because it's very rare to shoot it like that and probably most ref's never had to rule on such shot so if it was me, before shooting, I would make sure that the ref knows the rule
Yes. There is also an advantage to having a clear rule that is easy to judge or ref. I don’t think it is the right rule, but… the clarity avoids some problems.I played one session of VNEA pool over 20 years ago and I got called on the “you have to jack up even if it’s frozen” rule. At that time I didn’t know enough to know that BCA/WPA rules didn’t apply everywhere. Lesson learned.
because it's very rare to shoot it like that and probably most ref's never had to rule on such shot so if it was me, before shooting, I would make sure that the ref knows the ruleWhy is the player an idiot?
However, if the cue-ball is touching an object-ball at the start of the shot, it is legal to shoot towards or partly into that ball (provided it is a legal target within the rules of the game) and if the object-ball is moved by such a shot, it is considered to have been contacted by the cue-ball.
Not a foul!
Ref should study the rules
but the player is an idiot
The zombie rule apocalypse.
Twisted.My favorite move when they hold their fist out is to shake it. Makes me laugh every time!
The zombie rule apocalypse.Derby bringing the VNEA rules back from the dead after Dr Dave killed them.
Listen to Karl's comments in the second clip I posted. He hasn't go a clue, nor does the other commentator. (Michael something?)
Related to which, the vast majority of pro players don't know what the rules are. Part of the problem is that some events use their own made-up rules, like the DCC. At the DCC, as long as you elevate, you can shoot directly at a ball you are not frozen to and also into a frozen ball. At DCC, Pongers' shot was illegal because he did not jack up.
Listen to Karl's comments in the second clip I posted. He hasn't go a clue, nor does the other commentator. (Michael something?)