side. In the first sequence, blue stops on it.  In the second, blue roles well past it.

It appears to me that in the first sequence blue may well be in contact with the hoop when the mallet strikes it a second time, while in the second sequence it appears that blue may well have bounced back off the wire before the second mallet contact.  Note that in the second sequence blue appears to travel through the hoop in the same line as the mallet, which I don't think could happen if it were crushed.  Also, if blue had bounced off the near side, across the hoop, and was in contact with the far side at second contact, the mallet appears clearly, to me, striking away from hoop, which is not a fault.

If I had refereed either, I probably would have ruled both legal under 11.5a)7).  Now, with the benefit of "instant replay", I am tempted to say that the first sequence appears to be a crush, and the second does not.  No question of a double tap, but the fault, if any, was covered by 11.5a)8).

Even after replaying perhaps 50 times, I still can't determine if sequence #1 shows blue in contact with the near wire or not, although I think it was.  It seems to me it could only be a referee's judgment call, and play on. And I'm sure it would be ruled differently from one ref to another.  I have no idea how we could use this video to rewrite the rule.




-----Original Message-----
From: Twenty6to2@...
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, Aug 20, 2009 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Rules Questions

 
Well-
 
This is kind of interesting. Let's just say, for a moment, that we take the double-tap issue out of the question. To me, visually, this sure looked like a crush. If, or were I to be correct about this, I would certainly call it a fault. Now, adding the double-tap issue back into the equation...if I were to call a fault due to a crush, I would certainly also call this a double tap given that the 'last action' was due to the wicket.
 
I think the rules are fine in regard to question number two.
 
-JCO 

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4592 From: Twenty6to2@...
Date: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: Rules Questions 		Twenty6to0
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Well-
 
This is kind of interesting. Let's just say, for a moment, that we take the double-tap issue out of the question. To me, visually, this sure looked like a crush. If, or were I to be correct about this, I would certainly call it a fault. Now, adding the double-tap issue back into the equation...if I were to call a fault due to a crush, I would certainly also call this a double tap given that the 'last action' was due to the wicket.
 
I think the rules are fine in regard to question number two.
 
-JCO 

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4591 From: "Stuart Lawrence" <stuartlawrence@...>
Date: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rules Questions 		lawrencesw98
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
That's why I used the term "proximate cause." If a passenger misses a flight because of a fender-bender on the freeway caused by another driver's negligence, takes a later flight instead and then dies in a crash, the first driver is not liable for the death of the passenger even though he would not have died but for the driver's negligence. The driver's conduct was not the proximate cause of the fatal crash.
 
The AC laws cover this more explicitly, as should the USCA rules. See Law 28 (d):
 
d. EXEMPTIONS
 
   1. Contact between the mallet and the striker's ball is not a fault under Laws 28(a)(7) or 28(a)(8) if it occurs after the striker's ball:
         A. makes a roquet; or
         B. scores the peg point; or
         C. hits a ball pegged out in the stroke.
      However, exemption (A) does not apply if the striker's ball has hit another object after making the roquet.
 
I don't believe that the committee intended the current USCA rule to exempt a double-tap in the case illustrated by the video. I will go back in the archives to research this when I have time.
 
Stuart
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "arthurruffing" <ruffingal1@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:07 PM
Subject: [USCARules] Re: Rules Questions

That is a tough one.  I would say that it is not a fault.  From the last sequence it appears that the reason the striker ball "hung up" at the wicket post was that it hit the ball lying beyond the wicket. That being the case, the cause of the double tap was the striker ball hitting a ball beyond the wicket. 

On the second question, I would leave the rules like they are.

Art



--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, BobKroeger@... wrote:
>
> Dear Committee,
> 
> I was wondering how many of you think the shot in this video  is a fault or
> is clean: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KXQunVsZVw_
> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KXQunVsZVw)    If you think it is a fault would the rule below
> from our rule book apply?   In Association Croquet this is a fault.
> 
> Mallet Faults..........â?odouble tapsâ?ť the striker ball by  hitting the ball
> twice in the same shot or maintaining contact between the  mallet and the
> ball after the ball has hit another ball, except that no fault  can be
> committed under this rule if the cause of the second hit is the result of  a
> roquet, hitting another ball lying beyond the wicket in a wicket shot, or a 
> stake out;
> 
> On another subject - one thing I notice is happening at some  events I
> attend
> is the striker has a ball rolling on the lawn (their last shot  of the
> turn) and the player who plays next plays while this ball is still  rolling. 
> While our rule book deals with this clearly as out of turn should  this not be
> considered 'playing when not entitled to'?  While players are  not doing
> this to cheat they want to gain advantage toward the end of the game  giving
> themselves possibly another turn.  If a player did this trying to go  to
> position and failed to get position does it seem fair that they will  have
> another attempt due to out of turn?  I personally don't think it's  fair and
> would favor this new category of play 'playing when not entitled  to'  to allow
> the opponent to decide if the ball stays where it came to  rest or replayed
> (assuming the turn with the ball rolling did end).
> 
> Thanks for any thoughts you have.
> Bob K.
>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USCARules/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USCARules/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:USCARules-digest@yahoogroups.com
    mailto:USCARules-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    USCARules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4590 From: "arthurruffing" <ruffingal1@...>
Date: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: Rules Questions 		arthurruffing
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
That is a tough one.  I would say that it is not a fault.  From the last
sequence it appears that the reason the striker ball "hung up" at the wicket
post was that it hit the ball lying beyond the wicket. That being the case, the
cause of the double tap was the striker ball hitting a ball beyond the wicket.

On the second question, I would leave the rules like they are.

Art



--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, BobKroeger@... wrote:
>
> Dear Committee,
>
> I was wondering how many of you think the shot in this video  is a fault or
> is clean: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KXQunVsZVw_
> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KXQunVsZVw)    If you think it is a fault
would the rule below
> from our rule book apply?   In Association Croquet this is a fault.
>
> Mallet Faults..........“double taps” the striker ball by  hitting the ball
> twice in the same shot or maintaining contact between the  mallet and the
> ball after the ball has hit another ball, except that no fault  can be
> committed under this rule if the cause of the second hit is the result of  a
> roquet, hitting another ball lying beyond the wicket in a wicket shot, or a
> stake out;
>
> On another subject - one thing I notice is happening at some  events I
> attend
> is the striker has a ball rolling on the lawn (their last shot  of the
> turn) and the player who plays next plays while this ball is still  rolling.
> While our rule book deals with this clearly as out of turn should  this not be
> considered 'playing when not entitled to'?  While players are  not doing
> this to cheat they want to gain advantage toward the end of the game  giving
> themselves possibly another turn.  If a player did this trying to go  to
> position and failed to get position does it seem fair that they will  have
> another attempt due to out of turn?  I personally don't think it's  fair and
> would favor this new category of play 'playing when not entitled  to'  to
allow
> the opponent to decide if the ball stays where it came to  rest or replayed
> (assuming the turn with the ball rolling did end).
>
> Thanks for any thoughts you have.
> Bob K.
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4589 From: "Stuart Lawrence" <stuartlawrence@...>
Date: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: Rules Questions 		lawrencesw98
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

I would say that is absolutely a fault under USCA rules. The proximate cause of the double-tap is the rebound of the striker's ball off the hoop, not the rebound off the ball lying beyond the hoop.
 
I personally see no reason to change the out-of-turn rule in the situation described. If anyone is interested in whether this was discussed by the committee before the last revision I would be happy to research it.
 
