Rules Question

Saturated Fats said:
I don't see the difference. To me, one is an intentional trap against the cushion and the other is an intentional trap against the stack. Now one could say that the stack will move while the cushion will not, but I think that just makes it more difficult to accomplish the safe and it still requires the same kind of intentional foul.

So why would one be unsportsmanlike and not the other?

I've seen it done many times too, but I don't know why it isn't more than a foul.
Click to expand...
I guess because it is traditional.
 
I go back fairly far with straight pool, to the mid 60s rule books. As far as I can tell, as long as you strike the cue ball with the proper part of you cue tip, a double hit is not unsportsmanlike conduct, whether the cue ball ends up in the jaws of a pocket, or not. It is though, a foul, maybe intentional, or maybe not.

The lesson is, when you commit the first foul (whether intentional or not), you may have a difficult situation on your hands, because you're the first one to foul. You probably are the one who is going to have to disturb the rack to get the game going again, or you suffer the 15 ball penalty. Own up to it, when you are the first to foul.

You did notice, didn't you, that I said "with the proper part of the cue tip." I note this because in the 2000 Straight Pool tournament as the Roseland Ballroom in New York, Efren Reyes tried an intentional foul on Dallas West by just poking the cue ball with the ferrule-side of his cue. They debated a while, and Mike Shamos was about the only one to note that was unsportsmanlike conduct. If Efren had done it with the front (proper) part of the cue tip, he would have been fine, just an intentional foul, but no unsportsmanlike conduct.

Bottom line, I don't see the problem with where you put the cue ball on an intentional foul, as long as you attempt the shot with the proper, front of the cue tip, possible double hit or not. It's still a foul, as the player intended. The player with the first foul has to extricate himself out of the situation. It's basically how the game's always been played. If you, as the second fouler, has the skill to put the cue ball in the jaws of any pocket, more power to you. After all, you were not the first to foul.

All the best,
WW
 
WildWing said:
... Bottom line, I don't see the problem with where you put the cue ball on an intentional foul, as long as you attempt the shot with the proper, front of the cue tip, possible double hit or not. ...
Click to expand...
For how long is the player allowed to push the cue ball farther into the rack? I think five seconds would be too long. Where do you draw the line if you are going to allow multiple or continuous contact?
 
Bob Jewett said:
For how long is the player allowed to push the cue ball farther into the rack? I think five seconds would be too long. Where do you draw the line if you are going to allow multiple or continuous contact?
Click to expand...

I agree with you, five seconds is way too long .That's a deliberate push shot, rather than a deliberate stroke with instant contact. It would be up to the discretion of the referee, but a stroke with contact is just that, no pushing. It's a bit moot, as I don't think anyone would want to push the cue ball through a cluster in the first place, as it would open up too many shots for the opponent.

Usual contact versus a push is pretty easy to spot. Any decent referee would spot it. If no referee available, the opponent needs to watch for infractions, correct? And if there is serious arguing over this sort of thing, one of the players is probably not one that an honest player wants anything to do with in the first place.

It's an interesting thread, but the usual situation applies. The first one to intentionally foul usually doesn't get the best of things, which is how it should be.

All the best,
WW
 
And not to be too repetitious, but the rule on push or shove shots has at least at some point been defined in the BCA rule book, this page from the 1966 edition. Discretion of the referee is key, and the five second example pretty clearly not allowed. I'm not sure how it's codified these days, but if it was good enough for the mid 60s, I'd say it still applies today.

All the best,
WW
 

Attachments

  • Push Shot.jpg
    Push Shot.jpg
    98.9 KB · Views: 128
Saturated Fats said:
I don't see the difference. To me, one is an intentional trap against the cushion and the other is an intentional trap against the stack. Now one could say that the stack will move while the cushion will not, but I think that just makes it more difficult to accomplish the safe and it still requires the same kind of intentional foul.

So why would one be unsportsmanlike and not the other?

I've seen it done many times too, but I don't know why it isn't more than a foul.
Click to expand...

I see your point. I think the trap against the rail is just more obvious and can be more significant. Both shouldn't be allowed at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top