PDA

View Full Version : Push shots.



cushioncrawler
10-21-2007, 07:27 PM
Recently i played an english billiardz match (12' table) against a pool player. Earlyr in the year he told me that he woz a pool referee and he sort of warned me that when refereeing he haz no hezitation in calling a push a foul. In our recent match he asked for a foul to be awarded against me a couple of times, but this woz denied by the ref (one of hiz teammates). Later u kood see that he woz unhappy with other shots allso, but by this time he had given up asking. There might have been 10 instances where he woznt happy (i woz in good form), and by the end he woz fuming and just bashing the balls around (he didnt have time to catch up by then anyhow, matches are 75 minutes duration).

He koodnt stay for supper, so i didnt get a chance to ask him what hiz rationale woz, ie what constituted a push foul. In English Billiards a push iz allowed, ie when the qball and OB are allmost touching, if the player hits a very fine edge of the OB. A few years ago the rules said "the finest possible edge" -- a ridiculous term well gotten rid of. But of course "a very fine edge" still needz interpretation.

Some players think that a qtip can be in contact with a qball for 1" or even 2". I think that it would take a very soft tip to reech anywhere near a say 1/2" contact.

What iz the current ruling/thinking in pool that kood possibly lead to him having a problem with my billiardz shots?? Not sure what rules he follows -- 8 ball i think. madMac.

1Time
10-21-2007, 11:33 PM
This thread (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ccb&Number=258378&page=&vi ew=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1) covers push shots pretty well.

Bob_Jewett
10-22-2007, 12:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> ... Some players think that a qtip can be in contact with a qball for 1" or even 2". I think that it would take a very soft tip to reech anywhere near a say 1/2" contact.

What iz the current ruling/thinking in pool that kood possibly lead to him having a problem with my billiardz shots?? Not sure what rules he follows -- 8 ball i think. madMac. <hr /></blockquote>
Still sticking with the obscure/obscuring spelling, Mac?

I think the rules at pool are more or less the same as the rules at English billiards except that in pool, you are allowed to shoot towards a ball the cue ball is touching.

The Jacksonville Project (ultra-high-speed video of many kinds of shots and situations) showed exactly what physics predicts: the tip is on the ball for a distance comparable to the amount the tip is compressed, and that contact has a duration of about 1-2 milliseconds.

"Fine edge" is indeed subject to interpretation. Should the object ball just wiggle a little? Is it OK to move it an inch? A foot? A table length for a very powerful hit? My own criterion for judging is whether the cue ball took close to the same path it would have taken had it been shot along the same line but from an inch or 6 farther back.

dr_dave
10-22-2007, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>... in pool, you are allowed to shoot towards a ball the cue ball is touching. ...<hr /></blockquote>Bob,

I recently had a debate with somebody on YouTube about the rules concerning shooting through the CB when it is frozen to an OB. I was hoping you could reply to this message so I can point the person to your reply. He doesn't want to believe me. Because you helped write the rules, I'm hoping he will believe you.

Here are the pertinent rules:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote WPA/BCA Rules:</font><hr>2.20 JUDGING DOUBLE HITS
When the distance between the cue ball and the object ball is less than the width of a chalk cube, special attention from the referee is required. In such a situation, unless the referee can positively determine a legal shot has been performed, the following guidance may apply: if the cue ball follows through the object ball more than 1/2 ball, it is a foul.<hr /></blockquote>The person I was arguing with claims this rule applies when the CB is frozen to the OB because the distance between them is less than a chalk's width.

I tried to convince him that the following rule supersedes 2.20:<blockquote><font class="small">Quote WPA/BCA Rules:</font><hr>3.23 FOULS BY DOUBLE HITS
If the cue ball is touching the required object ball prior to the shot, the player may shoot toward it, providing that any normal stroke is employed. If the cue stick strikes the cue ball more than once on a shot, or if the cue stick is in contact with the cue ball when or after the cue ball contacts an object ball, the shot is foul. (See Rule 2.20. for judging this kind of shot.) If a third ball is close by, care should be taken not to foul that ball under the first part of this rule.<hr /></blockquote>Please respond with your official position. I hope he will believe you since you helped write the rules.