Stuart
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:04 PM
Subject: [USCARules] Rules Questions

Dear Committee,
 
I was wondering how many of you think the shot in this video is a fault or is clean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KXQunVsZVw  If you think it is a fault would the rule below from our rule book apply?  In Association Croquet this is a fault.
 
Mallet Faults..........“double taps” the striker ball by hitting the ball twice in the same shot or maintaining contact between the mallet and the ball after the ball has hit another ball, except that no fault can be committed under this rule if the cause of the second hit is the result of a roquet, hitting another ball lying beyond the wicket in a wicket shot, or a stake out;
 
On another subject - one thing I notice is happening at some events I attend
is the striker has a ball rolling on the lawn (their last shot of the turn) and the player who plays next plays while this ball is still rolling.  While our rule book deals with this clearly as out of turn should this not be considered 'playing when not entitled to'?  While players are not doing this to cheat they want to gain advantage toward the end of the game giving themselves possibly another turn.  If a player did this trying to go to position and failed to get position does it seem fair that they will have another attempt due to out of turn?  I personally don't think it's fair and would favor this new category of play 'playing when not entitled to'  to allow the opponent to decide if the ball stays where it came to rest or replayed (assuming the turn with the ball rolling did end).
 
Thanks for any thoughts you have.
Bob K.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4588 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:04 pm
Subject: Rules Questions 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Dear Committee,
 
I was wondering how many of you think the shot in this video is a fault or is clean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KXQunVsZVw  If you think it is a fault would the rule below from our rule book apply?  In Association Croquet this is a fault.
 
Mallet Faults..........“double taps” the striker ball by hitting the ball twice in the same shot or maintaining contact between the mallet and the ball after the ball has hit another ball, except that no fault can be committed under this rule if the cause of the second hit is the result of a roquet, hitting another ball lying beyond the wicket in a wicket shot, or a stake out;
 
On another subject - one thing I notice is happening at some events I attend
is the striker has a ball rolling on the lawn (their last shot of the turn) and the player who plays next plays while this ball is still rolling.  While our rule book deals with this clearly as out of turn should this not be considered 'playing when not entitled to'?  While players are not doing this to cheat they want to gain advantage toward the end of the game giving themselves possibly another turn.  If a player did this trying to go to position and failed to get position does it seem fair that they will have another attempt due to out of turn?  I personally don't think it's fair and would favor this new category of play 'playing when not entitled to'  to allow the opponent to decide if the ball stays where it came to rest or replayed (assuming the turn with the ball rolling did end).
 
Thanks for any thoughts you have.
Bob K.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (29)
#4587 From: Twenty6to2@...
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 11:24 am
Subject: Re: Re: Rules Question 		Twenty6to0
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hey Stuart-
 
I have to say that while the AC Rules cover similar issues, as always, I have problems figuring out what this coverage means. Am I correct that 53 (g) (1), while clear in intent, still prohibits intervention?
 
And out of pure curiosity, assume two AC players, playing a timed game, agree in advance to disagree with a result until the game reaches 26 points. Assume that no Official is present. I can imagine several remedies and sanctions, but should the two player feign innocence, must, strictly according to the rules, the game result stay? 
 
As a tournament director, and in regard to the question on the table, and with time constraints always an issue with USCA tournaments, I would find it hard to allow for, generally speaking, a completed match to continue. If no one is there, well then no one is there: what the players originally, not eventually, agree upon stands.
 
All the best, John
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/3/2009 10:51:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, stuartlawrence@... writes:


Under the current rules, if the clips were correct but the players, believing that the score was tied, continued to play after match time and the first round of last turns, I would not treat further play after the game was objectively won as invalid. I do not believe that the rules permit a referee to intervene to forestall further play. In the situation described, I believe the correct response by a referee, under the letter of Rule 13.3 (a) and the principle of non-intervention, is to await the players' report of the results or their request for assistance in determining the score.
 
May I point out that the AC laws cover this in Law 4 (c):
"WHEN A GAME ENDS A game ends when, in agreement as to which side has won, the players quit the court or start another game on it."
Law 53 (g) (1) defines the winner of a time-limited game as follows:

" Law 4(b) applies but, if neither side has pegged out both its balls in the time allotted for the game, the game is won by the side which has scored the greater number of points when the game ends in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Regulations for Tournaments."
The ORLC (Official Rulings on the Laws of Croquet) explains further:
"4.2 A game does not end until the players have both quit the court (or started another game on it) and agreed which side has won. Note that there is no requirement that the agreement be correct. Of course, almost always, the players do agree correctly who has won but time-limited games can occasionally give rise to confusion between players who cannot add up. If the players agree incorrectly that A has won and quit the court, the game has ended with that result. In the even rarer case when each player quits the court in the belief that he has won (or lost) the game, no agreement has been reached and the game has not ended. If the time-limit has expired, no further play will be possible unless the scores were actually level (subject to the possibility of time being restored if an interference has occurred and Law 53(g)(2)(B) applies) but the game will end only when the players have worked out the true result. Reporting the result to the manager will cause the confusion to be discovered."
The USCA rules (specifically Rule 13.3 [a]), the AC laws, and the USCA tournament regulations all make the players the joint referees of the game unless and until a referee is called, with limited provisions for sua sponte intervention by a spectator referee. With all due respect to Bob and his vast experience with high-handicap tournament players, as a general rule this principle works very well and should not be tinkered with lightly. I would prefer to have referees in charge appointed for a limited subset of tournament play -- probably the lower flights where this sort of thing happens more often -- than expand the intervention power of referees in general.
 
With regard to Art's suggestion, I would note that the Rules Committee has previously rejected the argument that Rule 13.3 (a) (6), which refers to forestalling out of turn play, provides a referee with authority to stop play after a fault or other turn-ending event.
 
Keep in mind that confusion about the score can occur with no referee watching. How would you deal with the case where this situation occurred, the players played on,  the score they ultimately reached was a win for the player who was behind at the end of the first round of last turns, and the players realized their mistake only after quitting the court? I see no reason to invalidate play that was condoned by the players and overturn the result they accepted when they quit the court.
 
Stuart

----- Original Mes
sage -----
From: BobKroeger@aol.com
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Re: Rules Question

Art - thank you.  I think an explicit rule on this is very appropriate due to many players of all skill levels being unable to count wickets for a final score.  How often we see index fingers in the air pointing wicket to wicket.  Thanks, Bob K.

In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:53:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ruffingal1@aol.com writes:

Bob, I think the rule you cite could be used to justify the referee
intervening and informing the players that the game is over. I also
think rule 13.3 a) 6) applies here. Since the game is actually over, it
is nobody's turn to play. So any player preparing to play should be
informed it is not his turn to play since the game is over. I don't
think it necessary to add another rule, but if we were to do so, I would
add it to 13.3 Intervention.

Regards,

Art
--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, BobKroeger@... wrote:
>
> Hello everyone. I have been sent a rules question. A referee notices
> that at the end of the game (last ball in last turn has been played)
that one
> side is ahead of the other (clip placements are correct). Both sides
think
> the score is tied. Could 13.1 h) at the top of page 55 be used to
> intervene? If yes or no, does it make sense to make an explicit rule
on this?
> Happy 4th, Bob K.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (69)
#4586 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 11:15 am
Subject: Re: Re: Rules Question 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Stuart - thank you for your detailed and considered reply.  I see no downside with an explicit intervention in this case.  One might argue that a mathematically challenged referee/empowered boardkeeper might intervene incorrectly thinking one side is ahead when in fact they are tied but I personally am willing to take this infrequent chance.  As I mentioned before, many players have great difficulty counting wickets.
 
