Push shot foul?

GideonF said:
Unfortunately it seems Karl Boyes is now quoting the push rule. My guess is that Marcel is as confused as some of our posters and is the one who fed him this.

8c660a22e5acf22fdabd27b273d3c2f9.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, weird that he is pointing to 3.8 push shot and not 3.7 double hit. Push shot is a deliberate slow stroke where the tip stays on the ball. It can happen with just the CB and the tip and no other balls nearby. Double hit is what happens when the CB is very close to the OB. The terms are sometimes used interchangeably in common use, but in the rule section they are separate types of fouls.

I know you know all this:) Just incase anyone else does not.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Yeah, weird that he is pointing to 3.8 push shot and not 3.7 double hit. Push shot is a deliberate slow stroke where the tip stays on the ball. It can happen with just the CB and the tip and no other balls nearby. Double hit is what happens when the CB is very close to the OB. The terms are sometimes used interchangeably in common use, but in the rule section they are separate types of fouls.

I know you know all this:) Just incase anyone else does not.
Click to expand...
I've named that shot before a shovel shot.
I was always taught if the cb and obj ball go forward at the same speed it wasn't a good shot, if it is I wanna know that.
 
I still dont understand how 2nd paragraph of 3.7 defines this shot as a legal shot.

This is 3.8 as there is no way that the cueball would move forward without extended contact.

Foul.

Two fouls. Push shot, which converted to double hit as cue ball advanced.

Imagine cueball was hit by a stunned ball without any rotation instead of cue. Cueball would not move a bit.
 
Island Drive said:
I've named that shot before a shovel shot.
I was always taught if the cb and obj ball go forward at the same speed it wasn't a good shot, if it is I wanna know that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a clear sign of a double hit, when they go the same speed. But when they ARE frozen, it can look similar, but I don't think exactly. There is more separation between the CB and OB. This clip was so fast because he shot it super hard, it's difficult to tell for sure. My opinion though is (purely from the reaction like you see and the sound, which IS in sync in this particular video), is there was a tiny gap and it was a double hit.

I'm going to the pool hall tonight with the camera. I will try this shot with a 1mm gap between them, and frozen, and post it.
 
Island Drive said:
I've named that shot before a shovel shot.
I was always taught if the cb and obj ball go forward at the same speed it wasn't a good shot, if it is I wanna know that.
Click to expand...

You have it half right, in my opinion. In the first half of rule 3.7, where the balls are close but not touching, then if you shoot forward and the cue ball travels forward at the same speed, then you have double hit the cue ball and it’s a foul. So if the balls are close and not frozen, you are right.

The second part of rule 3.7 is an exception. That provides that if you shoot straight into a frozen CB, it is not a foul as long as it’s a normal stroke. This is so despite the fact that the cue ball is going to move at the same speed as the object ball. That is why it is important to have the referee declare whether the cue ball is frozen to the object ball or not.
 
GideonF said:
You have it half right, in my opinion. In the first half of rule 3.7, where the balls are close but not touching, then if you shoot forward and the cue ball travels forward at the same speed, then you have double hit the cue ball and it’s a foul. So if the balls are close and not frozen, you are right.

The second part of rule 3.7 is an exception. That provides that if you shoot straight into a frozen CB, it is not a foul as long as it’s a normal stroke. This is so despite the fact that the cue ball is going to move at the same speed as the object ball. That is why it is important to have the referee declare whether the cue ball is frozen to the object ball or not.
Click to expand...
I’m agreeing with all of what you wrote.

With the caveat that when they are frozen, they separate slightly, but still go about the same speed. When not frozen, they will travel almost on top of each other.

the difference is probably on dr Dave’s site somewhere.
 
I think after reading a bunch of fb posts on this that there are 2 main arguments:

The first is if they were frozen or not. NO ONE here or on FB knows that as fact YET! that is causing about 80% of the arguments imo. Because even me, and I damn well know the rule, thought they were not declared frozen. Plus the clip on FB is from MR, which does not show the ref looking at the balls like Bob’s clip does.

The second argument accounting for 20% is “even if the balls are frozen” some people think it was a foul. This falls into two camps. Banger Americans who don’t know any better and are quoting APA bs. And banger Europeans who think all rules in all cue sports go by snooker and/or blackball rules.
 
I'm all with it being a good hit if they are frozen.
But the rule book wording ''normal shot'' is misleading in this situation.
I'm all for it being legal as long as the cue isn't pushing/tagging along with follow thru.
Thx Bob for this post....
bm
 
Last edited:
JPB2 said:
It defines it as legal because it specifically says it is legal. You can’t define it as legal any more clearly. Rule 3.8 can’t make illegal what 3.7 specifically allows.
Click to expand...
Thing is you can play this shot legal way and ilegal way with both ways doing whats described in 3.7.
This one was ilegal.
 
iusedtoberich said:
... If the player was smart enough to call the ref over, one would assume the player knows the rule. One would have to assume the ref does! ...
Click to expand...
I think Pongers knows the rule and that the balls were frozen.

I imagine that the ref was surprised by a shot he had never seen before -- it is remarkable -- and figured it had to be a foul. Or, the ref was confused by a snooker or carom background. In both of those games, the shot is a foul.

Lots of refs don't know the rules. A much larger percentage of players don't know the rules, and that includes Boyes and Appleton.
 
hundreder said:
I still dont understand how 2nd paragraph of 3.7 defines this shot as a legal shot.

This is 3.8 as there is no way that the cueball would move forward without extended contact.

Foul.

Two fouls. Push shot, which converted to double hit as cue ball advanced.

Imagine cueball was hit by a stunned ball without any rotation instead of cue. Cueball would not move a bit.
Click to expand...

That's what the rules do in many cases. They define things.

In this case they define that shot as legal.

That's all there is to it.
 
iusedtoberich said:
I’m agreeing with all of what you wrote.

With the caveat that when they are frozen, they separate slightly, but still go about the same speed. When not frozen, they will travel almost on top of each other.

the difference is probably on dr Dave’s site somewhere.
Click to expand...
I think that if they are frozen, and you play with follow, they will leave the tip with nearly the same speed, but then the object ball will slow down as it acquires follow and the cue ball, which does not slow down as much, will hit the object ball again. It might even be possible for the cue ball to contact the OB additional times as they travel down the table in tandem.

The "passing lane" trick shot uses this principle.
 
Hojokid33 said:
If the cue ball moves faster than object ball is that a could then ?
Click to expand...
As I pointed out just above, if you shoot a little to the side and use follow, the cue ball will likely pass the OB.

If the balls are frozen, they will travel at roughly the same speed for a full hit.

If the balls are not frozen, the cue ball better stop on impact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top