PDA

View Full Version : #### Leonard, Scott Lee and RandyG.



Chris Cass
12-09-2002, 02:40 AM
Hi Everyone,

After, reading a post #### leonard wrote awhile back on Stroke and Andrew Ponzi, it made me think. I was thinking how, no matter how we hit whitey, we should always follow-thru. Well, I have a trick that might help some and is legal. It is still following through whitey but not in the forward sence. It's to avoid the double kiss.

Here's the shot, couldn't get the cb in the diagram to go below the cb.

START(
%IQ4D1%PQ4E7%UQ3G1%VQ6V9%eB5b6

)END

The senario is the cb and the 9 ball are about 1/8th" apart and just barely off the rail. What, I do is place the tip of my cue stick under the cb, laying on the cloth. My bridge hand is upside down and opened. In other words the back of my bridge hand is opened, and has the cue stick resting in the palm of my hand.

I get under the cb and simply lift up the cue. No chance, for the double hit and the ob hits the rail. It's legal and the good thing is, you can do this for quite some time and always get a rail. Just something different. Works well in one hole too.

Regards,

C.C.~~names listed in no particular order. All admired, for their accomplishments /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan
12-09-2002, 10:25 AM
Chris,

This shot was discussed extensively this spring. I asked Alan Barnes, BCA's national head ref, about it. He said that it had been discussed and he was going to specifically direct the referees at BCA nationals to call this shot as a foul.

SpiderMan

Rich R.
12-09-2002, 10:48 AM
On what grounds could it be considered a foul?
I'm very curious.

Chris Cass
12-09-2002, 10:54 AM
Really? I can't see why? It doesn't double hit and the ball does contact a rail. That would be interesting to find out what the thought process would be behind that decision?

The ferrule isn't contacting the cb and like the stroke the cue tip goes through only straight up. It's not a push because there's no double hit.

Please, let me know if you hear anything.

Regards,

C.C.~~like Spiderman....

Fred Agnir
12-09-2002, 11:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> On what grounds could it be considered a foul?
I'm very curious. <hr /></blockquote>
I posed the same question on this shot a few years back. An answer from Bruce Baker seemed to have good grounds.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19990413174206.19605.00000184%40ng35.a ol.com&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;output=gplain

Fred

12-09-2002, 11:18 AM
Tricky! /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif
I could see where it might be considered a push shot, as the tip may be in contact with the CB for an excessive amount of time, or pushing the CB rather than striking it.

Rod
12-09-2002, 11:54 AM
Chris,
Some years ago I first saw this shot. After that time I ruled it a foul in my tournaments. A stroke is a back and forward motion, not up and or down. JMO but then I'm a hard ass when it comes to this type of stuff.

smfsrca
12-09-2002, 12:07 PM
Anyone who has been a pool player for more than an hour knows in their heart what is wrong with this method. Tell me that you will use this method amongst stangers without first asking about it. Simply put, it just ain't pool. Just because it hasn't yet been dealt with in the rule books doesn't make it right or acceptable. I recently played in a tournament where a referree was called to the table and asked if the shot would be legal. The ref emphatically replied "NO! At one time, if somebody did that we would have to break his thumbs."
Steve

Sid_Vicious
12-09-2002, 03:55 PM
My brain cells didn't process any solid direction in this message from this guy. It came across(IMI) as more of a political answer than anything else. How about summarizing for me? sid

SPetty
12-09-2002, 04:02 PM
Hi Sid,

The partial sentence of interest in that post is:

"...references to a legal stroke, the requirement of which includes forward movement."

Interpretation is that in order to have a legal stroke, there must be forward movement, not just upward.

Fred Agnir
12-09-2002, 04:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> My brain cells didn't process any solid direction in this message from this guy. It came across(IMI) as more of a political answer than anything else. How about summarizing for me? sid <hr /></blockquote>
The summary is that Bruce Baker, International BCA head referee and member of the BCA rules committee was instructing other referees (at the BCA Nationals) to interpret this shot as a foul, with the grounds that a legal shot requires a forward motion (of the stick). He further says that this specific shot and its interpretation as a foul has been submitted for review to the other governing bodies of pool.

Fred

Sid_Vicious
12-09-2002, 04:25 PM
Ok thanks. I could not find that work "illegal" is all...sid

Sid_Vicious
12-09-2002, 04:31 PM
I had actually heard about this some time ago but was kinda stickin' Mr. Baker with a label of being less than obviously direct. Heck, if it is to be a established as a foul and illegal, then please clarify in those terms and don't "word it up" like tax code...sid

SpiderMan
12-09-2002, 05:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> Chris,
Some years ago I first saw this shot. After that time I ruled it a foul in my tournaments. A stroke is a back and forward motion, not up and or down. JMO but then I'm a hard ass when it comes to this type of stuff. <hr /></blockquote>

Hard ass, maybe, but you were ahead of your time and your thoughts coincided perfectly with current authority on this subject. That's exactly the way Alan defined it to me over the phone earlier this year.