I personally don't like the hands off approach in Association Croquet (AC) with regard to lesser experienced players (blind leading the blind).  The seven interventions we have in USCA are a good thing IMO and one more would not cause harm.
 
Thanks,
Bob K.
 
In a message dated 7/3/2009 10:51:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, stuartlawrence@... writes:


Under the current rules, if the clips were correct but the players, believing that the score was tied, continued to play after match time and the first round of last turns, I would not treat further play after the game was objectively won as invalid. I do not believe that the rules permit a referee to intervene to forestall further play. In the situation described, I believe the correct response by a referee, under the letter of Rule 13.3 (a) and the principle of non-intervention, is to await the players' report of the results or their request for assistance in determining the score.
 
May I point out that the AC laws cover this in Law 4 (c):
"WHEN A GAME ENDS A game ends when, in agreement as to which side has won, the players quit the court or start another game on it."
Law 53 (g) (1) defines the winner of a time-limited game as follows:

" Law 4(b) applies but, if neither side has pegged out both its balls in the time allotted for the game, the game is won by the side which has scored the greater number of points when the game ends in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Regulations for Tournaments."
The ORLC (Official Rulings on the Laws of Croquet) explains further:
"4.2 A game does not end until the players have both quit the court (or started another game on it) and agreed which side has won. Note that there is no requirement that the agreement be correct. Of course, almost always, the players do agree correctly who has won but time-limited games can occasionally give rise to confusion between players who cannot add up. If the players agree incorrectly that A has won and quit the court, the game has ended with that result. In the even rarer case when each player quits the court in the belief that he has won (or lost) the game, no agreement has been reached and the game has not ended. If the time-limit has expired, no further play will be possible unless the scores were actually level (subject to the possibility of time being restored if an interference has occurred and Law 53(g)(2)(B) applies) but the game will end only when the players have worked out the true result. Reporting the result to the manager will cause the confusion to be discovered."
The USCA rules (specifically Rule 13.3 [a]), the AC laws, and the USCA tournament regulations all make the players the joint referees of the game unless and until a referee is called, with limited provisions for sua sponte intervention by a spectator referee. With all due respect to Bob and his vast experience with high-handicap tournament players, as a general rule this principle works very well and should not be tinkered with lightly. I would prefer to have referees in charge appointed for a limited subset of tournament play -- probably the lower flights where this sort of thing happens more often -- than expand the intervention power of referees in general.
 
With regard to Art's suggestion, I would note that the Rules Committee has previously rejected the argument that Rule 13.3 (a) (6), which refers to forestalling out of turn play, provides a referee with authority to stop play after a fault or other turn-ending event.
 
Keep in mind that confusion about the score can occur with no referee watching. How would you deal with the case where this situation occurred, the players played on,  the score they ultimately reached was a win for the player who was behind at the end of the first round of last turns, and the players realized their mistake only after quitting the court? I see no reason to invalidate play that was condoned by the players and overturn the result they accepted when they quit the court.
 
Stuart

----- Original Mes
sage -----
From: BobKroeger@aol.com
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Re: Rules Question

Art - thank you.  I think an explicit rule on this is very appropriate due to many players of all skill levels being unable to count wickets for a final score.  How often we see index fingers in the air pointing wicket to wicket.  Thanks, Bob K.

In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:53:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ruffingal1@aol.com writes:

Bob, I think the rule you cite could be used to justify the referee
intervening and informing the players that the game is over. I also
think rule 13.3 a) 6) applies here. Since the game is actually over, it
is nobody's turn to play. So any player preparing to play should be
informed it is not his turn to play since the game is over. I don't
think it necessary to add another rule, but if we were to do so, I would
add it to 13.3 Intervention.

Regards,

Art
--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, BobKroeger@... wrote:
>
> Hello everyone. I have been sent a rules question. A referee notices
> that at the end of the game (last ball in last turn has been played)
that one
> side is ahead of the other (clip placements are correct). Both sides
think
> the score is tied. Could 13.1 h) at the top of page 55 be used to
> intervene? If yes or no, does it make sense to make an explicit rule
on this?
> Happy 4th, Bob K.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (69)
#4585 From: "Stuart Lawrence" <stuartlawrence@...>
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 2:47 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rules Question 		lawrencesw98
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Under the current rules, if the clips were correct but the players, believing that the score was tied, continued to play after match time and the first round of last turns, I would not treat further play after the game was objectively won as invalid. I do not believe that the rules permit a referee to intervene to forestall further play. In the situation described, I believe the correct response by a referee, under the letter of Rule 13.3 (a) and the principle of non-intervention, is to await the players' report of the results or their request for assistance in determining the score.
 
May I point out that the AC laws cover this in Law 4 (c):
"WHEN A GAME ENDS A game ends when, in agreement as to which side has won, the players quit the court or start another game on it."
Law 53 (g) (1) defines the winner of a time-limited game as follows:

" Law 4(b) applies but, if neither side has pegged out both its balls in the time allotted for the game, the game is won by the side which has scored the greater number of points when the game ends in accordance with the relevant provisions in the Regulations for Tournaments."
The ORLC (Official Rulings on the Laws of Croquet) explains further:
"4.2 A game does not end until the players have both quit the court (or started another game on it) and agreed which side has won. Note that there is no requirement that the agreement be correct. Of course, almost always, the players do agree correctly who has won but time-limited games can occasionally give rise to confusion between players who cannot add up. If the players agree incorrectly that A has won and quit the court, the game has ended with that result. In the even rarer case when each player quits the court in the belief that he has won (or lost) the game, no agreement has been reached and the game has not ended. If the time-limit has expired, no further play will be possible unless the scores were actually level (subject to the possibility of time being restored if an interference has occurred and Law 53(g)(2)(B) applies) but the game will end only when the players have worked out the true result. Reporting the result to the manager will cause the confusion to be discovered."
The USCA rules (specifically Rule 13.3 [a]), the AC laws, and the USCA tournament regulations all make the players the joint referees of the game unless and until a referee is called, with limited provisions for sua sponte intervention by a spectator referee. With all due respect to Bob and his vast experience with high-handicap tournament players, as a general rule this principle works very well and should not be tinkered with lightly. I would prefer to have referees in charge appointed for a limited subset of tournament play -- probably the lower flights where this sort of thing happens more often -- than expand the intervention power of referees in general.
 
With regard to Art's suggestion, I would note that the Rules Committee has previously rejected the argument that Rule 13.3 (a) (6), which refers to forestalling out of turn play, provides a referee with authority to stop play after a fault or other turn-ending event.
 
Keep in mind that confusion about the score can occur with no referee watching. How would you deal with the case where this situation occurred, the players played on,  the score they ultimately reached was a win for the player who was behind at the end of the first round of last turns, and the players realized their mistake only after quitting the court? I see no reason to invalidate play that was condoned by the players and overturn the result they accepted when they quit the court.
 
Stuart

----- Original Mes
sage -----
From: BobKroeger@...
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Re: Rules Question

Art - thank you.  I think an explicit rule on this is very appropriate due to many players of all skill levels being unable to count wickets for a final score.  How often we see index fingers in the air pointing wicket to wicket.  Thanks, Bob K.

