Is any synthetic jack allowed in FIPJP competition play?

This post is a short summary. See also our post on Rules governing the jack.

Q: Is any synthetic jack allowed in
   FIPJP-approved competitions?
A: NO. 

The requirements for a synthetic jack to be allowed in competition play

In order to be allowed in competition play, a synthetic jack must be both “approved” and “legal”.

1. APPROVED The FIPJP document called Fabricants de Boules: Labels des Boules et Buts agréés en compétition contains a list of the models of synthetic jacks that are approved (agréés) by the FIPJP for use in competition play. In order to be approved for competition play, a synthetic jack must be on this list. As of April 2024, the only synthetic jacks on the list are the VMS resin jack and the Obut “black jack”.
    
2. LEGAL Article 3 of the FIPJP international rules for the sport of petanque specifies size and weight requirements for jacks. To be legal, a jack must be between 29 and 31 mm in diameter and weigh between 10 and 18 grams.

Commercially available synthetic jacks

As of April 2024, four models of synthetic jacks are commercially available.

1. The VMS resin jack is approved but not legal. This jack, available in multiple bright colors, was introduced in 1996 as a promotional gimmick for VMS’s new tortue (“tortoise”) boules. It weighs 20g, which means that it is too heavy to be legal.
   
2. Obut’s “black jack”, which was introduced in 2013, is approved but not legal. It is made of hard epoxy resin mixed with iron filings. It is paramagnetic, which means that it can be picked up with a magnet. It weighs 22g, which means that it is too heavy to be legal.
   
    
3. The Geologic “red jack” (from Decathlon, a sporting goods retailer) is legal but not approved. It is made of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene with a solid iron core that makes it paramagnetic. It is 29.5mm in diameter and weighs 17g.

   It meets the size and weight requirements in the rules, but Geologic hasn’t sought official approval for it. The Decathlon webpage states— Use restriction: This jack cannot be used in official competitions.

4. Geologic also sells bright fluorescent yellow, non-paramagnetic, “recreational” jacks. These jacks are legal but not approved. They are 29mm in diameter and weigh 11g. They meet the size and weight requirements in the rules, but they are designed for recreational use (like leisure boules) and Geologic hasn’t sought official approval for them.

Note that your local rules may allow some of these jacks in social play. When the VMS and Obut epoxy resin jacks were introduced, safety concerns got them banned from official competitions. Similar concerns have not been raised about the Geologic jacks, which weigh less and are made of a different synthetic material.

If you want a paramagnetic jack for use in social games, we recommend Geologic’s red jack, or making your own magnetic jack.

Dealing with a forgotten boule

There are a lot of boules on the ground. Team A has the point and one unplayed boule. Team B should play next, if they have any unplayed boules.

Team A asks Team B if they have any more boules to play. Team B says “No, we’re out.” So Team A plays its last boule. Then one of the players on Team B says “Ooops! I still have one boule left!”

Should Team B be allowed to play its forgotten boule?

---

In this post I present reasons for ruling that Team B should NOT be allowed to play its forgotten boule.

In this situation, the bottom line is that Team A gave Team B the opportunity to play next, and Team B refused to do so. We don’t know why Team B refused. Perhaps Team B genuinely made a mistake. Perhaps they deliberately tried to cheat. We can’t retroactively read their minds, so we can never be sure. But it makes no difference why they violated the rules (General Principle #1). Carelessness and sloppiness are just as unacceptable as deliberate cheating. The bottom line is that Team B broke the rules.

The judgement that Team B broke the rules rests on the premise that it is a violation of the rules to refuse to play when it is your team’s turn to play. Just as a boule can be played contrary to the rules, a boule can be withheld from play contrary to the rules.

An alternative interpretation of the rules would hold that Team B, in refusing to play when it was their turn to do so, in effect declared that they had played all of the boules that they intended to play, and in doing so they gave up the right to play any more boules.

Under either interpretation, the bottom line is— Team B may not play their last boule. A forgotten boule is dead and may not be played.

The Forgotten Boule and the Boule Advantage

Most importantly, there is a very pragmatic reason for why a team must not be allowed to play a “forgotten” boule. It is connected to the notion of the boule advantage. Let’s look at a scenario in which a team is allowed to play a “forgotten” boule. Team A has just taken the point, leaving both teams with one unplayed boule.

