PDA

View Full Version : Double Hit Ruling



Sid_Vicious
03-04-2003, 12:03 AM
START(
%HL3T2%Ig1Y7%JU3J5%K[6D3%LR6I9%MT3Y2%NL7Y8%OQ3F9%PM8T4%]P0T8
%^U5U2%eB4a9
)END


My opponent ran a table down to this shot on the 8. There was maybe 3 sheets of paper thickness(not frozen) of air between the CB & the 8, and he went for the bank, so I called a judge since he was shooting directly into the combo. The table ended like the next WEI table, also the CB traveled to the point of stopping without hitting any rails.

START(
%Hr0C7%Ig1Y7%JU3J5%K[6D3%LR6I9%MT3Y2%NL7Y8%OQ3F9%PI5S0%[J5S4
%\M8T3%]P0T8%^U5U2%eB4a9
)END

I thought that surely it was clearly a foul since the CB far surpassed the halfway point of the 8, but was ruled against, stating that BCA does not absolutely make it a called double hit if the CB passes that halfway point, that the ref still has the call, good as it went this time. What's your take? sid

Btw the ref was a fully certified ref who refs at the nationals, so it wasn't any ol' Joe. He said that the guy altered his stroke(backhand possible) and avoided the DBL hit succesfully. I simple thought the BCA rule verbage made it a simple case of foul. Comments?

03-04-2003, 12:21 AM
This shot in my Artistic world is called a coup fuente, and only a small handful of world class players can pull it off & not foul. This happens to be one of my best shots, but most American players in the artistic world dont do it well. The Europeans hit it great. Now if we struggle with it, what chance does the league player have of pulling it off, as old Diz used to say, slim & none. The problem gets even deeper, most of the refs you see at these tourneys I seriously doubt could call this shot effectively, some could, most could not. The odds are high, any non pro will double hit this shot & foul. Most refs wont call the foul because it happens so quick, they cant see it. Let me try & not trash the ref, If I was him, I would not rule on the shot, unless you put it on a camera, then let me check it frame by frame. The APA solved a lot of these rules problems several years ago by just accepting what I just told you, they did not have the people to really dudge the shots, so they go with drunk rules, they just dont call some fouls that are fouls. You wanted the answer, without filming the shot, there is no clear answer. Sorry my friend. Fast Larry

03-04-2003, 12:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fast Larry:</font><hr> This shot in my Artistic world is called a coup fuente, and only a small handful of world class players can pull it off &amp; not foul. This happens to be one of my best shots, but most American players in the artistic world dont do it well. The Europeans hit it great. Now if we struggle with it, what chance does the league player have of pulling it off, as old Diz used to say, slim &amp; none. The problem gets even deeper, most of the refs you see at these tourneys I seriously doubt could call this shot effectively, some could, most could not. The odds are high, any non pro will double hit this shot &amp; foul. Most refs wont call the foul because it happens so quick, they cant see it. Let me try &amp; not trash the ref, If I was him, I would not rule on the shot, unless you put it on a camera, then let me check it frame by frame. The APA solved a lot of these rules problems several years ago by just accepting what I just told you, they did not have the people to really dudge the shots, so they go with drunk rules, they just dont call some fouls that are fouls. You wanted the answer, without filming the shot, there is no clear answer. Sorry my friend. Fast Larry <hr /></blockquote>

i think you're missing the point. the rule that sid is asking about isn't really a rule at all; it's referee guidance.(2.20 judging double hits) it talks about how, unless the ref is sure it was legal, he may want to consider the forward movement of the c.b. thru the subject o.b.

what it doesn't talk about in that guidance is that the ref can also listen to the shot. absent high speed replay, listening for the tell-tale "clack" is often used by refs to call the shot a foul.

dan

Rod
03-04-2003, 02:03 AM
Sid,
I wouldn't know without seeing it but it does not have to be a foul. When there is a short span between the c/b and o/b I can draw it long distance. Most people just do not understand the concept or what actually happens during those type of shots. Most refs would not know how to make the call. The real way to prove it is not a foul is with high speed film. That would be shot at at least 10,000 frames per second, similar to the Jacksonville project. The visual from such a shot shows the c/b immediately drawing back, it never remotely goes past where the o/b was placed. In such a shot the tip is still on the c/b when it contacts the o/b. You can feel the extra weight at contact, ie no double hit. It does not foul because it is hit with side english away from the tangent line and the tip/shaft deflects in the direction of english used. When hit at the wrong angle, english etc or any other number of faults the c/b and o/b travel at the same speed which of course is a double hit.

