28 If, whilst measuring, one of the players moves the cochonnet or a boule being measured, his or her team loses the point.


Situation: Team A has five boules close to the cochonnet (scoring 5 points) and the last one very close to Team B's closes boule. Teams A measures his last boules and moves it.

When the rule says Team A loses the point, does it mean the ligitigious point (possible 6th one) or does it mean Team A does not get any points?

My interpretation is that the point lost is the one subject of the measuring, not the other five ones, but who knows!
TIA,
Guy

Question about rules.
Situation - I have a license from Estonian petanque Federation but I want to be a member of a Finnish petanque CLUB and represent them as a club. But same time I wan't represent Estonian National team. Is it possible? Look forward your answer to my email.
Thanks
Veiko
PS. Yuo have great internet site

I have heard that the FIPJP change the 20m distance to 15m in rule 9.
Any truth to that rumor?
TIA,
Guy

9 The cochonnet is deemed dead in the following six cases:
(4) When the cochonnet is displaced to more than 20m or less than 3m from the throwing circle.

Sounds a good exposition of the rule

guy therrien wrote:
------------------------------------

28 If, whilst measuring, one of the players moves the cochonnet or a boule being measured, his or her team loses the point.


Situation: Team A has five boules close to the cochonnet (scoring 5 points) and the last one very close to Team B's closes boule. Teams A measures his last boules and moves it.

When the rule says Team A loses the point, does it mean the ligitigious point (possible 6th one) or does it mean Team A does not get any points?

My interpretation is that the point lost is the one subject of the measuring, not the other five ones, but who knows!
TIA,
Guy

I don't see why not: many people play normally in France but represent their native country internationally. Any licence from a FIPJP affiliated country is valid for any official competition in another country, with some exceptions.You shouldn't have two licences: but I doubt anyone will notice!

Veiko Proos wrote:
------------------------------------

Question about rules.
Situation - I have a license from Estonian petanque Federation but I want to be a member of a Finnish petanque CLUB and represent them as a club. But same time I wan't represent Estonian National team. Is it possible? Look forward your answer to my email.
Thanks
Veiko
PS. Yuo have great internet site

Never would I disagree with Byron! It is parhaps relevant that in the situation envisaged by Guy it would be normal - if not reglementaire? - to agree the first five boules were in, and remove them to facilitate the measuring of the last. Anything agreed between the teams cannot be gone back on, I think? If I throw the but to 5.95 metres, and ask the opposing captain and he says good , and after I have thrown a good boule he wants to measure, can he? I think not. Arbitre, s'il vous plait!

Byron Milton wrote:
------------------------------------

Sounds a good exposition of the rule

guy therrien wrote:
------------------------------------

28 If, whilst measuring, one of the players moves the cochonnet or a boule being measured, his or her team loses the point.


Situation: Team A has five boules close to the cochonnet (scoring 5 points) and the last one very close to Team B's closes boule. Teams A measures his last boules and moves it.

When the rule says Team A loses the point, does it mean the ligitigious point (possible 6th one) or does it mean Team A does not get any points?

My interpretation is that the point lost is the one subject of the measuring, not the other five ones, but who knows!
TIA,
Guy

Charles Clarke wrote:
------------------------------------

Never would I disagree with Byron! It is parhaps relevant that in the situation envisaged by Guy it would be normal - if not reglementaire? - to agree the first five boules were in, and remove them to facilitate the measuring of the last. Anything agreed between the teams cannot be gone back on, I think? If I throw the but to 5.95 metres, and ask the opposing captain and he says good , and after I have thrown a good boule he wants to measure, can he? I think not. Arbitre, s'il vous plait!

---
My understanding/interpretation of the rule is that the coche CAN be challenged after the 1st boule has been played. Presumably this is meant to allow for the case when the 1st boule might move the coche out of the 6-10m limit.

However, it does allow for gamesmanship in that the 2nd player can decide to challenge the coche if the 1st player's boule is particularly good and not bother to challenge if the boule wasn't that good.

Personally I think the rule should be changed to prevent this, i.e. if both players accept the coche then it can't subsequently be challenged after the 1st boule has been played, unless it moves the coche.

I disagree with Ray on one point in his letter. If the first boule has been played, and moves the cochonnet, then no one can object because the objection must be to the original throw of the cochonnet and not to its subsequent position - and the original position has been lost. I suspect Ray may be an umpire: but what about the Capo di Capo? Forward, Mike Peg, please!