1. Team A turns to Team B and says “We have the point. Do you have any unplayed boules?”
2. Team B (conveniently failing to remember or notice its unplayed boule) says “We’re out of boules.”
3. Team A says “OK” and throws its last boule. Team A now has game on the ground.
4. Team B says “Oops. I just noticed! We still have one more boule!”
5. The umpire agrees to let Team B throw its “forgotten” boule.
6. Team B plays its final boule. With that boule it takes the point, wins the mene, and wins the game.

Team A had the boule advantage at the beginning of this scenario, but Team B ended up throwing the last boule. How did THAT happen? It happened because Team B conveniently “forgot” its unplayed boule. This forced Team A to throw its last boule. When the dust settled and Team B was allowed to play its “forgotten” boule, Team B had the boule advantage. And it used that advantage to win the mene and the game. This clearly violates unwritten petanque General Principle #2,

The No Unfair Advantage Rule — An offending team may not benefit from its illegal action. If the offending team performs an illegal action (deliberately or not) and thereby gains some advantage, that advantage is unfair because it was gained illegally. That advantage should be removed by whatever corrective action we decide to take.

This is why a team must NOT be allowed to throw a “forgotten” boule.

How NOT to think about a forgotten boule

It is sometimes argued that a forgotten-boule situation is really a boule-thrown-out-of-turn situation. Team A, the argument goes, simply made a mistake about who should throw next, and they threw their boule out of turn. Therefore, under current FIPJP rules, play should carry on normally and Team B should throw their last boule. This is rubbish. Team A wasn’t lazy and they didn’t simply make a mistake. Team A made a genuine effort to determine if Team B had any unplayed boules, and it was actively misled by Team B.

It is sometimes argued that Team A wouldn’t have thrown their last boule if they had first counted the boules on the ground, so Team A is somehow at fault for “playing a boule out-of-turn”. It’s true that keeping a mental count of the boules played is a useful practice, but this argument is rubbish. It ignores the fact that if anyone should have been counting their boules, it was Team B, not Team A. And it ignores the fact that asking your opponents if they have any unplayed boules (and accepting their answer as truthful) is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Still a controversial topic

I hope that I’ve presented a clear and reasonable argument for this interpretation of the rules. Remember, however, that as of October 2023 this is still a controversial topic, and there are players and umpires who still hold that Team B should be allowed to play their last boule. For example, on October 27, 2023, international umpire Mike Pegg ruled that the player with the poor memory has the right to play his/her boule. But personally I would have a word with the player’s teammates if they were to try the same stunt more than once.

The bottom line is that there is no written FIPJP ruling on this question. (Nothing comparable, for example, to the FIPJP’s memo about boules played out-of-turn.) Players and umpires, therefore, must consider the arguments pro and con for themselves, and make their own decisions about what seems to be most reasonable, most compatible with the written FIPJP rules, and most compatible with the unwritten general principles for applying the rules.

NOT a boule played out-of-turn

In closing, I think it is important to emphasize that a forgotten boule situation is NOT the same as a boule played out-of-turn situation. In a boule played out-of-turn situation, Team A doesn’t ask Team B anything. Team A just assumes, without consultation with Team B, that it is their turn to play. Team A acts alone, and in doing so it truly is responsible for throwing a boule out-of-turn. See our post A new ruling on boules played out-of-turn.

---

If a ball hits something overhead, is it dead?

If a ball (a boule or the jack) hits something above the ground, like a ceiling, or a light fixture, or a tree branch, is it (the boule or the jack) dead?

The long-standing and traditional answer is NO, it isn’t dead. However, since July 2023, a French umpire will say that it IS dead. Here’s the story.

In my opinion, the best way to think about the out-of-bounds strings is this. The out-of-bounds strings function as visible indicators of the locations of invisible walls that extend from the strings upward into the sky. A ball (a boule or jack) that goes through one of those walls is dead. Other things being equal, a ball that stays within those wall, or that goes only partly through one of those walls, is not dead.

This means that if a ball hits something above the ground inside those walls, and falls back onto the terrain, the ball is NOT dead. Inside of those invisible walls, objects above the ground are features of the terrain just as much as a stone sitting on the ground. So a low-hanging tree branch, and a light fixture suspended over the terrain, and even the ceiling of a covered boulodrome, are all features of the terrain, just like a stone on the ground. And hitting one of them is no different than hitting a stone. If you hit it, you may or may not get a “bad bounce”, but that is all that happens. (See international umpire Mike Pegg’s ruling, HERE.)