Rod

SpiderMan
03-04-2003, 07:17 AM
Rod,

I'm familiar with your shot /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, but Sid's opponent's situation last night was such that I'm pretty sure it was a foul. The cueball pushed straight through the object ball several inches before stopping. This was not a case of follow, you showed me what it would take to achieve this cleanly and the man didn't shoot it that way. The only way this forward motion could have been achieved is by a double hit. The person who refereed the shot was saying some nonsense about "the cueball didn't move forward faster than the object ball", and he was wrong. But I was far away on the sidelines and someone else had been called over to watch the shot.

SpiderMan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> Sid,
I wouldn't know without seeing it but it does not have to be a foul. When there is a short span between the c/b and o/b I can draw it long distance. Most people just do not understand the concept or what actually happens during those type of shots. Most refs would not know how to make the call. The real way to prove it is not a foul is with high speed film. That would be shot at at least 10,000 frames per second, similar to the Jacksonville project. The visual from such a shot shows the c/b immediately drawing back, it never remotely goes past where the o/b was placed. In such a shot the tip is still on the c/b when it contacts the o/b. You can feel the extra weight at contact, ie no double hit. It does not foul because it is hit with side english away from the tangent line and the tip/shaft deflects in the direction of english used. When hit at the wrong angle, english etc or any other number of faults the c/b and o/b travel at the same speed which of course is a double hit.

Rod <hr /></blockquote>

Fred Agnir
03-04-2003, 07:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> He said that the guy altered his stroke(backhand possible) and avoided the DBL hit succesfully. I simple thought the BCA rule verbage made it a simple case of foul. Comments? <hr /></blockquote>
There are a few legal strokes that can be used to avoid the double kiss and still have the cueball roll forward (with no foul called).

The fouette shot is common in billiards. In a nutshell, it's a shot hit when the balls are close but not touching. The stroke is hit with extreme spin in a manner that the tip goes off the cueball without getting the double hit. It's almost like a deliberate miscue, but since you're controlling it, you don't get the slap sound (normally the ferrule whacking the cueball)

The impeded follow-through is one that's shown on the Cuetech Pool School site on video. Shorten the follow through either by altering your forearm position, or actually position your hand such that you hit the table (and stop your forward motion) on follow through.

Fred

SpiderMan
03-04-2003, 08:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> He said that the guy altered his stroke(backhand possible) and avoided the DBL hit succesfully. I simple thought the BCA rule verbage made it a simple case of foul. Comments? <hr /></blockquote>
There are a few legal strokes that can be used to avoid the double kiss and still have the cueball roll forward (with no foul called).

The fouette shot is common in billiards. In a nutshell, it's a shot hit when the balls are close but not touching. The stroke is hit with extreme spin in a manner that the tip goes off the cueball without getting the double hit. It's almost like a deliberate miscue, but since you're controlling it, you don't get the slap sound (normally the ferrule whacking the cueball)
Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, but what you did not mention is that when this shot is hit successfully, the cueball and object ball do not move forward in unison. In the case of Sid's opponent's shot, the CB moved forward with the OB for several inches until it's backspin slowed it down. I would have called it a foul.

SpiderMan

Sid_Vicious
03-04-2003, 08:17 AM
Just take another look at the path of the CB on it's way to it's final destination(blue line.) That path puts it through the OB, skewing maybe 15 degrees of true dead center of the OB. It's mostly my contention that since no rails helped the CB to a position several ball width beyond the center of the OB, that the BCA rule which clearly states that if it goes even half way, it is a foul. If that verbage is to be questionable under such conditions as this, then it is a rule with more problems than solutions, and should be reworded without the halfway junk...sid

Fred Agnir
03-04-2003, 08:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> I thought that surely it was clearly a foul since the CB far surpassed the halfway point of the 8, but was ruled against, stating that BCA does not absolutely make it a called double hit if the CB passes that halfway point, that the ref still has the call, good as it went this time. What's your take? sid

... I simple thought the BCA rule verbage made it a simple case of foul. Comments? <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, but what you did not mention is that when this shot is hit successfully, the cueball and object ball do not move forward in unison. <hr /></blockquote>That's not what the question (quoted above) was asking.

Fred

Fred Agnir
03-04-2003, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> If that verbage is to be questionable under such conditions as this, then it is a rule with more problems than solutions, and should be reworded without the halfway junk...sid <hr /></blockquote>I know Barbara will beat me for this, but ,this is one reason why I say to do away with the double-hit rule. Let people double-hit to their hearts content. It's already allowed on an accidental miscues, so there's precendence to not call a double-hit a foul. It would end most arguments and discussions on it.