Also, you might want to make a note to try to add a clarification to future revisions of the rules to help eliminate possible misinterpretation with this type of shot.

Thanks,
Dave

1Time
10-22-2007, 02:36 PM
I think those two rules should be combined into one and address the matter whether a ball is frozen or not and regardless of the distance the CB is from other object balls.

Bob_Jewett
10-22-2007, 03:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote WPA/BCA Rules:</font><hr>2.20 JUDGING DOUBLE HITS
When the distance between the cue ball and the object ball is less than the width of a chalk cube, special attention from the referee is required. In such a situation, unless the referee can positively determine a legal shot has been performed, the following guidance may apply: if the cue ball follows through the object ball more than 1/2 ball, it is a foul.<hr /></blockquote>The person I was arguing with claims this rule applies when the CB is frozen to the OB because the distance between them is less than a chalk's width.... <hr /></blockquote>
First, 2.20 is not a rule. It is a guideline for clueless referees who because of lack of experience cannot tell from the action of the cue ball whether the shot was a foul or not. Sad but true.

It is possible to play a legal shot on a close ball and get the cue ball to follow the length of the table. It is also possible to have less than a half-ball of penetration into the close object ball and be absolutely certain that a foul occurred.

2.20 will not appear in the revised WPA/BCA World Standardized Rules.

As I've said in lots of forums and in lots of ways, at pool, if the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, you are permitted to shoot any normal stroke in the direction of the object ball. A stroke that is the same speed as a nine ball break shot. A little tap that carries both balls six inches. A jacked up masse shot that takes the cue ball 30 feet and moves the object ball an inch. A shot with follow that gets the cue ball to catch up with the object ball and hit it a second time five feet down the table. The "passing lane" shot, which is an absolutely standard artistic pool shot, in which the cue ball passes the ball it is frozen to. All of those shots are legal if the cue ball is frozen to the object ball.

dr_dave
10-22-2007, 04:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> ... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote WPA/BCA Rules:</font><hr>2.20 JUDGING DOUBLE HITS
When the distance between the cue ball and the object ball is less than the width of a chalk cube, special attention from the referee is required. In such a situation, unless the referee can positively determine a legal shot has been performed, the following guidance may apply: if the cue ball follows through the object ball more than 1/2 ball, it is a foul.<hr /></blockquote>The person I was arguing with claims this rule applies when the CB is frozen to the OB because the distance between them is less than a chalk's width.... <hr /></blockquote>
First, 2.20 is not a rule. It is a guideline for clueless referees who because of lack of experience cannot tell from the action of the cue ball whether the shot was a foul or not. Sad but true.

It is possible to play a legal shot on a close ball and get the cue ball to follow the length of the table. It is also possible to have less than a half-ball of penetration into the close object ball and be absolutely certain that a foul occurred.

2.20 will not appear in the revised WPA/BCA World Standardized Rules.<hr /></blockquote>
Thank you for the info. I look forward to seeing the final revised rules on the WPA rules website (http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules) in January, 2008. Thank you for your hard work making sure the rules have less room for bad interpretation.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>As I've said in lots of forums and in lots of ways, at pool, if the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, you are permitted to shoot any normal stroke in the direction of the object ball. A stroke that is the same speed as a nine ball break shot. A little tap that carries both balls six inches. A jacked up masse shot that takes the cue ball 30 feet and moves the object ball an inch. A shot with follow that gets the cue ball to catch up with the object ball and hit it a second time five feet down the table. The "passing lane" shot, which is an absolutely standard artistic pool shot, in which the cue ball passes the ball it is frozen to. All of those shots are legal if the cue ball is frozen to the object ball.<hr /></blockquote>Thank you. Unfortuantely, what people write on forums doesn't pull much weight, as compared to the official rules on the WPA website. Anyway, I hope the guy I was debating with will believe me now.

Regards,
Dave

cushioncrawler
10-22-2007, 04:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>... Some players think that a qtip can be in contact with a qball for 1" or even 2". I think that it would take a very soft tip to reech anywhere near a say 1/2" contact. What iz the current ruling/thinking in pool that kood possibly lead to him having a problem with my billiardz shots?? Not sure what rules he follows -- 8 ball i think..<hr /></blockquote>Still sticking with the obscure/obscuring spelling, Mac?