In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:53:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ruffingal1@... writes:

Bob, I think the rule you cite could be used to justify the referee
intervening and informing the players that the game is over. I also
think rule 13.3 a) 6) applies here. Since the game is actually over, it
is nobody's turn to play. So any player preparing to play should be
informed it is not his turn to play since the game is over. I don't
think it necessary to add another rule, but if we were to do so, I would
add it to 13.3 Intervention.

Regards,

Art
--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, BobKroeger@... wrote:
>
> Hello everyone. I have been sent a rules question. A referee notices
> that at the end of the game (last ball in last turn has been played)
that one
> side is ahead of the other (clip placements are correct). Both sides
think
> the score is tied. Could 13.1 h) at the top of page 55 be used to
> intervene? If yes or no, does it make sense to make an explicit rule
on this?
> Happy 4th, Bob K.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (69)
#4584 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 10:35 am
Subject: Re: Rules Question 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Johnny - thank you.  You and others on the committee who know me well
are never surprised by my leaning - when in doubt take doubt away with a clear concise statement.  It does no harm to do this.  Warmly, Bob K.
 
In a message dated 7/3/2009 10:20:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Twenty6to2@... writes:


Hi Bob-
 
I'm not certain if 13.1h would be your best choice to use, but it would be fine. Art's suggestion makes sense, and there are a few other portions within the book that would justify intervention. Heck, 14.3 ("Only the striker may be on the lawn...") would work. The second sentence of 13.11a would certainly work: "If the tournament guidelines provide, when a side is playing the final ball in the rotation of last turn is ahead during the ball's turn, play will stop and the match shall be declared over." 13.11b might work here as well. Either way, 13.1h ("The Common Sense Rule") would be good enough.
 
We have games in which a winner has been determined even though the actual score had been tied. While there may be a reasonable argument to clarify this issue, I see no great reason to add words to the book to cover your scenario.
 
All the best, John
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:00:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, BobKroeger@aol.com writes:


Hello everyone.  I have been sent a rules question.  A referee notices that at the end of the game (last ball in last turn has been played) that one side is ahead of the other (clip placements are correct). Both sides think the score is tied.  Could 13.1 h) at the top of page 55 be used to intervene?  If yes or no, does it make sense to make an explicit rule on this?  Happy 4th, Bob K.

.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (69)
#4583 From: Twenty6to2@...
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 10:18 am
Subject: Re: Rules Question 		Twenty6to0
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Bob-
 
I'm not certain if 13.1h would be your best choice to use, but it would be fine. Art's suggestion makes sense, and there are a few other portions within the book that would justify intervention. Heck, 14.3 ("Only the striker may be on the lawn...") would work. The second sentence of 13.11a would certainly work: "If the tournament guidelines provide, when a side is playing the final ball in the rotation of last turn is ahead during the ball's turn, play will stop and the match shall be declared over." 13.11b might work here as well. Either way, 13.1h ("The Common Sense Rule") would be good enough.
 
We have games in which a winner has been determined even though the actual score had been tied. While there may be a reasonable argument to clarify this issue, I see no great reason to add words to the book to cover your scenario.
 
All the best, John
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:00:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, BobKroeger@... writes:


Hello everyone.  I have been sent a rules question.  A referee notices that at the end of the game (last ball in last turn has been played) that one side is ahead of the other (clip placements are correct). Both sides think the score is tied.  Could 13.1 h) at the top of page 55 be used to intervene?  If yes or no, does it make sense to make an explicit rule on this?  Happy 4th, Bob K.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (69)
#4582 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 10:01 am
Subject: Re: Re: Rules Question 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Art - thank you.  I think an explicit rule on this is very appropriate due to many players of all skill levels being unable to count wickets for a final score.  How often we see index fingers in the air pointing wicket to wicket.  Thanks, Bob K.
 
In a message dated 7/3/2009 9:53:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ruffingal1@... writes:



Bob, I think the rule you cite could be used to justify the referee
intervening and informing the players that the game is over. I also
think rule 13.3 a) 6) applies here. Since the game is actually over, it
is nobody's turn to play. So any player preparing to play should be
informed it is not his turn to play since the game is over. I don't
think it necessary to add another rule, but if we were to do so, I would
add it to 13.3 Intervention.

Regards,

Art
--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, BobKroeger@... wrote:
>
> Hello everyone. I have been sent a rules question. A referee notices
> that at the end of the game (last ball in last turn has been played)
that one
> side is ahead of the other (clip placements are correct). Both sides
think
> the score is tied. Could 13.1 h) at the top of page 55 be used to
> intervene? If yes or no, does it make sense to make an explicit rule
on this?
> Happy 4th, Bob K.
> **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2
easy
> steps!
>
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585087x1201462804/aol?redir\
=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd\
=
> JulystepsfooterNO62)
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (69)
#4581 From: "arthurruffing" <ruffingal1@...>
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 1:52 pm
Subject: Re: Rules Question 		arthurruffing
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
Bob,  I think the rule you cite could be used to justify the referee
intervening and informing the players that the game is over.  I also
think rule 13.3 a) 6) applies here.  Since the game is actually over, it
is nobody's turn to play.  So any player preparing to play should be
informed it is not his turn to play since the game is over.  I don't
think it necessary to add another rule, but if we were to do so, I would
add it to  13.3 Intervention.

Regards,



Art
--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, BobKroeger@... wrote:
>
> Hello everyone. I have been sent a rules question. A referee notices
> that at the end of the game (last ball in last turn has been played)
that one
> side is ahead of the other (clip placements are correct). Both sides
think
> the score is tied. Could 13.1 h) at the top of page 55 be used to
> intervene? If yes or no, does it make sense to make an explicit rule
on this?
> Happy 4th, Bob K.
> **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2
easy
> steps!
>
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585087x1201462804/aol?redir\
=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd\
=
> JulystepsfooterNO62)
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (69)
#4580 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Fri Jul 3, 2009 8:58 am
Subject: Rules Question 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello everyone.  I have been sent a rules question.  A referee notices that at the end of the game (last ball in last turn has been played) that one side is ahead of the other (clip placements are correct). Both sides think the score is tied.  Could 13.1 h) at the top of page 55 be used to intervene?  If yes or no, does it make sense to make an explicit rule on this?  Happy 4th, Bob K.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (69)
#4579 From: johnston1160@...
Date: Sun May 25, 2008 10:09 am
Subject: Re: Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong Ball 		scj_1160
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
There obviously seems to be sufficient interest for a rule rewrite, or at least an opinion.  Let's give this another week or so .. say June 1st .. for other comments.  Then I'll try to put a direction on the next step.
 
Happy Memorial Day.
 
Steve



Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)
#4578 From: "dochuff" <dochuff@...>
Date: Sat May 24, 2008 11:49 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong Ball 		huffrules
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Well stated Stuart.
 
 
J. Huff
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:58 AM
Subject: [USCARules] Re: Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong Ball


Good solution, Stuart. I also agree this needs clarification.

As I believe we discussed before, "corrections and clarifications" which
it is agreed need to be made can be posted to a special section of the
USCA rules website until the next rules revision is published. I don't
believe it is necessary to incur the expense of special mailings to
members. The important thing is to get the clarifications out there.