Fred &lt;~~~ in praise of double-hitting

PoolFan
03-04-2003, 09:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I know Barbara will beat me for this, but ,this is one reason why I say to do away with the double-hit rule. Let people double-hit to their hearts content. It's already allowed on an accidental miscues, so there's precendence to not call a double-hit a foul. It would end most arguments and discussions on it.
<hr /></blockquote>

This is the first intelligent statement I ever heard on the issue of a double hit. This issue is so controversial and has always been. All controversy would end if double hits were allowed. As some people have stated here, truly judging a double hit is impossible by eye. There are times where it can be done by hearing it. I consider this kind of call like a split hit call, if it can't be truly determined by eye then it goes to the shooter.

I agree with Sid that the BCA rule should be reworded and remove that "half ball" crap, I've never liked that. Even as a guideline, this is also impossible to truly call by eye. IMO the double hit rule should be worded similarly to the split hit rule.

SpiderMan
03-04-2003, 09:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote PoolFan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I know Barbara will beat me for this, but ,this is one reason why I say to do away with the double-hit rule. Let people double-hit to their hearts content. It's already allowed on an accidental miscues, so there's precendence to not call a double-hit a foul. It would end most arguments and discussions on it.
<hr /></blockquote>

This is the first intelligent statement I ever heard on the issue of a double hit. This issue is so controversial and has always been. All controversy would end if double hits were allowed. <hr /></blockquote>

I disagree - if you allow all double hits, the floodgates are open. What if I play a stop shot and then hit it again on my follow-through, getting position that would normally be impossible? Allowing "all" double hits would allow this sort of blatant cheating, and if you propose to draw a line somewhere you're right back where we are now, judgement calls.

SpiderMan

Fred Agnir
03-04-2003, 09:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
I disagree - if you allow all double hits, the floodgates are open. What if I play a stop shot and then hit it again on my follow-through, getting position that would normally be impossible? Allowing "all" double hits would allow this sort of blatant cheating, and if you propose to draw a line somewhere you're right back where we are now, judgement calls.<hr /></blockquote>
There'd still be judgement calls, you're right. But, at least we'd do away with this particular situation. Maybe the same wording for a push shot would be used.

As I said previously, we already let double-hits slide on miscues, which if you can hear a miscue, it's a double-hit (or triple hit). Yet nobody has proposed to make accidental miscues a foul.

Fred

Sid_Vicious
03-04-2003, 09:47 AM
Frankly, if the old rule of watching that the CB doesn't cross the halfway point was simply FOLLOWED, regardless of those semi-to-rare finesse good hits...the issue would be solved. Our physics minded people want to muddy up the water too much by concocting allowances to a working rule. Just keep it simple, a foul if it crosses that halfway point....sid

SpiderMan
03-04-2003, 09:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
I disagree - if you allow all double hits, the floodgates are open. What if I play a stop shot and then hit it again on my follow-through, getting position that would normally be impossible? Allowing "all" double hits would allow this sort of blatant cheating, and if you propose to draw a line somewhere you're right back where we are now, judgement calls.<hr /></blockquote>
There'd still be judgement calls, you're right. But, at least we'd do away with this particular situation. Maybe the same wording for a push shot would be used.

As I said previously, we already let double-hits slide on miscues, which if you can hear a miscue, it's a double-hit (or triple hit). Yet nobody has proposed to make accidental miscues a foul.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

If you can get a copy of the "Jacksonville" experiments video and documentation, do so. One thing that they showed was that a miscue is not always a foul, only sometimes. That's a good reason to let it slide. Bob Jewett said that he did not propose any rule change there because he felt it was impossible to tell without capturing it on high-speed video, ie hearing was NOT enough to judge.

SpiderMan

Fred Agnir
03-04-2003, 09:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Frankly, if the old rule of watching that the CB doesn't cross the halfway point was simply FOLLOWED, regardless of those semi-to-rare finesse good hits...the issue would be solved. Our physics minded people want to muddy up the water too much by concocting allowances to a working rule. Just keep it simple, a foul if it crosses that halfway point....sid <hr /></blockquote>
But that's what you were asking about, and you are mistaken. That's not the old rule.