SpiderMan

12-09-2002, 05:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> I had actually heard about this some time ago but was kinda stickin' Mr. Baker with a label of being less than obviously direct. Heck, if it is to be a established as a foul and illegal, then please clarify in those terms and don't "word it up" like tax code...sid <hr /></blockquote>


we've talked about this shot in the past here. raised it myself once.

randy g. teaches it as a legal shot in dallas. or at least a variation where you lay the stick on the table while holding it near the tip and swiping at the c.b.

i'm not at all sure where to find the "forward stroking motion"in the book as the definition of a shot although i do know at least one former bca master and long time rule-writer who feels it is a foul for that reason.

dan

Chris Cass
12-09-2002, 05:32 PM
Hi smfsrca,

In my heart of hearts? It has nothing to do with what's right and what is wrong. It has to do with legalities. Some argued the jump shot way back when, and now it's legal. I been around this game long enough to know what's legal and what isn't and still, last week I over heard a gentleman complaining a safety shot in 8 ball was $hit pool. That's how much some of the players have evolved. Heck, I heard two kids talking about pool sharks. That was out in the 80's. LOL

You have the right to your opinion and I respect that. Myself? I just want to know the correct rule by the BCA. I remember the push rule changing awhile back too. It's merely a update on what's legal not what's moral to some. I've always thought it was a move, but still it was legal.

I think it's morally wrong to intentionally jump the balls off the table in one pocket, but it's legal. It's all we have brother. We have to go with it.

No disrespect intended,

C.C.

Chris Cass
12-09-2002, 05:39 PM
Hi Dan,

This is what I'm talking about exactly. Swiping the cb. To my knowledge, a legal shot is where the tip has to make contact the cb to be legal, providing it doesn't double hit. Then, we also have the rules on what the tip should consist of also. LOL Personally, I think it's a move but I can shoot it a few ways and return the safe.

Regards,

C.C.

Chris Cass
12-09-2002, 05:45 PM
Hi Rod,

I can respect that. I only play by the rules. Actually, I didn't mean to open up a can of worms here but it is interesting without a doubt. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Mainly, seen it in one pocket.

Regards,

C.C.

heater451
12-09-2002, 06:30 PM
A local player told me about this "shot" several months back, and said that "they" were thinking of classifying it as a 'scoop' shot, which is illegal to use for jumping.

I can see the similarity, in that the cue is used to lift the ball upwards--even though the ball may roll away, without leaving the table.



===================

Rod
12-09-2002, 06:41 PM
Hi Chris,
You didn't open anything, it was done years ago. It is good that this is brought to the surface. Everyone should be aware of what's happening and what might happen. By the current standards, the BCA rule book, since a stroke has not been defined in more detail, it would be legal. A stroke IMO is a back and forward motion, at least forward done with the grip hand. In this case, during actual contact with the c/b, the butt end of the cue is stationary with the front end moving vertical. I'm really amazed after all these years that it hasn't been defined. Another thing that bugs me is a break shot when someone swings at the c/b and glances off to the side. It didn't cross the headstring so no foul. The game starts after it crosses the line as you know.

Rule, 3.3 STRIKING CUE BALL
Legal shots require that the cue ball be struck only with the cue tip. Failure to meet this requirement is a foul.

That is a foul if the game has started, not before as I interpret the rules. Granted not a big deal but I think this should be a foul even though the game has not started.
There are some grey areas so a clear definition is needed.

I'm not clear at this point if it is allowed at the BCA Nat but I'd call a ref if someone was going to try that against me.

12-09-2002, 06:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> Another thing that bugs me is a break shot when someone swings at the c/b and glances off to the side. It didn't cross the headstring so no foul. The game starts after it crosses the line as you know.

Rule, 3.3 STRIKING CUE BALL
Legal shots require that the cue ball be struck only with the cue tip. Failure to meet this requirement is a foul.

That is a foul if the game has started, not before as I interpret the rules. Granted not a big deal but I think this should be a foul even though the game has not started.
There are some grey areas so a clear definition is needed.

<hr /></blockquote>

actually, by bca, the rule has been changed in recent years so that the game commences with the cue tip touching the cue ball. not with the ball crossing the head string.

one place where they still have it screwed-up is in the general rules 3.10 "cue ball in hand behind the head string." note that this is not a start of game rule. first it says that, if you have b.i.h. in the kitchen you can use the cue tip to position the c.b. and that the shot has not begun "it remains in hand" until it crosses the head string. then at the end of the rule they tacked on a bit of sillyness that says "...fails to drive the c.b. over the head string, the shot is a foul." hold it, it's still in hand, didn't cross the head string and was positioned by the cue tip but it's a foul???

clearly, they have got to fix the forward stroking motion issue sooner or later.

dan

Rod
12-09-2002, 07:40 PM
actually, by bca, the rule has been changed in recent years so that the game commences with the cue tip touching the cue ball. not with the ball crossing the head string.