Regards,

Art

--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart Lawrence" <stuartlawrence@...>
wrote:
>
> If this was a doubles game, as I think you are saying, this was
clearly
> a wrong ball fault, not an out-of-turn play, and no part of Rule 11.1
> applies. The rule provides for a different outcome in singles and
> doubles, so if the player "said it was singles" after first telling
you
> it was a doubles game, are you saying she misled you into giving a
wrong
> ruling?
>
> Rule 11.2 (a) provides, "The striker has committed a wrong ball fault
> if: . . . 2) in doubles, the striker plays a partner ball or an
opponent
> ball to start a turn . . . ."
>
> Rule 11.2 (c) provides, "A player can commit a wrong ball fault only
> when it is that player's turn."
>
> Rule 11.1 (a) describes three kinds of out-of turn play, none of which
> include the striker in a doubles game playing the partner ball to
start
> the turn.
>
> Rule 12.1 provides, "If a fault is not called before the first shot of
> the opponent's next turn, the fault shall be condoned."
>
>
> As Bob points out, the rules do not explicitly state that the proper
> order of play (Rule 1.3 [a]) is not changed when a wrong ball fault is
> committed and condoned by the opponent taking the first shot of
his/her
> turn with any ball. This should be made explicit and examples given
for
> both singles and doubles.
>
> A new subdivision (d) of Rule 11.2 (or a clarification of the rule)
> could read:
>
> d) If a wrong ball fault is committed, but the opponent condones the
> fault by playing the first shot of the opponent's next turn with any
> ball, the proper order of play is not affected by the fault. Examples:
>
> i) In doubles, the striker of Blue plays Black to start his
> turn, a wrong ball fault. The striker of Red plays the first shot of
the
> opponent's turn with Red, condoning the fault (Rule 12.1). Red has not
> played out of turn, because the wrong ball fault did not affect the
> proper order of play.
>
> ii) In doubles, the striker of Blue plays Black to start his
> turn, a wrong ball fault. The striker of Yellow plays the first shot
of
> the opponent's turn with Yellow. The fault is condoned (Rule 12.1),
but
> the striker of Yellow has played out of turn (Rule 11.1 [a] [2]),
> because the wrong ball fault did not affect the proper order of play.
>
> iii) In singles, the striker begins the turn by striking Blue,
> the correct ball to play, but later switches balls and strikes Black,
a
> wrong ball fault. The opponent plays the first shot of her turn with
> Yellow. The fault is condoned (Rule 12.1), but the opponent has played
> out of turn (Rule 11.1 [a] [1]), because the wrong ball fault did not
> affect the proper order of play.
>
>
> Stuart
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: BobKroeger@...
> To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:55 AM
> Subject: [USCARules] Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong
Ball
>
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> At the recent Piping Rock Tournament (directed by Johnny and me)
> we had an interesting situation arise. In doubles the correct player
in
> turn played the wrong ball (owner of red played yellow) followed
> by the correct opponent playing the correct ball (owner of black
played
> black). The error was noticed and I was summoned for a ruling.
> Ironically, she described it as a doubles game at first but after a
> minute of so she said it was singles which made the ruling easy (out
of
> turn - not wrong ball). Johnny and I discussed this and we felt a
> clarification is needed. I called Teddy Prentis for his opinion and he
> told me this identical situation occurred in the recent Nationals and
it
> was ruled as a condoned fault in turn (black should follow the player
of
> red even though the player of red played yellow). Below I have a first
> draft of a remedy (UPPER CASE NEW LANGUAGE):
>
> WRONG BALL
> 11.2 d) ...........occurs AND IS NOTICED,........... (NEW SENTENCE: IF
> THE FAULT IS CONDONED BY THE NEXT CORRECT PLAYER PLAYING THEIR CORRECT
> BALL, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED OUT OF TURN - I.E. IN DOUBLES THE CORRECT
> PLAYER PLAYS A WRONG BALL (OWNER OF RED PLAYS YELLOW FOLLOWED BY THE
> CORRECT PLAYER PLAYING THEIR CORRECT BALL (OWNER OF BLACK PLAYING
> BLACK).
>
> I am certain that our committee's expertise will vastly improve on my
> rudimentary example but this situation does need clarifying.
>
> I know we have an item pending and Art has three more examples for us
to
> discuss. With the summer season heating up in the northeast and many
> tournaments to take place, does it make sense for our committee to
> hunker down and do some good work in a timely manner?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob K.
>


Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)
#4577 From: "arthurruffing" <ruffingal1@...>
Date: Wed May 21, 2008 10:58 am
Subject: Re: Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong Ball 		arthurruffing
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
Good solution, Stuart.  I also agree this needs clarification.

As I believe we discussed before, "corrections and clarifications" which
it is agreed need to be made can be posted to a special section of the
USCA rules website until the next rules revision is published.  I don't
believe it is necessary to incur the expense of special mailings to
members.  The important thing is to get the clarifications out there.

Regards,

Art




--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart Lawrence" <stuartlawrence@...>
wrote:
>
> If this was a doubles game, as I think you are saying, this was
clearly
> a wrong ball fault, not an out-of-turn play, and no part of Rule 11.1
> applies. The rule provides for a different outcome in singles and
> doubles, so if the player "said it was singles" after first telling
you
> it was a doubles game, are you saying she misled you into giving a
wrong
> ruling?
>
> Rule 11.2 (a) provides, "The striker has committed a wrong ball fault
> if: . . . 2) in doubles, the striker plays a partner ball or an
opponent
> ball to start a turn . . . ."
>
> Rule 11.2 (c) provides, "A player can commit a wrong ball fault only
> when it is that player's turn."
>
> Rule 11.1 (a) describes three kinds of out-of turn play, none of which
> include the striker in a doubles game playing the partner ball to
start
> the turn.
>
> Rule 12.1 provides, "If a fault is not called before the first shot of
> the opponent's next turn, the fault shall be condoned."
>
>
> As Bob points out, the rules do not explicitly state that the proper
> order of play (Rule 1.3 [a]) is not changed when a wrong ball fault is
> committed and condoned by the opponent taking the first shot of
his/her
> turn with any ball. This should be made explicit and examples given
for
> both singles and doubles.
>
> A new subdivision (d) of Rule 11.2 (or a clarification of the rule)
> could read:
>
> d) If a wrong ball fault is committed, but the opponent condones the
> fault by playing the first shot of the opponent's next turn with any
> ball, the proper order of play is not affected by the fault. Examples:
>
> i) In doubles, the striker of Blue plays Black to start his
> turn, a wrong ball fault. The striker of Red plays the first shot of
the
> opponent's turn with Red, condoning the fault (Rule 12.1). Red has not
> played out of turn, because the wrong ball fault did not affect the
> proper order of play.
>
> ii) In doubles, the striker of Blue plays Black to start his
> turn, a wrong ball fault. The striker of Yellow plays the first shot
of
> the opponent's turn with Yellow. The fault is condoned (Rule 12.1),
but
> the striker of Yellow has played out of turn (Rule 11.1 [a] [2]),
> because the wrong ball fault did not affect the proper order of play.
>
> iii) In singles, the striker begins the turn by striking Blue,
> the correct ball to play, but later switches balls and strikes Black,
a
> wrong ball fault. The opponent plays the first shot of her turn with
> Yellow. The fault is condoned (Rule 12.1), but the opponent has played
> out of turn (Rule 11.1 [a] [1]), because the wrong ball fault did not
> affect the proper order of play.
>
>
> Stuart
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: BobKroeger@...
> To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:55 AM
> Subject: [USCARules] Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong
Ball
>
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> At the recent Piping Rock Tournament (directed by Johnny and me)
> we had an interesting situation arise. In doubles the correct player
in
> turn played the wrong ball (owner of red played yellow) followed
> by the correct opponent playing the correct ball (owner of black
played
> black). The error was noticed and I was summoned for a ruling.
> Ironically, she described it as a doubles game at first but after a
> minute of so she said it was singles which made the ruling easy (out
of
> turn - not wrong ball). Johnny and I discussed this and we felt a
> clarification is needed. I called Teddy Prentis for his opinion and he
> told me this identical situation occurred in the recent Nationals and
it
> was ruled as a condoned fault in turn (black should follow the player
of
> red even though the player of red played yellow). Below I have a first
> draft of a remedy (UPPER CASE NEW LANGUAGE):
>
> WRONG BALL
> 11.2 d) ...........occurs AND IS NOTICED,........... (NEW SENTENCE: IF
> THE FAULT IS CONDONED BY THE NEXT CORRECT PLAYER PLAYING THEIR CORRECT
> BALL, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED OUT OF TURN - I.E. IN DOUBLES THE CORRECT
> PLAYER PLAYS A WRONG BALL (OWNER OF RED PLAYS YELLOW FOLLOWED BY THE
> CORRECT PLAYER PLAYING THEIR CORRECT BALL (OWNER OF BLACK PLAYING
> BLACK).
>
> I am certain that our committee's expertise will vastly improve on my
> rudimentary example but this situation does need clarifying.
>
> I know we have an item pending and Art has three more examples for us
to
> discuss. With the summer season heating up in the northeast and many
> tournaments to take place, does it make sense for our committee to
> hunker down and do some good work in a timely manner?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob K.
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)
#4576 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Tue May 20, 2008 5:46 pm
Subject: Re: Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong Ball 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Stuart,
 