Ray Ager wrote:
------------------------------------



Charles Clarke wrote:
------------------------------------

Never would I disagree with Byron! It is parhaps relevant that in the situation envisaged by Guy it would be normal - if not reglementaire? - to agree the first five boules were in, and remove them to facilitate the measuring of the last. Anything agreed between the teams cannot be gone back on, I think? If I throw the but to 5.95 metres, and ask the opposing captain and he says good , and after I have thrown a good boule he wants to measure, can he? I think not. Arbitre, s'il vous plait!

---
My understanding/interpretation of the rule is that the coche CAN be challenged after the 1st boule has been played. Presumably this is meant to allow for the case when the 1st boule might move the coche out of the 6-10m limit.

However, it does allow for gamesmanship in that the 2nd player can decide to challenge the coche if the 1st player's boule is particularly good and not bother to challenge if the boule wasn't that good.

Personally I think the rule should be changed to prevent this, i.e. if both players accept the coche then it can't subsequently be challenged after the 1st boule has been played, unless it moves the coche.

Disclaimer: I'm NOT an umpire, just an opinionated player :-)

I think this point is covered by Article 8 which says, After the throwing of the jack and the first boule an opponent still has the right to contest the validity of the jack.

I think, therefore, my argument was correct but would very much welcome an official Umpire's ruling.

Charles Clarke wrote:
------------------------------------

I disagree with Ray on one point in his letter. If the first boule has been played, and moves the cochonnet, then no one can object because the objection must be to the original throw of the cochonnet and not to its subsequent position - and the original position has been lost. I suspect Ray may be an umpire: but what about the Capo di Capo? Forward, Mike Peg, please!

Ray Ager wrote:

My understanding/interpretation of the rule is that the coche CAN be challenged after the 1st boule has been played. Presumably this is meant to allow for the case when the 1st boule might move the coche out of the 6-10m limit.

Ray,

IMHO I don't think it means that.
... On second thought, it just MIGHT!


Personally I think the rule should be changed to prevent this, i.e. if both players accept the coche then it can't subsequently be challenged after the 1st boule has been played, unless it moves the coche.

I FULLY agree with that!
Guy

Doesn't it say somewhere in the ruling that no claims regarding a boule/coche that has been moved can be accepted where the object's original position has not been marked? I disagree with the point somewhere on this thread that the rule should be changed to 'once the coche length has been agreed on then it should not be challenged' because the rule about challenges after the first ball is to stop people getting away playing a ball too quickly for the opponents to agree on the length. To avoid the problem of the coche moving after the first ball a player must simply mark the position of any coche they think too long or short if they think their opponents will play a ball before they can agree. If the coche is then moved with the first ball a challenge can still be made regarding the original position of the ball.
However, I do agree that if both teams agree on the length of the coche before a ball is played it should certainly not be challenged after that. This relies on the honesty of the players involved.
Guy Therrien wrote:
------------------------------------

Ray Ager wrote:

My understanding/interpretation of the rule is that the coche CAN be challenged after the 1st boule has been played. Presumably this is meant to allow for the case when the 1st boule might move the coche out of the 6-10m limit.

Ray,

IMHO I don't think it means that.
... On second thought, it just MIGHT!


Personally I think the rule should be changed to prevent this, i.e. if both players accept the coche then it can't subsequently be challenged after the 1st boule has been played, unless it moves the coche.

I FULLY agree with that!
Guy

There may be some confusion about similar but different instances, covered by different rules:
1. When the coche is moved accidentally during the game, i.e. by a player, spectator, animal, boule from another game, when measuring etc.
2. When the coche is moved by a boule that has been just played, including the 1st boule.

I agree that the rules should be changed to prevent “Game-playing”, e.g. challenging the coche after the 1st boule has been played. But it’s also correct that the rules need to be such that both teams/captains agree. The onus needs to be on the player about to play: they should agree with the other team that there is no objection.

In theory, a similar problem can arise when shooting and a boule goes out of play. It should be removed otherwise it is deemed “live” if another boule is played, Rule 19. However, it’s often the case that the shooter immediately plays the next boule – theoretically the “dead” boule is now live, even though there was no time to remove it.

There are various anomolies in the rules – I’m actually going to start a separate thread for players to list them.