What did they do Dan, change it back? It use to be that way then the crossing the line come along. Now it's back?

Guess I'd better have a review of the rules, sometimes it helps, or not.

12-09-2002, 08:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> actually, by bca, the rule has been changed in recent years so that the game commences with the cue tip touching the cue ball. not with the ball crossing the head string.


What did they do Dan, change it back? It use to be that way then the crossing the line come along. Now it's back?

Guess I'd better have a review of the rules, sometimes it helps, or not. <hr /></blockquote>

actually, i suspect they do it to keep selling books. there is supposed to be a moratorium on new rules as part of the pre-olympic strategy but that doesn't stop them from issuing "interpretations" which look a lot like new rules.

the headstring thing has been chipped at in fits and starts for quite a while now and who knows if they will ever clarify the "forward stroking motion" thing. i know of at least two bca masters who have worked on the rules over the years who disagree completely. i suspect that, as the members at the top come and go, the votes shift and changes are made.

hell of a way to run a circus. all clowns, no ringmaster.

dan

Chris Cass
12-10-2002, 01:22 AM
Hi Ya Heater,

Good to here from ya. If it was a scoop shot? Wouldn't the cb have to leave the bed? I just want to get the rules straight in my head. I always go with what the rules state and like the jump can take it or leave it. I'm just lucky I'm not limited in that aspect. But, what about the other guy? The push rule has been a problem for a few yrs. now. I just want to be covered. LOL

Regards,

C.C.

heater451
12-10-2002, 10:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chris Cass:</font><hr> . . .If it was a scoop shot? Wouldn't the cb have to leave the bed?<hr /></blockquote>If you wanted to split hairs about "intent, vs. actual event", then I'd say "Yes, to really be a scoop, the cue ball would have to leave the table".

You might have to consider whether all scoop shots are (illegal) jumps only, or decide if it's possible to 'scoop' without any noticable lift (horizontally scooping?). --Is it possible to fail at a scoop-jump, and not get air?--Would anyone notice?

I think that you could consider it a scoop, if the movement of the cue tip is upward (from below the horizon line of the ball), but I don't have any idea what a governing body would define it as.

***

BTW, is there a stalemate rule that could cover the situation? I don't see why two players couldn't just use the same safety three times each, and call for a re-break, or have to score a tie game (w/ a tie-breaker, if necessary, which would of course be pretty much the same result as if they had restarted the one game).


==================

heater451
12-10-2002, 10:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote houstondan:</font><hr>actually, i suspect they do it to keep selling books. there is supposed to be a moratorium on new rules as part of the pre-olympic strategy but that doesn't stop them from issuing "interpretations" which look a lot like new rules.<hr /></blockquote>Does returning to an old rule count the same as implementing a "new" rule? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote houstondan:</font><hr>the headstring thing has been chipped at in fits and starts for quite a while now and who knows if they will ever clarify the "forward stroking motion" thing. i know of at least two bca masters who have worked on the rules over the years who disagree completely. i suspect that, as the members at the top come and go, the votes shift and changes are made.

hell of a way to run a circus. all clowns, no ringmaster.

dan <hr /></blockquote>Isn't that exactly how beauracracies (don't) work? (Kinda like our gov't, every 4 or 8 years. . . .)



==================

12-11-2002, 12:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Chris Cass:</font><hr> . . .If it was a scoop shot? Wouldn't the cb have to leave the bed?<hr /></blockquote>If you wanted to split hairs about "intent, vs. actual event", then I'd say "Yes, to really be a scoop, the cue ball would have to leave the table".

You might have to consider whether all scoop shots are (illegal) jumps only, or decide if it's possible to 'scoop' without any noticable lift (horizontally scooping?). --Is it possible to fail at a scoop-jump, and not get air?--Would anyone notice?

I think that you could consider it a scoop, if the movement of the cue tip is upward (from below the horizon line of the ball), but I don't have any idea what a governing body would define it as.

***

BTW, is there a stalemate rule that could cover the situation? I don't see why two players couldn't just use the same safety three times each, and call for a re-break, or have to score a tie game (w/ a tie-breaker, if necessary, which would of course be pretty much the same result as if they had restarted the one game).


================== <hr /></blockquote>

well, the bca rule as i read it says that if you intentionally loft the ball from below with the intention of clearing a ball then bad on you.

i don't think y'all are talking about a rule violation here.

dan

Chris Cass
12-11-2002, 12:51 AM
Your right Dan,

It's more like a clarification and now definition of a legal stroke. It's went from a move to a moral issue then to a legal stroke and then, to a intent to infract.

Don't think it's going anywhere fast.

Regards,

C.C.~~can tell now, it's not worth it to shoot it and not a major problem either.