For French umpires, however, that all changed on July 27, 2023. That’s when the French national umpires committee (the CNA) posted Annexe 41-1 on its umpires guide page (www.ffpjp.org/portail/infos-arbitrage/guide-de-l-arbitrage). Here is my American English translation of that short memo.

Nullification of an object (boule or jack)

When an object (boule or jack) comes into contact with the structure of the building or elements attached to this structure (heating, lighting, stretched canvas) above the terrain and this object falls back onto live ground (terrain autorisé), this jack or boule is dead and must immediately be removed from the game.

This rule also applies outdoors, when contact is made with the extension of elements fixed on dead ground (terrain interdit). Examples: a lamp post or electric cable, or tree branches.

Here is the original French.

Annulation d’objet (boule ou but)

Quand un objet (boule ou but) entre en contact avec la structure du bâtiment ou d’éléments fixés à cette structure (chauffage, éclairage, toile tendue) au-dessus du terrain et que cet objet retombe en terrain autorisé. Ce but ou cette boule est nul(le) et doit être retiré(e) immédiatement du jeu.

Cette règle s’applique aussi en extérieur, lors d’un contact avec le prolongement d’éléments fixés en terrain interdit. Exemple : candélabre, câble électrique ou branches d’arbre.

It’s hard to know what to make of this rule. It has little or no basis in the written rules. It is a solution to a problem that does not exist. And it creates new problems of its own.

• If my boule passes through a few leaves overhead, without its flight being affected in any perceptible way, does that count as “coming into contact”?
• If a bush growing outside the dead-ball line has a few low branches extending over the dead-ball line, are those branches— perhaps 10cm above the ground— “above the terrain” and therefore deadly? (Even though a root from the same bush that extends into the terrain is not?)

Note that if we disagree about whether or not your boule touched an overhead leaf, it is pointless to call in an umpire. If the umpire didn’t personally witness the event, he will always make his decision based on what he can see on the ground. He will always rule that the boule is still alive.

Note also that if we’re playing on an outdoor terrain without any marked dead-ball lines, the rule is completely inapplicable.

It seems to me that Annexe 41-1 is a bad, unnecessary, virtually unenforceable rule that creates more problems than it solves. French umpires are required to follow it, but I don’t know if umpires in other countries, or FIPJP umpires, will do the same. Personally, I think that anyone who is not a French umpire should simply ignore it.

---

Thanks go out to Raymond Ager for pointing out the existence of Annexe 41-1 in a comment on “Ask the Umpire”.

---

French umpires guide (sort of)

There is no proper FIPJP umpire’s guide, in the sense of an official document containing case law for the FIPJP rules of petanque— an official list of precedents and rulings in cases where the written rules are unclear or unusable for some reason. There is however a web site that occasionally contains useful bits of that kind of information. I’m talking about the FFPJP (French national) Guide de l’Arbitrage (umpiring guide).

To find it, first go to the FFPJP “portal” page. In the menu at the top of the page, click on the “INFOS ARBITRAGE” heading, and then click on “Guide de l’Arbitrage”.

This will take you to the Guide de l’Arbitrage page. At the bottom of that page is a long list of what are basically memoranda by the French national umpires on various subjects. Most of these memoranda aren’t relevant to someone who is not a French player or a French umpire, but a few contain official decisions about how the rules are to be interpreted. In the picture below, for example, I’ve highlighted Annexe 24-1, which is a memo on the new FIPJP ruling about how to handle a boule thrown out-of-turn (la boule jouée par erreur).

The rightmost column is entitled à teléchargér (to download). To download a document, click on the link in that column. You will be able to download the selected document. It will be in PDF format and (of course) in French. If you don’t read French, I recommend using the DeepL automatic translator.

---

A new ruling on boules played out-of-turn

updated 2023-08-23

A boule played out-of-turn is a boule that was played when a team mistakenly believed that they did not have the point, and that it was their turn to play.

For a long time, there has been serious debate about what should be done when this happens. Some have argued that a boule played out-of-turn was played “contrary to the the rules” and that Article 24 therefore gives the opposing team the option to declare it to be dead. Others have argued that a boule played out-of-turn was NOT an infringement of the rules but simply a mistake; the boule(s) should be left where they are and play should continue.