Fred

Fred Agnir
03-04-2003, 10:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr>
If you can get a copy of the "Jacksonville" experiments video and documentation, do so. One thing that they showed was that a miscue is not always a foul, only sometimes. That's a good reason to let it slide. Bob Jewett said that he did not propose any rule change there because he felt it was impossible to tell without capturing it on high-speed video, ie hearing was NOT enough to judge.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

I know that Bob didn't want to suggest a rule on miscues being a double-hit foul because the difficulty of proving it, but I don't ever recall him saying that hearing it wasn't enough to judge.

Nevertheless, the reasoning to not judge a miscue a foul by double-hit is exactly the same reasoning I'm using to not call the close-up double-hit a foul. This seems so obvious to me, but maybe we need to be standing face to face for you to understand me. I'm agreeing that you shouldn't call a miscue a foul. By exactly the same reasoning I don't think the double-hit at close range should be called a foul.

Fred

03-04-2003, 10:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Frankly, if the old rule of watching that the CB doesn't cross the halfway point was simply FOLLOWED, regardless of those semi-to-rare finesse good hits...the issue would be solved. Our physics minded people want to muddy up the water too much by concocting allowances to a working rule. Just keep it simple, a foul if it crosses that halfway point....sid <hr /></blockquote>

sid, respectfully, i'm gunna splain this to you again.

it ain't a rule! it's in a section called " instructions for referees" and the item is called "judging double hits" and it says "the following guidance may (MAY)apply".

heck, i may have referred to it as a rule myself but it ain't one. as to the facts; i suspect it was a pure-dee foul from how it's described but the issue comes down to refs judgment not a rule.

dan

Ross
03-04-2003, 11:15 AM
Usually, double hits can be recognized simply by noting the speed and approximate vertical strike point on the cue ball (low, middle, high) and then imagining where the cb would have ended up if there were no double hit. Did the cb end up there? If not, then it was a double hit.

This may sound obvious, but for some reason many players don't get it. They will swear there was no double hit even though the cb has rolled forward 3 feet after a center ball hit!

In the example given the only legal way to get the cb to roll forward 6 inches or so would have been to strike the cue ball significantly above center (to get instant follow). Did the player do so? The only other possible way to get it to go 6 inches forward when struck with enough speed to bank the 8 ball to the other end of the table is to double hit with backspin to kill the cb. So in this case, the player either did a legal hit with high follow, or an illegal double hit with bottom. A referee (or the player himself if he is honest) should be able to easily tell if the the cb was hit well below center or well above. Also, for a legal hit there be a delay before the follow takes and the cb will roll to a stop. With the double hit accompanied by backspin, there will be no delay and the cb will stop fairly abruptly. The difference in those two actions is easily observed.

I know you can't always tell exactly where the cb was hit. But if you watch closely, you can usually tell if it was hit high, low, or roughly center and use this info to tell you what will happen if it is a legal hit.

Rod
03-04-2003, 11:20 AM
Spidey,
I have not watched the tape although from what I've heard it never revealed anything out of the ordinary, for me anyway. A miscue is not always a foul, far from it it many cases. I agree with Bob Jewett, for a miscue "in question" you would need high speed photography. Even then the camera angle would have to be correct and there are no street video cams able to do such. The lighting alone makes it near impossible. It would take a 150 miles of film or better to film a 1 hour pro match! lol Productions costs would be up there plus the players would get skin burn from the intensive light. The rules can't be changed to any large degree, it's always going to be a judgement call.

Rod

Rod
03-04-2003, 11:59 AM
Yes, as I see the shot diagramed I would have to lean towards a foul. Those shots aren't that difficult to call but you do have to be there. About a month ago I asked 4 higher rated players if "they thought" this shot was a foul. I hit it dead solid perfect 4 times in a row, their reply, I don't know for sure. They had never seen it before. A couple of them thought maybe it should be a foul because of the small distance between. The truth is, it can't be a double hit with that c/b reaction.
The shot-START(
%AN0Y3%Ir5P0%PL6Y1%Ur6[2%VN8Y6%WJ0D7%XD2K5%Yp4U8%ZK8D5%eC4b3
%_E3N0%`K0S1%aK0Y4
)END

About a year ago I had similar come up in a tournament. The TD was called to watch, he said no foul but looked confused as hell! The best example of this type of shot on video is that Semih Sayginer fellow at Carom Cafe. http://www.caromtv.com/

SpiderMan
03-04-2003, 12:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
I know that Bob didn't want to suggest a rule on miscues being a double-hit foul because the difficulty of proving it, but I don't ever recall him saying that hearing it wasn't enough to judge.
Fred <hr /></blockquote>

That's why I prefaced that statement with "ie", it wasn't a quote. However, he did say that you couldn't tell without video, therefore he implied that hearing was not enough.