Yes, once she told me it was singles it was simple - out of turn.
If it had been doubles I would have ruled that black was in turn
thereby condoning the fault.  Your language below is vastly better than mine (no surprises there) and should offer rule book readers
much needed clarity.
 
Thanks,
Bob K.
 
In a message dated 5/20/2008 3:32:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, stuartlawrence@... writes:
If this was a doubles game, as I think you are saying, this was clearly
a wrong ball fault, not an out-of-turn play, and no part of Rule 11.1
applies. The rule provides for a different outcome in singles and
doubles, so if the player "said it was singles" after first telling you
it was a doubles game, are you saying she misled you into giving a wrong
ruling?



Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)
#4575 From: "Stuart Lawrence" <stuartlawrence@...>
Date: Tue May 20, 2008 7:32 pm
Subject: Re: Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong Ball 		lawrencesw98
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
If this was a doubles game, as I think you are saying, this was clearly
a wrong ball fault, not an out-of-turn play, and no part of Rule 11.1
applies. The rule provides for a different outcome in singles and
doubles, so if the player "said it was singles" after first telling you
it was a doubles game, are you saying she misled you into giving a wrong
ruling?

Rule 11.2 (a) provides, "The striker has committed a wrong ball fault
if: . . . 2) in doubles, the striker plays a partner ball or an opponent
ball to start a turn . . . ."

Rule 11.2 (c) provides, "A player can commit a wrong ball fault only
when it is that player's turn."

Rule 11.1 (a) describes three kinds of out-of turn play, none of which
include the striker in a doubles game playing the partner ball to start
the turn.

Rule 12.1 provides, "If a fault is not called before the first shot of
the opponent's next turn, the fault shall be condoned."


As Bob points out, the rules do not explicitly state that the proper
order of play (Rule 1.3 [a]) is not changed when a wrong ball fault is
committed and condoned by the opponent taking the first shot of his/her
turn with any ball. This should be made explicit and examples given for
both singles and doubles.

A new subdivision (d) of Rule 11.2 (or a clarification of the rule)
could read:

     d) If a wrong ball fault is committed, but the opponent condones the
fault by playing the first shot of the opponent's next turn with any
ball, the proper order of play is not affected by the fault. Examples:

         i) In doubles, the striker of Blue plays Black to start his
turn, a wrong ball fault. The striker of Red plays the first shot of the
opponent's turn with Red, condoning the fault (Rule 12.1). Red has not
played out of turn, because the wrong ball fault did not affect the
proper order of play.

         ii) In doubles, the striker of Blue plays Black to start his
turn, a wrong ball fault. The striker of Yellow plays the first shot of
the opponent's turn with Yellow. The fault is condoned (Rule 12.1), but
the striker of Yellow has played out of turn (Rule 11.1 [a] [2]),
because the wrong ball fault did not affect the proper order of play.

         iii) In singles, the striker begins the turn by striking Blue,
the correct ball to play, but later switches balls and strikes Black, a
wrong ball fault. The opponent plays the first shot of her turn with
Yellow. The fault is condoned (Rule 12.1), but the opponent has played
out of turn (Rule 11.1 [a] [1]), because the wrong ball fault did not
affect the proper order of play.


Stuart


----- Original Message -----
From: BobKroeger@...
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 11:55 AM
Subject: [USCARules] Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong Ball


Hello Everyone,

At the recent Piping Rock Tournament (directed by Johnny and me)
we had an interesting situation arise.  In doubles the correct player in
turn played the wrong ball (owner of red played yellow) followed
by the correct opponent playing the correct ball (owner of black played
black).  The error was noticed and I was summoned for a ruling.
Ironically, she described it as a doubles game at first but after a
minute of so she said it was singles which made the ruling easy (out of
turn - not wrong ball). Johnny and I discussed this and we felt a
clarification is needed.  I called Teddy Prentis for his opinion and he
told me this identical situation occurred in the recent Nationals and it
was ruled as a condoned fault in turn (black should follow the player of
red even though the player of red played yellow).  Below I have a first
draft of a remedy (UPPER CASE NEW LANGUAGE):

WRONG BALL
11.2 d) ...........occurs AND IS NOTICED,........... (NEW SENTENCE: IF
THE FAULT IS CONDONED BY THE NEXT CORRECT PLAYER PLAYING THEIR CORRECT
BALL, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED OUT OF TURN  - I.E. IN DOUBLES THE CORRECT
PLAYER PLAYS A WRONG BALL (OWNER OF RED PLAYS YELLOW FOLLOWED BY THE
CORRECT PLAYER PLAYING THEIR CORRECT BALL (OWNER OF BLACK PLAYING
BLACK).

I am certain that our committee's expertise will vastly improve on my
rudimentary example but this situation does need clarifying.

I know we have an item pending and Art has three more examples for us to
discuss.  With the summer season heating up in the northeast and many
tournaments to take place, does it make sense for our committee to
hunker down and do some good work in a timely manner?

Thanks,
Bob K.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)
#4574 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Tue May 20, 2008 11:55 am
Subject: Rules Question/Clarification - Condoned Wrong Ball 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello Everyone,
 
At the recent Piping Rock Tournament (directed by Johnny and me)
we had an interesting situation arise.  In doubles the correct player in turn played the wrong ball (owner of red played yellow) followed
by the correct opponent playing the correct ball (owner of black played black).  The error was noticed and I was summoned for a ruling.  Ironically, she described it as a doubles game at first but after a minute of so she said it was singles which made the ruling easy (out of turn - not wrong ball). Johnny and I discussed this and we felt a clarification is needed.  I called Teddy Prentis for his opinion and he told me this identical situation occurred in the recent Nationals and it was ruled as a condoned fault in turn (black should follow the player of red even though the player of red played yellow).  Below I have a first draft of a remedy (UPPER CASE NEW LANGUAGE):
 
WRONG BALL
11.2 d) ...........occurs AND IS NOTICED,........... (NEW SENTENCE: IF THE FAULT IS CONDONED BY THE NEXT CORRECT PLAYER PLAYING THEIR CORRECT BALL, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED OUT OF TURN  - I.E. IN DOUBLES THE CORRECT PLAYER PLAYS A WRONG BALL (OWNER OF RED PLAYS YELLOW FOLLOWED BY THE CORRECT PLAYER PLAYING THEIR CORRECT BALL (OWNER OF BLACK PLAYING BLACK).
 