As of March 6, 2023, this debate has been settled by a ruling by the FIPJP. It is now official— a boule played out-of-turn is simply a mistake; it should be left in place and play should continue.

I don’t know if this ruling can be found on the FIPJP web site. A French version of it can be found on the FFPJP Guide de l’Arbitrage, and the Oceania Confederation posted a French and English version which you can read HERE.

The … ball played by mistake will be valid until the end of the mène.

This ruling made its way to the “Ask the Umpire” Facebook forum on May 4, 2023. In two separate posts (HERE and HERE) Tony Kidd, Trudy Bishop, Allen Cassady, and Andries Wijand all asked roughly the same question:

If Team B gains the point, but does not measure and (thinking that they have not gained the point) plays a second boule, what is the penalty?

Mike Pegg’s answers (which I have combined and compressed for the sake of readability) were—

The penalty is that Team B has wasted one of its boules. No boules are removed, and play continues. Team B of course should have checked [to verify that they were not holding], but so should team A to be sure they are still holding. If neither team checks to see who is holding, they are both in the wrong. Team B’s second boule remains valid, and they are at a disadvantage having played a boule they didn’t need to play.

It is nice to have this old thorn in the side finally pulled.

---

Since I first wrote this post I’ve seen several translations of the French text of the memo. They are all adequate but (in my opinion) none of them is very good. So, for what it’s worth, here is my own translation. I have inserted text in [square brackets] for the purposes of clarification of the text.

Explanation of a boule played by mistake
FIPJP decision – 06/03/2023

1 – THE SITUATION EXPLAINED

• Team A plays its first boule.
• Team B points. Team B, thinking that it has not taken the point, plays a second boule which takes the point.
• In doubt about the situation, both teams measure. It turns out that team B had taken the point with its first boule, so team B has 2 points.

2 – THE DECISION

The second boule played by mistake is valid until the end of the mene.

[3 – THE REASON FOR THIS DECISION]

Why is this?

First: the rule does not prohibit a team from playing when it has the point, as long as the measurement has not been made.

Second: such an action typically falls within the scope of an error already sanctioned (by the fact that the team in question is, as a result, deprived of a boule).

Finally: the cancellation of this second boule played by mistake is unenforceable [French: inapplicable].

[Why is the cancellation of this second boule unenforceable?]

* Firstly, if the players don’t immediately realize the error, how is the umpire going to decide when other boules have been played and have displaced one or other of the disputed boules when, by definition, no measurement has been made on them?

* When a dead boule moves other objects, these can be put back in place if marked. A problem immediately arises if these other objects move the jack or one or more boules, especially as (as we all know) markings are rarely accurate to the nearest millimeter.

* It can even happen that as many as nine boules are played after the second boule in question before the players discover that their first boule played had the point!

[4 – CONCLUSION]

The only valid measurement for awarding points is the one that is eventually done at the end of the mene, regardless of the order in which the teams played.

---

Leisure boules vs competition boules – when did the distinction begin?

When did people first start distinguishing between leisure boules and competition boules?

It seems to me that it must have begun when the requirements for competition boules were first codified. As the requirement for boules were gradually written down and refined, boule manufacturers must have began to distinguish between their models of boules that met those requirements (“competition” boules) and their models of boules that didn’t meet all of those requirements but were functionally similar and less expensive (“leisure” boules). Assuming that this is what happened, our question turns into a slightly different question— When did the idea of certified “competition” boules first emerge?

Based on our historical archive of the versions of the rules of the game of petanque, the answer appears to be that it happened between 1962 and 1974.

• In 1962 the FIPJP (international) rules first required boules to be certified (agréées) by the the FIPJP.
• In 1964 the FFPJP (French national) rules first required boules to be “agréées par Sa Fédération”.
• In 1970 the French national rules first required boules to be stamped with the boule’s weight.
• In 1974, the French national rules first required boules to be stamped with the manufacturer’s mark.

In 1984, the French national rules were adopted as the FIPJP international rules, and most national federations adopted the FIPJP rules, unchanged, as their national rules. That’s how we got the rules that we have today.

Interestingly, the requirement that competition boules be stamped with the IDs of the boule’s model and set aren’t in the rules of the game. They are in the FIPJP document called Requirements for the Certification of Competition Petanque Boules. Unfortunately, I have no way to trace the history of that document.