I think the rules at pool are more or less the same as the rules at English billiards except that in pool, you are allowed to shoot towards a ball the cue ball is touching.

The Jacksonville Project (ultra-high-speed video of many kinds of shots and situations) showed exactly what physics predicts: the tip is on the ball for a distance comparable to the amount the tip is compressed, and that contact has a duration of about 1-2 milliseconds.

"Fine edge" is indeed subject to interpretation. Should the object ball just wiggle a little? Is it OK to move it an inch? A foot? A table length for a very powerful hit? My own criterion for judging is whether the cue ball took close to the same path it would have taken had it been shot along the same line but from an inch or 6 farther back.<hr /></blockquote>Bob -- Thanks for that. Looking at your post and 1time's etc it duz appear that my (pool ref) opponent didnt have any real (pool type) reezon to gripe about my thin close-cannonz, when the qball and OB were nearly touching. In fact the English Billiards rules appear to be more forgiving than pool rules, koz the EB rules allow a push shot when the balls are allmost touching, az long az the player hits a very fine edge. Alltho i suspekt that a similar shot in pool wouldnt be ruled a foul anyhow.

But i am confuzed about BCA 3:24 (or woz it 3:23?)......

How can anyone play a shot towardz a touching OB without the qtip being in contact while the qball iz in contact with the OB?? (Impossible, no matter what sorts of qtips etc u might devize).

And, how can u play this (frozen) shot without the qtip being in contact with the qball after the qball haz seperated from the OB??? (Impossible, unless u uze a qtip and cue that give a shorter contact time [with the qball] than the contact time between the 2 ballz).

Fine edge iz subjectiv for sure. It iz possible to hit so thinly that for a soft shot the OB only rocks and duznt leev its original footprint. But the same shot hit very hard might send the OB allmost 12". I played such a shot in my game, my qball going around the (12') table twice (looking for any pocket), the OB going allmost 12", and my opponent looked to be in agony.

I calculated that a qball and OB are in contact for about 8 times the depth of the temporary flatspot, ie for a hard shot this would be 8 times 1/4mm, or 2mm. If the same sort of relationship exists for a qtip/qball contact, it might be 8 times 1mm, ie 8mm.

Re the obscure spelling, i didnt start this problem. If everyone out there stuck to the proper pronounciation i would be sticking to the proper spelling. In real english, every letter iz (woz) pronounced. People dont realize it, but, english iz (woz) just az "fully phonetik" az Polish or German. So, if its ok for u lot to play with the pronounciation, then madMac shood be allowed to play with the spelling. madMacSpeare.

Bob_Jewett
10-22-2007, 04:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> ... How can anyone play a shot towardz a touching OB without the qtip being in contact while the qball iz in contact with the OB?? (Impossible, no matter what sorts of qtips etc u might devize).... <hr /></blockquote>
Clearly you can't. The shot, which snooker and English billiards player find vile and abhorrent, is specifically permitted in pool. It is not only condoned, it is celebrated and cherished.

Pool has different rules than other cue sports. You should never, ever think they are the same. In a few cases, they are similar.

cushioncrawler
10-22-2007, 05:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> ... How can anyone play a shot towardz a touching OB without the qtip being in contact while the qball iz in contact with the OB?? (Impossible, no matter what sorts of qtips etc u might devize).... <hr /></blockquote>Clearly you can't. The shot, which snooker and English billiards player find vile and abhorrent, is specifically permitted in pool. It is not only condoned, it is celebrated and cherished. Pool has different rules than other cue sports. You should never, ever think they are the same. In a few cases, they are similar.<hr /></blockquote>Bob -- What i meant woz that the pool rules (3:23 or 3:24) describe an impossible situation. madMac.

Bob_Jewett
10-22-2007, 07:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> ... What i meant woz that the pool rules (3:23 or 3:24) describe an impossible situation. madMac. <hr /></blockquote>
I think you mean 3.23 which is different from the last time I saw it, I think. Before the second sentence starts you should insert a sentence such as, "If the cue ball is close to but not touching the ball played, the following applies," or some such. I hope that the new revision is clearer.

3.24 is about push shots by the meaning used within the pool rules which is, as mentioned, different from the way some use the phrase.