SpiderMan

Ross
03-04-2003, 12:39 PM
Rod, your shot illustrates my point perfectly. (My point, in case you missed it /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif is that even experienced players often don't realize that you can often easily determine a double hit by "logic-ing through" what would happen to the cb if it were a legal hit and what it would do in the case of a double hit. Then observe the cb and it will take one of two paths - the legal one or the double-hit one.)

For example, in Rod's shot, if the cb were a few inches away to start with (ensuring a legal hit) the predicted reaction for a cb hit firmly with low-right is the exact path shown. All experienced player know this. On the other hand, if the cb were double hit the cb would go forward (since, at the time of the second hit, the ob was not there to check it's speed), not backward. Yet, for some reason, players often don't think this through. Instead they get caught up in trying to directly observe the hit rather than focusing on the reaction of the cb.

What about this idea, just to help get players to focus on the natural reaction of the cue ball and therefore hopefully reduce arguments:

A referee who is asked to watch for a double hit asks the shooter before the shot where he/she plans to hit the cb (bottom, center, top)? If the shooter indicates center or bottom, then if the cb zooms off, it should be clearer to all involved that this is not the normal reaction of a skidding or backspinning cue ball. If he/she indicates they intend to use top, then you have to watch for the delay as the follow takes following the collision. You can also compare how far the cb goes compared to a naturally rolling cb hit at that speed. For double hits with follow, the cb goes many times farther than it would without the foul.

SpiderMan
03-04-2003, 12:43 PM
You clearly understand the problem, and made a good analogy. What would the cueball have done if there were enough gap to ensure no double hit, and what did the cueball actually do?

This player shot straight into the nearly-frozen cueball/objectball, just a little bit jacked up, with a hard "nip" stroke, and the CB slid about six inches forward until stopped by the backspin. Foul. If no double hit, the CB would have stopped dead and then backed up slightly.

SpiderMan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Usually, double hits can be recognized simply by noting the speed and approximate vertical strike point on the cue ball (low, middle, high) and then imagining where the cb would have ended up if there were no double hit. Did the cb end up there? If not, then it was a double hit.

This may sound obvious, but for some reason many players don't get it. They will swear there was no double hit even though the cb has rolled forward 3 feet after a center ball hit!

In the example given the only legal way to get the cb to roll forward 6 inches or so would have been to strike the cue ball significantly above center (to get instant follow). Did the player do so? The only other possible way to get it to go 6 inches forward when struck with enough speed to bank the 8 ball to the other end of the table is to double hit with backspin to kill the cb. So in this case, the player either did a legal hit with high follow, or an illegal double hit with bottom. A referee (or the player himself if he is honest) should be able to easily tell if the the cb was hit well below center or well above. Also, for a legal hit there be a delay before the follow takes and the cb will roll to a stop. With the double hit accompanied by backspin, there will be no delay and the cb will stop fairly abruptly. The difference in those two actions is easily observed.

I know you can't always tell exactly where the cb was hit. But if you watch closely, you can usually tell if it was hit high, low, or roughly center and use this info to tell you what will happen if it is a legal hit.
<hr /></blockquote>

Sid_Vicious
03-04-2003, 01:14 PM
It's the rule I've personally been judged by since playing local league for several years. If it was last year's or the rule for 4 years back, I call it the old rule. May be my terminology difference...sid

Fred Agnir
03-04-2003, 01:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> It's the rule I've personally been judged by since playing local league for several years. If it was last year's or the rule for 4 years back, I call it the old rule. May be my terminology difference...sid <hr /></blockquote>I think you need to read your initial question a few times, and houstondan's response. Absorb it. The answer to the question you asked is there in his response. It's not the rule, the old rule, or the new rule.

What can I say? You asked a referee to judge it, and he deemed it a good shot. That's his right to judge, by the BCA book, by the BCA rules. You thought the rule was explicit. It isn't. It's a judgement call that a referee makes based on certain observations. Wasn't that what you were wondering?

Everything else is besides the original point.