THE BOTTOM LINE
If I had to pick a specific year for when the distinction between leisure boules and competition boules first completely emerged, I’d pick 1974. That was the year when the French national rules first required all of the three things that the international rules now require— (1) that boules be certified, (2) that boules be stamped with the boule’s weight, and (3) that boules be stamped with the manufacturer’s mark.

---

Frequently-asked questions about the rules of petanque

When you’re looking for an answer to a question—
— FIRST find out if the answer is already available on the web.

For frequently-asked questions about the rules of petanque—
— See our page of FAQs.
— See our posts tagged as FAQs.

For “umpire questions”—
— Search our posts for Article 35.
— Search our posts for collective (penalty/ yellow card/ orange card).

Search our pages and posts for any term.

Search

Search

 

If you still can’t find an answer to your question, you can—
— post your question on Facebook Petanque Q&A forum
— post your question on Facebook “Ask the Umpire” forum

 

---

Challenging the jack

After reading a recent question on “Ask the Umpire” I’ve been thinking about the notion of challenging the jack. I’ve come to the conclusion that the notion of challenging the jack is completely bogus and we should stop using it.

The rule about challenging the jack is brief and cryptic. Article 7 lists the requirements for a thrown jack to be valid, but it doesn’t describe any procedures for determining whether or not the jack meets those requirements. In the next article, Article 8, we find this

If after the throwing of the jack, a first boule is played, the opponent still has the right to challenge (a encore le droit de contester) the validity of its position…. [But] If the opponent has also played a boule…. no objection is admissible.

If you read the rules carefully, you will notice that the rules never explicitly say that Team A, before it plays its first boule, may make measurements to verify the jack’s validity. Article 8, however, assumes that Team A can do that, and Article 8’s concern is to make it clear that Team B may do the same thing— measure the jack to verify its validity before playing its first boule. If we combine what Article 8 says with what it assumes, the rule that we get is this.

Each team, before playing its first boule, may measure the jack—that is, may make measurements to verify the jack’s validity.

The FIPJP rule as it currently stands is so obfuscated by bad writing and poor vocabulary choices (“challenge the jack”, “objection”) that it confuses both players and umpires. Questions are asked. After Team A has thrown the jack, while one of its players is standing in the circle and ready to throw the first boule, can Team B challenge the jack? If not, why not? If so, what is the correct procedure for doing it? If Team B challenges the jack, can Team A simply ignore the challenge?

All of these questions surfaced again recently, when Allen Cassady posted a question on Mike Pegg’s “Ask the Umpire” Facebook group. Here is a lightly-edited version of that post.

Albert, a player on Team A, throws the jack and then waits in the circle while a teammate marks the jack. During this pause, Bob, a player on Team B, says “the jack is too long.” (Bob did not measure or pace off the throw, not wanting to violate the Article 17 rule that “the opponents must not walk, gesticulate, or do anything that could disturb the player about to play.” He simply thought the jack was obviously too long and said so.)

Question #1. May Albert ignore Bob’s comment and proceed to throw his boule? Or, knowing that there is a disagreement as to the validity of the jack, must he stop and let the two teams measure the jack?

Question #2. Should the umpire warn/penalize Bob for violating the first sentence of Article 17, which requires players and spectators to observe total silence before a player plays his boule?

With respect to question #1, international umpire Mike Pegg’s answer was—

It would be in the best interest for Team A to check the validity of the jack before they throw their first boule, especially as Team B are already challenging its position. But your question is— Could Team A go ahead and play their first boule? The answer is YES.

Note that Mike describes Bob’s action as “challenging [the jack’s] position”, but then he says that Albert may ignore Bob’s “challenge”! But… surely if the idea of a right to bring a challenge is a meaningful one, a lawful challenge cannot simply be ignored. That’s why I suspect that Mike regards Bob’s comment simply as a casual remark, and not as a formal challenge. And I suspect that Mike’s answer accurately reflects the meaning and intent of Article 8. And I suspect that Article 8 contains nothing at all like a concept of formally challenging the jack.

If you accept the idea that Article 8 is trying to say that each team, before playing its first boule, may measure the jack, then the concept of “challenging the jack” simply drops out of the rules. And as it disappears it takes along with it all of the questions that it spawned. It becomes clear, for example, that Mike was right. Albert can ignore Bob’s comment, because there is no such thing in the FIPJP rules as formally challenging the jack. Bob’s casual remark was just that: a casual remark.