I am certain that our committee's expertise will vastly improve on my rudimentary example but this situation does need clarifying.
 
I know we have an item pending and Art has three more examples for us to discuss.  With the summer season heating up in the northeast and many tournaments to take place, does it make sense for our committee to hunker down and do some good work in a timely manner?
 
Thanks,
Bob K.



Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (6)
#4573 From: RGCrover@...
Date: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:55 am
Subject: Re: Re: MATTERS REQUIRING OUR ATTENTION 		rgcrover
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I have no objection to Steve's proposal.  Nice job.


-----Original Message-----
From: johnston1160@...
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Re: MATTERS REQUIRING OUR ATTENTION

 
Gentlemen,
 
II propose the following:
 
***********************************************************
 
Opinion 1-2008
 
In order to clarify several questions relating to (1) the definition of a "roquet", and (2) balls not in the game hitting other balls not in the game,  the following rules and definitions have been rewritten and shown in their entirety below..
 
Rule 5.2 Deadness Between Balls In and Out of the Game
 
A striker ball not in the game is considered dead on all balls in the game, but is considered alive on all balls not in the game,   Therefore, a ball not in the game hitting a ball not in the game is a roquet, because it is alive on it.  A striker ball in the game is the game is considered dead on all balls not in the game.  However, a striker ball that is in the game cannot be blocked (rule 9.2) or wired (rule 9.3 by a ball that is not in the game.
 
Rule 5.3b)  Ball Not In the Game
 
"A striker ball not in the game may roquet any other ball that is not in the game, but the striker shall not be entitled to take croquet (Rule 6.2).  If the roqueted ball is peeled through the #1 wicket that ball is then in the game."
 
Glossary Definition of a roquet.
 
ROQUET - a shot in which the striker ball hits a ball it is "alive on".  This includes a ball not in the game hitting another ball not in the game.
 
********************************************************
 
DIscussion .. Do we need any? 
 
******************************************************
 
Hope we are getting near agreement.
 
Steve
 
 
 
 
 




Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (25)
#4572 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: Re: MATTERS REQUIRING OUR ATTENTION 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi Steve and Everyone,
 
It could be my blurryeyedness (that's a spell check nighmare!!) has me wondering if Rich has disagreed with what many of us agreed to.  I think we all agree with the issue at hand - it's just that it needs to be written clearly.  As long time rules committee members know, this ain't my forte so I wait to hear where the clarification ends up.
 
Needing more sleep,
Bob K.
 
In a message dated 3/12/2008 7:36:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, johnston1160@... writes:

In a message dated 3/12/2008 7:50:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ruffingal1@aol.com writes:
Steve,

I thinkg that your suggestion is great.
Art, and all,
 
I'll give it another week for anyone to make further suggestions or comments.  Without any, I will forward the Opinion as written to the appropriate people for publication. 
 
Regards and thanks.  It's good to do business in a businesslike way.
 
Steve
 







Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (25)
#4571 From: johnston1160@...
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: Re: MATTERS REQUIRING OUR ATTENTION 		scj_1160
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 3/12/2008 7:50:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ruffingal1@... writes:
Steve,

I thinkg that your suggestion is great.
Art, and all,
 
I'll give it another week for anyone to make further suggestions or comments.  Without any, I will forward the Opinion as written to the appropriate people for publication. 
 
Regards and thanks.  It's good to do business in a businesslike way.
 
Steve
 




Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (25)
#4570 From: BobKroeger@...
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: Re: MATTERS REQUIRING OUR ATTENTION 		bobkroegercr...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Same from Bob K. - look forward to Art's next entry
 
In a message dated 3/11/2008 9:42:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Twenty6to2@... writes:

Same.
 
In a message dated 3/11/2008 9:36:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, RGCrover@aol.com writes:

I have no objection to Steve's suggestion.


-----Original Message-----
From: johnston1160@aol.com
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:04 pm
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Re: MATTERS REQUIRING OUR ATTENTION

Gentlemen,
 
To coin a phrase, I will eat Crowquet.  My position has changed due to a multiple rereading of both the correspondence, and the Rule Book. 
 
Rich, with all respect, your response to BobK initially confirmed my wrong position.  Bob asked "Does this mean we have to redefine a roquet as one live ball hitting another?  Your response was "We already have defined a roquet as one live ball hitting another-see the first sentence of Rule 6.2a and the definition of the term "roquet" in the glossary." 
 
Actually, we did NOT define a roquet as one live ball hitting another.  The glossary defines a roquet as " .. the striker ball hitting a ball it is alive on".   Nowhere in the Rule Book does it say an out ball is alive on another out ball. 
 
I have always (and incorrectly) believed that out balls were dead on every ball, not just in balls, and that it was a special case of not being a fault, so that all balls stayed where they ended and than cannons counted.  It must be inferred from Rule 5.2, that out balls are alive on out balls, and I never drew that inference.  Incidentally, it's quite easy for a reader to draw the wrong inference because the first line (not the first complete sentence) of Rule 5.2 says "A striker ball not in the game is considered dead on all balls"
 
Art's and RIch's position now makes total sense .. 5.3b) is, in fact, incorrect. I agree that simply eliminating the words "but no roquet is made" is insufficient.  We must therefore, somewhere along the line, clearly define that a striker out ball hitting another out ball is, in fact, a roquet.  Then, Rule 6.2a)3) is perfectly fine and needs no alteration, and cannoning is cleared up because a roquet was made.
 
To that end, please consider Rule 5.2 .. Deadness Between Balls In and Out of the Game .. as an appropriate rule also in need of clarification, stating somehow that a striker ball not in the game is alive on all balls not in the game, and may roquet them.  I personally do not see this as redundant, but as helpful to make subsequent rules understood and work as intended.
 
Rule 5.3b) also needs some form of rewrite, as per everyone's agreement. 
 
How about an Opinion that said:
 
"A striker ball not in the game may roquet any other ball that is not in the game, but the striker shall not be entitled to take croquet (Rule 6.2).  If the roqueted ball is peeled through the #1 wicket that ball is then in the game."
 
This is almost identical to Rich's suggestion, with the exception that "roquet" is used rather than "hit". 
 
You also might consider, as long as we are to issue an opinion, some clarification of the glossary definition of the word "roquet", perhaps adding words such as "This includes a striker ball not in the game hitting another ball not in the game."
 
Steve
 
***************************************************************
 
In a message dated 2/27/2008 7:21:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, RGCrover@aol.com writes:
Bob,  We already have defined a roquet as one live ball hitting another-see the first sentence of Rule 6.2a and the definition of the term "roquet" in the glossary.  Although I understand Art's sentiment that we should reiterate this fact in 5.3b, my preference is not to have redundancy in the rules.  Perhaps we could say:
A striker ball not in the game may hit any other ball not in the game, but the striker shall not be entitled to take croquet (Rule 6.2)."  However, I can live with it either way.  This clearly is an error that needs to be corrected.

-----Original Message-----
From: BobKroeger@aol.com
To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 8:51 am
Subject: Re: [USCARules] Re: MATTERS REQUIRING OUR ATTENTION

Does this mean we have to redefine a roquet as one live ball hitting another?
Bob K.
 
