PDA

View Full Version : Is this a push shot?

Rail Rat
05-13-2008, 06:30 PM
I will try and describe a shot that I believe is a push but my opponent has disagreed.

The Q ball was almost frozen to the Oball and was wired to a pocket across the table. My opponent struck it at a sharp angle and drove it to the pocket.

My contention is that constitutes a "push" as the follow though had to at some point shove the ball instead of striking it cleanly. My oponent argued that since is was at an almost 90 degree angle to the shot line up it was a glancing strike and a legal hit.

Who's right here? -
Rail Rat

1Time
05-13-2008, 06:51 PM
I think the cue has to be jacked up from 45 to 90 degrees at the time of initial impact before a push cannot be called, but I'm not referencing any written rules.

Edit: In any event if the tip touches the cue ball more than once during the shot, it's a foul.

Bambu
05-13-2008, 07:18 PM
According to BCA rules: If the cue ball penetrates into the original space of the object ball more than 1/2 ball diameter,
the referee is directed to call a foul.
So "shooting away" as your friend did, is a good way to make sure this doesnt happen.
I dont know how old that rule is, or if it was changed from the rule many of us remember, the "you must jack up" rule.

bsmutz
05-14-2008, 10:00 AM
The only way it can be considered a push shot is if the cue tip stayed in contact with the cue ball for longer than ordinary. In your scenario, he would have had to hit the cue ball directly into the object ball, all the while keeping his cue tip on the ball while it made contact with the OB. This usually only occurs when the two balls are touching. Otherwise, it would be a double hit; once to get the cue ball moving and again on the follow through when the cue ball hit the object ball and the cue tip hits the cue ball again. When the cue ball is played away from the object ball at say a 90 degree angle, the cue ball will move out of the way and allow the follow through to go where the cue ball used to be.

Rail Rat
05-14-2008, 10:23 AM

This shows the shot better. It looks to be a push no matter where you hit it.

Bob_Jewett
05-14-2008, 10:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the cue has to be jacked up from 45 to 90 degrees at the time of initial impact before a push cannot be called, but I'm not referencing any written rules. ... </div></div>
No. Elevation has no bearing on whether a double hit occurs.

Some leagues have "elevation" rules or "shooting at an angle" rules, but those are not standard, and the people who write such rules are certainly confused about what happens on shots.

In general, if the cue ball is nearly frozen to the object ball, you are permitted to play a very thin hit. The rules cover this. There are available on the WPA website at http://www.wpa-pool.com and the specific rule is:

http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_fouls#6.7

Of course, "barely grazes" is a matter of judgement. I would judge the legality according to whether the cue ball left the object ball along the kiss line or very close to it.

Bob_Jewett
05-14-2008, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to BCA rules: If the cue ball penetrates into the original space of the object ball more than 1/2 ball diameter, the referee is directed to call a foul. ... </div></div>
That was never really a rule and no longer exists. It was sort of an instruction for the referee if the referee was generally incompetent to judge close hits. It is possible to play directly at a close ball and get the cue ball to follow the length of the table without a foul. It is possible to penetrate less than a half ball with a foul. A competent referee will ignore the simple instruction and rule according to whether there were two hits or not.

It is unfortunate that the "half ball penetration" guideline was ever included in the rule book. I think it just confuses things.

Rail Rat
05-14-2008, 10:45 AM
Thanks, Bob. I think you are saying its possible to play away from this shot for safety and hit a rail. My point is... My friends glancing shot was strong enough to drive the ball all the way to the pocket, I felt that to drive it that far it was not a glance but the stick follow thru pushed the ball to the pocket?

Deeman3
05-14-2008, 12:16 PM
Rail rat:

By the way and no biggie here but you probably need to shoot the opposite way if you want that ball to go in the corner. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Bob_Jewett
05-14-2008, 12:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rail Rat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks, Bob. I think you are saying its possible to play away from this shot for safety and hit a rail. My point is... My friends glancing shot was strong enough to drive the ball all the way to the pocket, I felt that to drive it that far it was not a glance but the stick follow thru pushed the ball to the pocket? </div></div>
I'm not sure about the last part of your post. I'm sure that at the angle shown in your diagram that the stick hit the cue ball only once. The question is whether the tip was still on the cue ball when the cue ball hit the object ball. I do not think that the object ball was moving faster than it would have been with the same stick angle and the cue ball starting back a foot.

Rail Rat
05-14-2008, 01:30 PM
[/quote]
I'm not sure about the last part of your post. I'm sure that at the angle shown in your diagram that the stick hit the cue ball only once. The question is whether the tip was still on the cue ball when the cue ball hit the object ball. I do not think that the object ball was moving faster than it would have been with the same stick angle and the cue ball starting back a foot. [/quote]

I beleive in this scenerio where the ball is hit firmly, the cue tip would be still on the QB when it hits the OB, which I believe you are saying would constitute a Push?