With respect to question #2 (Should the umpire warn/penalize Bob for violating the Article 17 rule requiring players and spectators to observe total silence before a player plays his boule?), note that the umpire’s job is to apply the rules appropriately, taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each particular situation. In one set of circumstances, an umpire might think it appropriate to give Bob a yellow card. In another set of circumstances, he might not. In this particular case, Mike has no problem with Bob voicing his thoughts; Mike even thinks it was helpful to Team A. A yellow card is not appropriate in this case.

The bottom line is that Article 8 is badly written and misleading. The concept of challenging the jack is not a useful way of understanding Article 8, and we should stop using it. The rule (or if you prefer, the rule interpretation) that we should use is this.

Each team, before playing its first boule, may measure the jack— that is, may make measurements to verify the jack’s validity.

---

Four-boule singles

When I watch petanque singles matches on Youtube, or play singles myself, I always find myself feeling vaguely dissatisfied. It feels like each mene (end, round) is over before it has properly begun. Or— each mene is being cut off prematurely, before reaching proper completion.

The problem, I think, is that the FIPJP rules specify that, in singles games, each player plays with only three boules. And what would solve the problem, I think, is for each player to play with four boules— 4-boule singles.

The notion of 4-boule singles is a natural idea, and it isn’t a new none. At the FIPJP world championships in Spa, Belgium in 1959, singles games were played with four boules.

Most players find the notion of 4-boule singles an appealing one. In 2016 BOULISTENAUTE.COM conducted an informal survey of world-class players. You can find it on Youtube, in a video called “Pétanque le TaT à 3 ou 4 boules? Interviews”. By a ratio of 2 or 3 to 1, top-ranking players said that they would prefer to play singles with 4 boules.

And of course the idea has a pleasing mathematical regularity.

3-player teams ==> 2 boules each
2-player teams ==> 3 boules each
1-player teams ==> 4 boules each

The bottom line is that in my opinion the FIPJP rules should be changed to specify that singles games are to be played with four boules, or at least to specify that singles games may be played with three or four boules.

Until that happens, nothing is stopping us from playing 4-boule singles in informal/social play. The rules of Petanque Libre, which are designed specifically for use in such games, allow players to play singles with whatever number of boules they wish, and actually specifies that singles will be played with 4 boules.

FIPJP rules specify that in singles games players play with 3 boules. PL rules specify 4 boules. This is a deliberately provocative specification, designed to encourage players to make a conscious decision about how many boules to use when playing singles.

As for practical considerations… petanque boules are normally sold in sets of three, but I don’t think that this is a serious impediment to the practice of 4-boule singles— we can simply play with boules from two different sets. Most serious players own at least two sets of boules, and, for more casual players, sets of leisure boules are inexpensive. And FIPJP rules do not require that all of a player’s boules to be from the same 3-boule set.

---

Rules for time-limited games

[revised 2023-11-03]

Go to a detailed explanation of the FIPJP rules for time-limited games.

Big competitions have a problem. Even with a single-elimination format, many rounds of games must be played in order to reduce the field of competitors to the eight teams that will play in the quarter-finals. Most games in one round need to have finished before the survivors can be paired up for the next round to begin. This can seriously slow down a large competition. [See the comment by Jac Verheul (below).]

One goal for big competitions, then, is to find a way to play short-form games— games that can be played in a limited and predictable amount of time. There are three ways to do it.

• You can play to a winning score of less than 13.
• You can limit the time allowed for the game.
• You can limit the number of menes (ends) played.

In the last two cases, if the allotted amount of time or number of menes has completed and the score is tied, then you need a mechanism for breaking the tie. A natural suggestion is to play one additional “tie-breaker mene”. Unfortunately, this cannot guarantee that the tie will be broken. The mene can still end without either team scoring a point— the jack could be killed while both teams still have unplayed boules; or the mene could end with a null point due to an equidistant boules situation or all boules being shot out-of-bounds.

One way to enhance the effectiveness of a tie-breaker mene is to add a special rule that during the tie-breaker mene the jack is not allowed to go dead. If the jack is hit out-of-bounds, it is put back on the terrain and the game continues. (If it was marked, it is put back on the mark. Otherwise, it is put on the terrain near the spot where it crossed the dead-ball line.) This still isn’t entirely satisfactory— the mene can still end with a null point. Still, it is an improvement, and perhaps good enough for practical purposes.

Older Rules for Time-limited games

For many years competition organizers looked to the CEP (Confédération Européenne de Pétanque, the organizer of the Eurocup) for a model for how to organize time-limited games.

The first CEP rule was that, when playing time-limited games, when the time-limit was announced (by a whistle, say), any mene in progress was played to its finish. At that point, if one of the teams was in the lead, then that team was the winner. If the score was tied, one additional tie-breaker mene was played. The problem with this procedure was that as a game approached its time-limit, the team in the lead would often deliberately play slowly, “running out the clock” and limiting their opponents’ opportunities to score more points. The CEP apparently considered this tactic to be contrary to the spirit of the game. Mike Pegg reports

When timed games were first introduced, one more end was played after the whistle was blown. Teams would deliberately play slowly, taking a full minute etc., so that the opponent had no chance of winning or drawing with them. To prevent this sort of tactic, it was decided to allow for two extra ends.

Current Rules for Time-limited games

In the current rules for time-limited games, games are played to the normal winning score of 13. Any game that hasn’t finished when the time limit is reached, then switches to a limited-number of menes (ends, rounds) model.

1. Games are played as they normally are. When one team achieves the winning score of 13, the game is finished and the team with the winning score is the winner.
    
2. For any game that has not finished when the time-limit is reached, the teams finish playing the mene that is currently in progress. At that point, if neither team has achieved a winning score of 13, the game continues for two more “extra” menes. During those menes, if one of the teams reaches 13 points, the game is over and that team wins.
    
3. After the second extra mene, if neither of the teams has reached 13 points, but one of the teams has more points than the other, the game is over and the team with the most points wins.
    
4. After the second extra mene, if the score is tied, the game plays a “final” mene. In this mene, special rules apply— the jack is not allowed to go dead. (If the jack is moved to a place where it is dead, it is put back on its original mark and play continues.) If the mene ends with one team having more points than the other, the game is over and the team with the most points wins.
    
5. After the final mene, the score may still be tied if the mene ends in a null point. In such a situation, the teams play another “final” mene.
    

Go to a detailed explanation of the FIPJP rules for time-limited games.

Where these rules are specified

As of August 2023, these rules are specified by the CEP (the European Petanque Confederation) on the CEP documents page. (Under the “Championships” heading, see the link for “Singles, Doubles, and Triples: Rules”. It will take you to a pdf file whose internal name is “European Championship Regulations 2023-24”)

18.04 The time limit for each game is:
     • Singles: 45 minutes
    • Doubles: 60 minutes
    • Triples: 75 minutes
18.05 In each format, the teams will be informed that the time limit has expired.
18.06 At the end of the time limit, the current end will be completed and if no team has reached 13 points, two more ends will be played.
18.07 If the score is tied, after the two additional ends, the teams play an extra end.
18.08 During this extra end, the jack cannot become dead (out of play). If the jack goes out of the defined playing area it is returned to its original position.

As of August 2023, these rules are specified by the FIPJP in the FIPJP rules for the world championships, the Règlement des Championnats du Monde. (On the FIPJP web page), click on “MENU” in the upper right-hand corner, then on “Rules and Regulations”, then on “Rules Championships”. Then look for Article 19.

All games of the world championships are played in 13 points, with the exception of the games for which a limited time is applied: one hour and a quarter for the men’s world championship in triplets, one hour for the other world championships in triplets and for the doubles world championships, 45 minutes for the individual world championships.

If neither team has reached 13 points before the end of the fixed time, it will be contested for up to two additional ends. In the event of a tie at the end of the extra ends there will be a final end in which the jack, if it can be moved, will never be lost.

An interesting consequence of a seemingly-unrelated rules change

Before 2020, a thrown jack was required to be at least a meter or half a meter from a side dead-ball line. In 2020 the rules changed, allowing the jack to be thrown right next to a side dead-ball line. This introduced an interesting new tactic into time-limited games. Now, at the start of the first or second extra mene, if a team is leading (with a higher score than their opponents) they may choose to throw the jack very close to a side string. Then, rather than pointing with their first boule, they shoot the jack out-of-bounds. This ends the mene without changing the score. Doing this, a team that is in the lead at the beginning of the first or second extra mene can— if they have a good shooter— virtually lock in their victory.