This is a question about what follows from a player inadvertently picking up his own boules before the end is complete (art 22 of the FPUSA version of the rules).

Team B has has no more boules to play. Team A has two points on the ground in front of the jack, perhaps three depending on a measurement. Team A (doubles) player has one more boule to play. He walks from the circle to the cochonnet and, apparently forgetting his last remaining boule next to the throwing circle, picks up the two points his team has to better consider if his team has the third point.

Immediately, his teammate and the other team tell him the two boules he picked up are now dead and must be thrown out of the game. He is puzzled, but then upon seeing that he has not played his last boule, reluctantly accepts their judgement.

He then wants to play his remaining boule.

The question now is, what happens next? Is the end voided (assuming an umpire would cite FPUSA art 34-Penalties and disqualify the boule about to be thrown)? Or is the player of Team A allowed to play his next boule and the end scored based on what is on the ground then (for possibly two points)?

Those in favor of nullifying the end say the remaining boule cannot be played now because the situation around the cochonnet has changed and might favor the remaining boule making at least one point.

Those who say the remaining boule should be played say the player has, in effect, already suffered a penalty for an accidental act, and should be allowed to play his last boule.

Rather than being a totally 100% stickler for rigid interpretation of the rules, how about a sporting alternative:

If both teams use a modicum of sporting common-sense, return the boules to where they were and continue the game.

Let's not get carried away before we even see if there's any penalty at all.

Looking at Article 22 (see below), the only part that may apply is "Players must not pick up the played boules before the completion of the end."

What defines the completion of an end? Must all boules be played, and by "played" does that me thrown? There are many times when a team does not want to ruin a layout of boules by pointing/shooting in their last boule, so they simply drop it to the side. But is it really necessary to have to go through all of that? I've also merely stated to other players that I'm not going to risk it and just take the points that are there.

In the scenario which Joe describes, Team-B has NO points, and Team-A has 2 points (perhaps 3). Why should Team-B benefit whatsoever simply for an unplayed boule which could have been simply dropped to the side by Team-A.

Let's look at the different outcomes:

1. Team-A throws it's last boule and scores ANOTHER point.

2. Team-A throws it's last boule and hits away one of it's own points.

3. Team-A throws it's last boule and somehow gives the point(s) to Team-B.

4. Team-A throws it's last boule without any result.

Not knowing the exact layout of the boules, Team-A would probably not play their boule if Option 2 or 3 could result - taking away 2-3 points.

So eliminating Option's 2 & 3, we're left with Team-A either adding to their existing points, or just keeping the points they've unquestionably had.

Why penalize them all of their points for what should be treated as an Option-4 boule. Either they would have tossed their boule to the side for no additional points, or rolled it purposefully short so as not to ruin the layout.

But there can be no sense of "fair-play" and sportsmanship in voiding out their boules simply because they chose (either purposefully or by accident) not to play their remaining boule.

As such, an adversarial team which now claims Article-22 applies, is really just being petty. I'd refuse to ever play against them again - if they pressed such nonsense.

I believe Article 22 was written for cases where not all of the boules from both teams were played, and where picking up boules before boules from both teams are yet to be played is obviously something which can alter the potential points for that round.

Think about it this way: it is like a person in line at Burger King who decides to take half the money in his wallet and just tear it up into pieces. This diminishes the amount of food he can now buy, but it really has no real influence on the guy standing behind him in the line. Yet, somehow folks interpret it to mean that the guy also has to give some of the non-torn money to the fellow behind him...

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


FPUSA Article 22 — Playing Wrong Boules

A player who plays a boule other than his own receives a warning.

The boule played is nevertheless valid but it must immediately be replaced, after measuring, if necessary.

In the event of it occurring again during the game, the player’s boule is disqualified and everything it has moved is put back in place.

Players must not pick up the played boules before the completion of the end.

In leisure play, I would use Ray's approach of just putting the boules back where they were, if marked. I would even go one step farther and put them APPROXIMATELY where they were if unmarked.

For more formal play, I agree with Jeff's point that disqualification of the boule still to be played is more logical than disqualification of boules already played. Like him, I sometimes say, "I'll take the points on the ground", rather than risk playing a final boule in a hopeless situation.

I do find the original question interesting from a hypothetical point of view, however. Several rules articles can be referenced for support of various resoltions of the problem.

For example, Article 21 states that any boule accidentally displaced by a player is put back in its place if previously marked. Could you not argue that the displacement of the two point boules was "accidental"?

Then there's Article 24 which allows for temporary removal of boules when necessary for measuring. Didn't the problem posed say that there was a possible third point that needed measuring?

On the other hand, Article 26 determines that boules picked up before the agreements of points are dead. But I assume that both teams HAD agreed that the two boules picked up were points? Which would mean that they are NOT dead!?

Then there is the final, and probably most important, question of how to interpret Article 34, "Penalties of play". The article lists six penalties for non-obsevation of the rules ranging from just a warning to the complete disqualification of both teams in dispute. But it doesn't say which penalties apply to which infractions!

For example, the second penaly listed calls for , "Disqualification of the boule played or to be played." Does the use of the word "or" instead of the word "and" imply that someone (who?) must choose which boule to disqualify?

As you can see, I think there are many possible interpretations of the rules as written. It usually comes down to just good sportsmanship in leisure play.

Gary Jones wrote:

1. "As you can see, I think there are many possible interpretations of the rules as written.

2. It usually comes down to just good sportsmanship in leisure play."


Unfortunately, since #1 exists, we have to apply #2.

When I played competitive Bridge, I was amazed by the rules of the game. I seems to cover and apply to every possible situations. The same could be said to most professional sports.

I guess Petanque is not part of those sports.

The FIPJP should work harder to see that there are much less possible interpretations of the rules as written.


Nevertheless, Petanque is much more enjoyable when "It usually comes down to just good sportsmanship in leisure play."

Guy

If players are going to start using their own interpretation of the rules - then what about the 1 minute maximum rule from Article-10 of the FPUSA rules?

Who is to say that a team isn't measuring each and every time to delay a game? It is the right of a team to make such measurements.

Article 21 - Once the cochonnet is thrown, each player has 1 minute at most to play his or her boule. This time starts from the moment when the previous boule or cochonnet has stopped or, if a point has to be measured, from the moment the outcome has been decided. This rule also applies to the throwing of the cochonnet after each end. Players not respecting this rule will incur penalties as stated in Article 10.

I understand what you mean. Player/team somtimes on purpose using this rule to dely the game. As an arbitre we can evalute their action. If its obvious they made the measurement just to steal some time and it had been done frequenly, then a warning can be given on conduct.

As you say its not easy, but observation consistantly has to be made.

On other part the couch and the player must built up the right attitude just to be a sportmen.