Rail Rat
05-14-2008, 01:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rail rat:

By the way and no biggie here but you probably need to shoot the opposite way if you want that ball to go in the corner. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

My diagram may be a tad off, but the OB was really a plant and a hit anywhere on the QB would pot it.

What irked me was I had played a nice safety to get it there and my opponent smacked it in for the game.

JJFSTAR
05-14-2008, 02:23 PM
Rail rat if you read the rules carefully you will notice that a push shot being a foul is if the CB goes in the same direction as the OB. Your friend used the force of nature known to us as push to send an OB into a pocket, this is not a foul. Hitting the CB twice is a foul. Hitting the CB twice or sustained contact with the CB is physically nearly impossible if A: the CB and OB are touching or very close to one another B: you send the CB in the same general direction as the OB and C: Your stick is parallel to the table even if the foul is not visible to the naked eye or audible to the unenhanced ear it is still a foul 99.99% of the time. The foul is called “push” but utilizing this force is not in and of itself a foul.

BTW Deeman is correct in that in your diagram that OB would be sent into the short rail not the pocket. The CB and OB must have been more east or the OB had to be more east in relation to the CB.

Bob I respect your game, your writing and you as a scientist, I have never met you but you have taught me much about this game and I want to open by saying thank you, however I have to say that people who write rule books for local leagues and throw in “elevation” rules are not confused as to what actually happens on a pool table for the most part but are rather tasked with writing rules for people who are confused, and let me tell you that that is harder than you may think it is.

Deeman3
05-14-2008, 03:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rail Rat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rail rat:

By the way and no biggie here but you probably need to shoot the opposite way if you want that ball to go in the corner. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

My diagram may be a tad off, but the OB was really a plant and a hit anywhere on the QB would pot it.

What irked me was I had played a nice safety to get it there and my opponent smacked it in for the game. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FFFF66"> Well, actually even if it was a plant to the corner, hitting it at that angle would cause enough throw to, perhaps, make it miss. But, of course, it still might go. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

Bob_Jewett
05-14-2008, 04:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ... people who write rule books for local leagues and throw in “elevation” rules are not confused as to what actually happens on a pool table for the most part but are rather tasked with writing rules for people who are confused, and let me tell you that that is harder than you may think it is.
</div></div>
I agree that it is not easy to write rules that will keep down the fist fights in some situations, but I think that inventing bogus rules is not helpful. At least such rules writers should explain that the "special elevation rule" is only for that league and has nothing to do with the standard rules of pool.

But beyond that, I think that it is not impossible to educate league players, and more educated league players would be better for everyone, especially when the league players wander out into the larger world.

1Time
05-14-2008, 05:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bob_Jewett</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think the cue has to be jacked up from 45 to 90 degrees at the time of initial impact before a push cannot be called, but I'm not referencing any written rules. ... </div></div>
No. Elevation has no bearing on whether a double hit occurs.</div></div>
You either misunderstood or meant to post that elevation has no bearing on whether a push occurs, because I did not indicate it has anything to do with whether a double hit occurs. I added in my previous post for clarification that IN ANY EVENT, it's a foul if there is a double hit; meaning, regardless of elevation or any other event, a double hit is a foul.

All too often players shoot pool as if there exists "one" set of rules that's universally known and accepted. This simply is not true. The thing about rules regarding push shots for example, is, there's different rules. And so long as those involved agree up front as to what they are, no problem.

As to what ACTUALLY constitutes a push shot, that's technically an arbitrary matter. A cue ball frozen to an object ball cannot possibly be struck in any way whatsoever that physically does not result in the cue contacting the cue ball while the object ball is in contact with the cue ball, and thereby result in the push of the object ball. And that's simply because the two balls are frozen together. And so, any rule defining what is and is not a push shot when a cue ball and object ball are frozen, arbitrarily draws a roughly enforceable line between what is an OK way to execute a push shot and what is not an OK way to execute a push shot, or it defines all push shots as OK. If the balls are frozen, the object ball gets pushed, regardless. And so, striking the cue ball when the cue is elevated from 45 to 90 degrees is simply another arbitrary way to define what is and is not a push shot.

As to what SHOULD constitute a push shot, that's for a rules committee or league or the persons playing to decide, or for them to decide it doesn't matter and all push shots are OK, or all push shots are not OK.

What I think is most interesting about a push shot is when the cue ball gets pushed by the cue and releases before the cue ball strikes the object ball, without fouling. I have only seen Keith McCready and myself ever execute this shot, and do so repeatedly, and effectively pocket balls while doing so. Many claim this cannot physically be done without hitting the cue ball more than once. Not so my dear unbelievers, lol, and that's regardless of how many unsuccessful hours you may have spent attempting this shot.