Fred

Sid_Vicious
03-04-2003, 01:43 PM
EXACTLY! Thanks for the alignment of thinking, since you were actually there, it apparently was as automatic to you as it was to me. What really frustrated me was the fact that the teminology of the halfway point of travel past the OB's resting point per BCA's handbook SHOULD have made such an event as last night perfectly clear, a foul. I don't argue that true masters could possibly devise a magical way of making it legal, thing is 99% of the pool players can't and that's a good reason for having an easier way to call it, hence the halfway theory. In Rod's shot his CB swerved away. The one last night HAD to travel through the space of the OB. I'm usually not one to bitch, but that ruling just seemed contradictory to the implied intent of the wording in BCA's handbook...sid

Sid_Vicious
03-04-2003, 01:53 PM
I'll rest my case by simply saying that it is my opinion that the verbage in the BCA's handbook misleads the playing public with the halfway issue. Why even have it in there at all if a human is going to override the miniscule chance that somebody could possibly get away without fouling.

Many tenured LDs and TDs have also stated in every case I can remember, "If you intend on hitting directly into that combination I will definetely call a foul." All of them should mean more than the one last night.

What I seem to have gathered in this is that phrases in a BCA rules book is not actual rules. That's something that doesn't jive, at least with me...sid

Rod
03-04-2003, 02:10 PM
Good point Sid, the c/b does swerve away, although it can come back on a more direct line. It swerves because the side english and very slight angle deflects it that way, not to mention the draw is delayed. The problem is with your shot as illustrated, the c/b can go thru and still not be a foul especially since the c/b stopped. All is not cut and dry. The ref didn't see it your way so what can you do. Well it's not the first and won't be the last time a player and ref don't agree. Just put it behind and move on as I'm sure you will.

Rod

Fred Agnir
03-04-2003, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> I'll rest my case by simply saying that it is my opinion that the verbage in the BCA's handbook misleads the playing public with the halfway issue. <hr /></blockquote>Absolutely. 100% agree. I'm sure I already said this in a previous post.

So there seems to be two choices other than leaving the confusing verbage as is, both have good and bad:

1) Always call it a foul if the cueball follows forward more than half a ball diameter when shooting directly at it

Good: Eliminates judgement call arguments.
Bad: It would be called a foul on some shots that would otherwise be perfectly legal. Fouttés and interrupted follow-throughs specifically.

2) Allow double-hits at close range when people are shooting directly at it with a continuous stroke (same verbage as the push shot rule)

Good: eliminates judgement call issues.
Bad: allows a double-hit (but that's what's at issue)

So, there it is.

There isn't a good answer for the future.

Fred

Rod
03-04-2003, 02:19 PM
And so it is written. Ah yes the rule book does need some attention. I believe that is comming up in a year or two. What is it every 5 years? Many things happen in 5 years of play. Seems to me every two years they should have a meeting of the minds.

Rod
03-04-2003, 02:30 PM
I agree Ross but you know as well as I there will never always be a clear cut judgement. Most of it is good knowledge combined with commom sense. Problem is everyone does not have the knowledge and many lack common sense! LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif I take all this stuff on the light side, if I didn't I'd be more nuts than I already am. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Barbara
03-04-2003, 04:56 PM
Sid,

Keep in mind what houstondan said that rule 2.20 is in the section for "Instructions for Referees". It describes the situation where the CB is less than a chalk's width away from the OB and states:

"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's a foul."

While I wasn't there to see the shot or how your opponent's cue was (jacked up or level), based on 2.20, I would've probably called a foul.

Barbara

Barbara
03-04-2003, 05:23 PM
No Fred, I won't beat you on this, but if you're going to VF this year, I'll settle for a hug.

And then I'll smack the back of your head.

Barbara~~~wonders what is Fred thinking???!!!

Fred Agnir
03-05-2003, 09:37 AM
Well, wouldn't you know it. It came up last night. My teammate had ball in hand, and shot the following shot:

START(
%Ag4D2%D]9X9%Hf5P0%I\3X5%M\1Z0%P^1Z4%Q\4N9%W[6E2%X]8X1%eB5`7

)END

He's an excellent local player, and by no means a world-class magic stroker. But, this shot, he shot without a double-hit, no question perfectly legal.

Note: this shot is not intended to dismiss the shot that Sid was commenting on, but instead addresses the "rule" in question only.

As described by Spiderman, Sid's opponent's shot seemed like a double-hit foul, but I wasn't there.

In last night's case, without elevating, but instead using a combo foutté and interrupted stroke, stroking directly at the pair of balls (which were well within a cube's distance), he was able to follow quite a bit without double-hit fouling. Other than the fact that you could clearly see that there was no double-hit, the tell-tale cueball speed &amp; motion (or lack thereof) was also evident. This is a stroke that he's shot before and seems to have no problem executing. I on the other hand couldn't even begin to think about shooting it.

Fred

Rod
03-05-2003, 11:25 AM
Ah come on Fred you can do that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif lol Yes it is on the difficult side and it is a good point. That's why I said it didn't have to be a foul. It may have been obvious but I don't know. I shoot that shot shown using my side as a break with a firm wrist. It obviously can not have any amount of follow through. One night really by accident I followed a ball near the table length with a chalks distance. I was showing someone how to follow at a close distance. Afterwards I said don't ever expect me to do that again! It was just one of those magical perfect strokes. Stuff happens!

Sid_Vicious
03-05-2003, 12:02 PM
Fred...Curiosity makes me ask if you would mind giving a WEI table showing the path that his CB took, and where it came to rest. I've wondered a little if it is simply possible to glance the tip off @90 degrees in a sudden final movement at impact using extreme back hand english, and send the shaft and tip out of harm's way. I see that your guy hit top english, which was opposite from my opponent.

Thanks for the post. These things have so many variables, and will certainly happen again....sid

Fred Agnir
03-05-2003, 12:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Fred...Curiosity makes me ask if you would mind giving a WEI table showing the path that his CB took, and where it came to rest. I've wondered a little if it is simply possible to glance the tip off @90 degrees in a sudden final movement at impact using extreme back hand english, and send the shaft and tip out of harm's way. I see that your guy hit top english, which was opposite from my opponent.

Thanks for the post. These things have so many variables, and will certainly happen again....sid <hr /></blockquote>
I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Point A is where the cueball ended up. The cueball went straight forward in a crawling follow manner.

He used follow, but was able to hold up his stroke and follow "up" so-to-speak to get the tip out of the way.

Fred

Rod
03-05-2003, 03:36 PM
Quote Sid,

I've wondered a little if it is simply possible to glance the tip off @90 degrees in a sudden final movement at impact using extreme back hand english, and send the shaft and tip out of harm's way.

Sid there is a way and it is much easier to do than most people would think. I know sort of what you have in mind but it sounds like a miscue in the making. Here is another way, the problem is not with making the shot. It has to be a gentle masse to keep the c/b from going to the other end of the table. Your looking at the c/b from above. One more note, the shot Fred shows it appears the guy may have had ball in hand. Maybe not but the closer to the o/b is better. Give that a try at home you might be supprised how simple it is. That is if you are accurate where you strike the c/b. That is a little above center to the left.
START(
%Ag4D2%D]9X9%Hf5P0%I\3X5%M\1Z0%P^1Z4%Q\4N9%W[6E2%X]8X1%eA4`8
%_M9M5%``5X2%a_6Z4
)END


Rod

Barbara
03-05-2003, 04:45 PM
Fred,

That's a good shot! And you'll have to show me that at VF.

Barbara

Sid_Vicious
03-05-2003, 05:37 PM
Rod...I'm figuring his guy shot top, and the cue rebounded up and over(a nip shot.) He said the CB followed the path of the OB, and I'll wager that the CB shuddered a little before taking off after the stroke. My guy hit low, and the two balls traveled in unison until the english took hold. I started explaining in to the captain of one of the top teams in the league last night, and I was quickly halted with a "It had to be a foul" before my story totally unfolded. I believe anyone there would have agreed(except for my chosen ref.)

I see your shot well, and THAT makes sense. If we ever hook up together somewhere, I want to reenact the exact situation I had, with me telling you where to strike it and in which orientation your cue is positioned, finalizing in the CB resting spot 6" beyond the OB beginning home. I'd love to see this w/o a double hit, for real. If anybody could do it, I feel that your could. Spiderman says you definitely have the stroke....sid

Rod
03-05-2003, 06:16 PM
Well I wouldn't bet on that one Sid. You said how the balls layed and it would be difficult. I guess I'd just have to see the shot and cue angle. Keep in mind that if the tip is compressed while in contact with the o/b it is possible. If it wasn't it's a double hit for sure.

The shot Fred shows i'm sure the c/b just slowly made it's way. The stroke you described sounds right.

Rod

03-05-2003, 07:07 PM
Sometimes it's better NOT to call a ref. The rules say that
if a ref isn't called, then the chalk-width/cue elevation
rule applies. IMO, I don't like the rule. It's simplistic
and it rules out some perfectly legal shots, but it is at
least useful in that it's clear and avoids fisticuffs.

However, if you call a ref then you are calling on their
judgement and impartiality and it is their sole discretion
to determine whether there was a good contact or a
double-hit.

The rules also say that it's the non-shooter's choice
whether to call the ref. The combination of the two
ruels creates one of the few cases where the non-shooter
can legally influence the shot.

In one match some time ago, I got frozen to the eight ball
in the 9-ball position shown, and about my only option was
to use the "Jowett system" shot to pocket the 9.

START(
%GL4D6%HJ4M5%IE7D6%PK7M3%YG4E9%ZJ9L3%[C4C6%\D3C9%]E7J1%^P1O5
%eB4a9
)END

If my opponent had decided not to call the ref, I couldn't
make the shot, because I couldn't reach to elevate the
cue 45 degrees, and I needed to cue along the black arrow,
so by the push-shot rule, it's a foul. So I asked my
opponent if he wanted to call the ref. Fortunately for me,
he did. I made the 9 and the ref OK'ed the shot. My
opponent was pissed , but not half as pissed as he would
have been had he known that his decision to call the ref
almost certainly cost him the game.

Your situation is similar, but the chances of anyone
making the bank with a good hit are really very slim.
Chances are, they're going to sell out, so you probably
don't want to cause the guy to change his shot selection.
If you call a ref, they may change the shot and play
safe, and maybe freeze you to the 15 ball. So your
decision on whether to call a ref would depend on
whether the guy would honestly own up to a foul, and
the push-shot rule means that the shot he hit would have
not only have been a foul, but you'd have the 8 over the
pocket AND ball in hand.

It always pays to know the rules.

Klutz

03-05-2003, 07:12 PM
um...where did you find these alleged "rules"?

dan


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote KaromKlutz:</font><hr> Sometimes it's better NOT to call a ref. The rules say that
if a ref isn't called, then the chalk-width/cue elevation
rule applies. IMO, I don't like the rule. It's simplistic
and it rules out some perfectly legal shots, but it is at
least useful in that it's clear and avoids fisticuffs.

However, if you call a ref then you are calling on their
judgement and impartiality and it is their sole discretion
to determine whether there was a good contact or a
double-hit.

The rules also say that it's the non-shooter's choice
whether to call the ref. The combination of the two
ruels creates one of the few cases where the non-shooter
can legally influence the shot.

In one match some time ago, I got frozen to the eight ball
in the 9-ball position shown, and about my only option was
to use the "Jowett system" shot to pocket the 9.

START(
%GL4D6%HJ4M5%IE7D6%PK7M3%YG4E9%ZJ9L3%[C4C6%\D3C9%]E7J1%^P1O5
%eB4a9
)END

If my opponent had decided not to call the ref, I couldn't
make the shot, because I couldn't reach to elevate the
cue 45 degrees, and I needed to cue along the black arrow,
so by the push-shot rule, it's a foul. So I asked my
opponent if he wanted to call the ref. Fortunately for me,
he did. I made the 9 and the ref OK'ed the shot. My
opponent was pissed , but not half as pissed as he would
have been had he known that his decision to call the ref
almost certainly cost him the game.

Your situation is similar, but the chances of anyone
making the bank with a good hit are really very slim.
Chances are, they're going to sell out, so you probably
don't want to cause the guy to change his shot selection.
If you call a ref, they may change the shot and play
safe, and maybe freeze you to the 15 ball. So your
decision on whether to call a ref would depend on
whether the guy would honestly own up to a foul, and
the push-shot rule means that the shot he hit would have
not only have been a foul, but you'd have the 8 over the
pocket AND ball in hand.

It always pays to know the rules.

Klutz

<hr /></blockquote>

03-06-2003, 10:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote KaromKlutz:</font><hr>

In one match some time ago, I got frozen to the eight ball
in the 9-ball position shown, and about my only option was
to use the "Jowett system" shot to pocket the 9.

START(
%GL4D6%HJ4M5%IE7D6%PK7M3%YG4E9%ZJ9L3%[C4C6%\D3C9%]E7J1%^P1O5
%eB4a9
)END


It always pays to know the rules.

Klutz

<hr /></blockquote>

Hi Klutz

Have the rules changed?
Don't you have to hit the 7 ball first?? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

03-10-2003, 07:24 AM
Doh! Who says it's easier to play a shot on paper, or on a computer, either?

Swap the 7 and 8 in the setup.

Klutz

Fred Agnir
03-10-2003, 07:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote KaromKlutz:</font><hr> I got frozen to the eight ball
in the 9-ball position shown, and about my only option was
to use the "Jowett system" shot to pocket the 9.
<hr /></blockquote>Not that it really matters, but it's "Jewett."

Fred &lt;~~~ thinks Bob would mind just a little.