In a message dated 2/26/2008 8:11:51 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time, ruffingal1@aol.com writes:

Because of the "history" of Rule 5.3.b (stating that a ball not in the
game hitting another ball not in the game is NOT a roquet), I don't
think it is sufficient to just drop the words " but no roquet is made,"
or even to add only the words, "but the striker shall not be entitled to
take croquet." I think we must be specifice that "a roquet is made, but
no croquet shot is earned," or, using Rich's words "a roquet is made,
but the striker shall not be entitled to take croquet." Specifying
that the hit is a roquet can only add clarity. It also avoids the
"cannon" definition issue.

I agree with not having to add anothe exception to 6.2.a. It would be
redundant.

Art

--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, RGCrover@... wrote:
>
> Art is correct that there is a contradiction, but only to the extent
that Rule 5.3b contains an error. Ă‚ As many of you will recall, we
modified the concept of when a roquet was made when we revised the rule
book. Ă‚ The clear intention was that anytime a ball hit another ball
(unless it was dead on that ball), a roquet was made, although in
certain cases (set forth in 6.2a ), the striker was not entitled to take
croquet. Ă‚ One of the reasons for this change was to avoid the issue
of whether a scatter shot played by a ball not in the game in close
proximity to another ball not in the game was a double fault or not.
Ă‚ By defining this shot as a roquet, it clearly was not a fault. Ă‚
For this reason, I don't believe the suggestion made by Bob to modify
Rule 6.2d would be consistent with our intention. Ă‚
>
>
>
> The language of Rule 5.3b is virtually verbatim to the language in
Rule 23b of the prior rule book. Ă‚ We simply forgot to delete the
phrase "but no roquet is made" at the end of the first sentence. Ă‚
The language can be simply deleted or replaced with the words "but the
striker shall not be entitled to take croquet". Ă‚ Either will correct
the error. Ă‚ If the preference is to add a phrase, I suggest that the
language above is more consistent than the language suggested by Art,
since it mirrors the language in Rule 6.2a.
>
>
>
>
> However, I don't see the need to modify the language of 6.2a by adding
a fourth exception. Ă‚ Subparagraph 3 which states "the striker ball
and the roqueted ball have not yet scored the #1 wicket" covers this
situation and the proposed language would be repetitive.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arthurruffing ruffingal1@...
> To: USCARules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 8:16 am
> Subject: [USCARules] MATTERS REQUIRING OUR ATTENTION
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When Bob Kroeger was down here in Key Largo recently directing our
ORAC Invitational, he and I discussed anomolies in the current rules
requiring our attention. We identified four specific areas where we
think that a clarification should be published.Ă‚ Two involve
roquets, one out of turn play and one deals with initiating a
shot.Ă‚
>
> In order to expedite our consideration of the issues and keep us
focused, Ă‚ I propose we deal with them one at a time.Ă‚ Below is
the first of the matters.Ă‚ Ă‚ Ă‚ After that matter is addressed,
I will follow up witht another of the four issues.Ă‚ I have
structured the discussion as follows:
>
>
> BACKGROUND: Citation of rules to be addressed.
> ISSUE: A discussion of the perceived problem
> SOLUTION: A recmmended clarification to be issued.
>
> Being relatively new to the Committee, I'm not sure of the method used
in the past to promulgate rules interpretations.Ă‚ If we agree that
a clarification should be issued, I would recomment the it be
published in the monthly Newsletter (Update).Ă‚ Also,Ă‚ a new
"Rulings" section be initiated in the "Rules" area of the USCA web site
where clarifications issued between rules revisions would reside.Ă‚
If that is done, I don't see any reason to print and mail hard copies.
>
> Now, on to the first issue.
>
> Regards,
>
> Art Ruffing
>
>
> ROQUETS AND BALLS NOT IN THE GAME
> BACKGROUND-
> Rule 5.3 b) provides that "a striker ball not in the game may hit any
other ball that is not in the game, but no roquet is made.
> Rule 6.2 d) indicates that a striker ball not in the game hitting
another ball not in the game is a roquet when it states, " After a
striker ball makes a roquet, it cannot subsequently in the same shot
score for itself the stake or a wicket, other than the #1 wicket.
> Rule 7.2 (Balls Cannoned) reads that "any ball struck by a roqueted or
croqueted ball or hit by the striker ball after a roquet shall be given
credit for the wicket ….."
> Ă‚ The Glossary defines a "cannon shot" as "when the striker ball
drives one ball into another ball, on a roquet or croquet shot.
>
> ISSUE-
> First, Rules 5.3.b) and 6.2 d) are contradictory; one indicating that
the shot is not a roquet and the other indicating it is a rqouet.
>
> Second, assume the following:Ă‚ Blue, black and yellow are not in
the game.Ă‚ Blue hits yellow sending it into black which goes through
wicket 1.Ă‚ Strict application of the rules would lead one to
conclude that black has not scored wicket 1 and is not in the game,
since by all definitions, a cannon can only take place on a roquet or
croquet shot and Rule 5.3 b) specifies that a ball not in the game,
hitting another ball not in the game is NOT a roquet.
>
> SOLUTION-
> I propose issuing a clarification of Rule 5.3 b) as follows:
> In order to resolve inconsistencies, Rule 5.3 b) is modified to
provide that when a striker ball not in the game hits any other
ball that is not in the game, a roquet is made, but no croquet shot
is earned.Ă‚ Rule 6.2 a) is modified by adding a fourth item to the
list of circumstances in which a striker ball is not entitled to take
croquet, as follows:Ă‚ "4) the roquet is the result of a striker ball
not in the game hitting another ball not in the game (Rule 5.3 b)."
>
 










Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (25)
#4569 From: "arthurruffing" <ruffingal1@...>
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:49 am
Subject: Re: MATTERS REQUIRING OUR ATTENTION 		arthurruffing
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
  
Steve,

I thinkg that your suggestion is great.

Art

--- In USCARules@yahoogroups.com, johnston1160@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> II propose the following:
>
> ***********************************************************
>
> Opinion 1-2008
>
> In order to clarify several questions relating to (1) the
definition of a
> "roquet", and (2) balls not in the game hitting other balls not in
the  game,
> the following rules and definitions have been rewritten and shown
in  their
> entirety below..
>
> Rule 5.2 Deadness Between Balls In and Out of the Game
>
> A striker ball not in the game is considered dead on all balls in
the  game,
> but is considered alive on all balls not in the game,    Therefore,
a ball not
> in the game hitting a ball not in the game is a roquet,  because it
is alive
> on it.  A striker ball in the game is the game is  considered dead
on all
> balls not in the game.  However, a striker ball that  is in the
game cannot be
> blocked (rule 9.2) or wired (rule 9.3 by a ball that is  not in the
game.
>
> Rule 5.3b)  Ball Not In the Game
>
> "A striker ball not in the game may roquet any other ball that is
not in  the
> game, but the striker shall not be entitled to take croquet (Rule
6.2).  If
> the roqueted ball is peeled through the #1 wicket that ball  is
then in the
> game."
>
> Glossary Definition of a roquet.
>
> ROQUET - a shot in which the striker ball hits a ball it is "alive
on".
> This includes a ball not in the game hitting another ball not in
the  game.
>
> ********************************************************
>
> DIscussion .. Do we need any?
>
> ******************************************************
>
> Hope we are getting near agreement.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL
Money &
> Finance.      (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (25)
Messages 4569 - 4598 of 4598   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Message #
Search:
Advanced
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help