Rail Rat
05-14-2008, 05:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rail rat if you read the rules carefully you will notice that a push shot being a foul is if the CB goes in the same direction as the OB. Your friend used the force of nature known to us as push to send an OB into a pocket, this is not a foul. Hitting the CB twice is a foul. Hitting the CB twice or sustained contact with the CB is physically nearly impossible if A: the CB and OB are touching or very close to one another B: you send the CB in the same general direction as the OB and C: Your stick is parallel to the table even if the foul is not visible to the naked eye or audible to the unenhanced ear it is still a foul 99.99% of the time. The foul is called “push” but utilizing this force is not in and of itself a foul.

</div></div>

This is the rule as quoted by Bob:

---If the cue ball is nearly frozen to the object ball, you are permitted to play a very thin hit. Of course, "barely grazes" is a matter of judgement. I would judge the legality according to whether the cue ball left the object ball along the kiss line or very close to it. ---(end)

My senior brain is struggling with this a bit but I think I got it. In a nut shell a very thin hit is allowed, but a thin hit would not produce enough force to drive the ball to the pocket. A more forceful hit would need more follow thru and less angle and that would intail the cue following thru and shoving both balls away.
I think the statement "matter of judgement" applies here, I guess in light of a referee the players should agree on theses things before play.

Both of us are seasoned well experienced players and have played league and tournanment play but we still disagree on this.

On the diagram yes, its a little off line and would hit the jaw. But I think in a plant like this there is no "throw" as its QB forcing OB only. But I've been wrong before!

PS, I highly repect Bobs views.

JJFSTAR
05-14-2008, 05:34 PM
Bob with all due respect and you sir are due lots and lots of it for teaching teachers and the elevation of pool in the free world over many years but, do you think that in let’s say hypothetically the APA or the WPPL or whatever league rule book (I am assuming here that it says on the front cover that it is that leagues rule book) that it should state again that the “special rule” is specific to that league? When there is a question about a ruling we in the West Penn Pool League pull out a WPPL rule book not an APA rule book or any other rule book.

I agree that it is not impossible to educate league players, in my section of the league little education is needed about the rules and what is a foul and what is not. But what about the people that are 2 divisions below my team? Bob some of them barely know how to hold a cue. Some of them have only been playing by any rules other than bar rules for a month. You can educate a lot of people over time but you just can’t educate everybody right away. People like you and Robert Byrne are living proof of that.

I understand that these and other special league specific rules make guys like you uncomfortable however they are necessary for armatures that are entering pool in competition for the first time in their lives. Long before they are skilled enough to move up into regional or national tournament play they will be well educated as to why those specific rules are in there. And if that never happens it will avoid as you pointed out; fisticuffs coming into play to spoil what would otherwise be a pleasant evening.

Kudos to you and not only what you have done for my game but what you have done for “the game” but those rules have to be in there for several specific groups of people the “I don’t care about what happens scientifically to the cue ball” group the “Hey this is my first season” group the “What the ____ do you mean by push” group etc…

Bambu
05-15-2008, 07:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bob_Jewett</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bambu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to BCA rules: If the cue ball penetrates into the original space of the object ball more than 1/2 ball diameter, the referee is directed to call a foul. ... </div></div>
That was never really a rule and no longer exists. It was sort of an instruction for the referee if the referee was generally incompetent to judge close hits. It is possible to play directly at a close ball and get the cue ball to follow the length of the table without a foul. It is possible to penetrate less than a half ball with a foul. A competent referee will ignore the simple instruction and rule according to whether there were two hits or not.

It is unfortunate that the "half ball penetration" guideline was ever included in the rule book. I think it just confuses things.</div></div>

Thanks Bob. I thought it was a weird rule myself. Not arguing, but that answer was on the bca instructors test. I should ask for a refund!(j/k)

dr_dave
05-15-2008, 08:10 AM
Some of you might be interested in the following video that explains double hit detection and avoidance and the effects of cue elevation:

HSV B.6 - double hit detection and avoidance (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-6.htm)

Also, this video shows hits at various angles with a frozen CB:

HSV A.97 - frozen cue ball shots with various approach angles (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-97.htm)

The results are presented and compared to Bob's interference system here:

TP A.15 - Controlling the cue ball direction in a frozen push shot (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-15.pdf)

I like to describe these types of shots as legal push shots.

FYI, more info on various types of double hit, push, miscue, and scoop fouls can be found here:

Regards,
Dave

Rail Rat
05-15-2008, 10:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of you might be interested in the following video that explains double hit detection and avoidance and the effects of cue elevation:

HSV B.6 - double hit detection and avoidance (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-6.htm)

Also, this video shows hits at various angles with a frozen CB:

HSV A.97 - frozen cue ball shots with various approach angles (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-97.htm)

The results are presented and compared to Bob's interference system here:

TP A.15 - Controlling the cue ball direction in a frozen push shot (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-15.pdf)

I like to describe these types of shots as legal push shots.

FYI, more info on various types of double hit, push, miscue, and scoop fouls can be found here: