Controversial European Open Push Shot Call – The Myths Busted

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
FYI, I just posted a new video that takes a close look at the controversial push shot foul called against Quinten Pongers at the 2026 European Open, with match commentary by Karl Boyes and Michael McMullan. Please watch the entire video to the end to get all the myth-busting answers. Check it out:


Contents:
Supporting Resources:
As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
dr_dave said:
If you ever find the courage to watch it, you will discovery that every minute was important to tell the complete story and to debunk all the misconceptions out there concerning the controversy. I worked really hard to keep it this short!
Click to expand...
Few are going to watch it. Half the members will give it thumbs up and maybe watch 3 min then come and say good job. FB viewing will be less.

The story can be told in a few clips. Show the rule in the WPA rulebook, and shoot the shot. Maybe shoot it a second time with a small gap.

Just being straight with you.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Too long, 20 min! Need to make it 3 min. Not watching.
Click to expand...
Lmao why are you being a dick bro.

You have 23 lengthy posts in this thread talking about the shot in question:

Thread 'Push shot foul?' https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/push-shot-foul.585398/

Which I'm sure you spent more than 20 minutes on writing them if you add those all up. But you can't watch a 20 minute video on the shot in question? You can use the skip or fast forward button on YouTube. I refuse to believe someone of your intellect has such a low attention span.
 
Kris_b1104 said:
Which I'm sure you spent more than 20 minutes on writing them if you add those all up. But you can't watch a 20 minute video on the shot in question? You can use the skip or fast forward button on YouTube. I refuse to believe someone of your intellect has such a low attention span.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The video is very well thought out and presented, IMO, giving the viewer an engaging and thorough coverage of the entire controversy. It also dispels all the myths and misconceptions that have come up in the lengthy discussions on AZBilliards, FaceBook, and YouTube. I but I know how social media works. People just want to say and believe what they want to believe without really listening to and learning from others. 😥

PS: I am not picking on anybody individually here, just vented after spending about 11 straight hours working hard on the video.
 
ok, I made an ass out of myself, I'll admit it. I too have made videos for pool, cnc hobbies, dayjob, friends, etc, and know it is a tremendous effort. I think getting good at making videos, and all that is involved with that (camera equipment, computer equipment, software, storytelling, selling it, etc) is MORE work than getting good at pool.

I'll watch the video and give my feedback. Without having watched any of it or read any of the summary (or this thread yet), I'll predict it goes like this:

Intro:
-replay of the shot
-screenshots of a bunch of angry comments all contradicting each other from FB, AZB, YT.
-audio of Karl saying how bad of a shot it was
-screenshots of Karl trolling FB

Then will come the technical part:
-the WPA rules will be sited
-the shot will be demo'd by dr dave, with the balls frozen, making a legal hit
-Shot demoed again with a small gap, making a double hit
-Then a legit "push" shot with only the CB
-Then a legit "push" shot with a CB and OB froze.
-may include slow motion from his iPhone, but not high speed footage (not enough time).
-Actually, will include high-speed footage from his prior videos on this topic made years ago. I know he has for double hits, not sure if he has for push.

Then will come the conclusions/suggestions:
-I'm assuming Dr Dave would NOT have seen the FB comment from the player that they were frozen since he was probably working non stop on this, so he will cover both scenarios.
-He will say either the ref called frozen, and was unfamiliar with WPA pool rules, and going by blackball rules, or, the ref called them non-frozen, and the player had a brain fart.
-He will have the blackball rules of shooting away here too, either in the conclusion section or the earlier rules section in the techincal part, and suggest the ref was used to officiating blackball.
-He will suggest Karl is either in the same boat that he is going by his blackball roots, OR, he is purposely trolling us all.
*edit- And he will suggest Marcel couldn't overturn because of WNT that a head ref can't overturn a table ref, only an area ref.

Ok, I'll be back in 20 minutes:)
 
iusedtoberich said:
Too long, 20 min! Need to make it 3 min. Not watching.
Click to expand...

“If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.” – Blaise Pascal.

I think the video is excellent as is. If you saw all the idiotic comments on social media you would realize that he needed to play wack-a-mole with the various wrongheaded arguments being thrown out to call it a foul.

The video also has an index to allow people to jump sections they aren’t interested in.

If there was no urgency in getting it out, could he have trimmed a few minutes off? Maybe, but to me getting it out sooner rather than later was more important.
 
1773374850997.png


The video was super good. I meant what I wrote in the YT comment.

From a production standpoint, It had a good flow and script, and kept my attention the whole time. I only slightly lost interest during the VNEA segment. I felt it took a lot of portion of the overall video to counter a very minor comment that Karl made (jacked up).

I was also right that few watched it in its entirety, or even at all. You can tell by the YT comments that they didn't. I read them all, and I believe 2 of them didn't know it was frozen, yet you said in the first 15 seconds that you confirmed it was frozen with Marcel. Another comment said he thought it was a foul because the CB went a bit sideways, and a person who DID watch the whole thing replied to him you covered that in your VNEA 45 deg analysis, showing that the CB can go in almost any direction depending on the hit direction.

One guy who DID watch it had an interesting comment. He said the snooker/blackball definition of the word "push" is different than the WPA definition of the word "push", and that is where some of the confusion might arise from. He said in the snooker/blackball games if all 3 are in contact at once (which they were) it's a push.

I'll retract my recommendation to make it 3 min, partially. Most don't have the attention span to watch the 20 min. If I hadn't stuck my nose into this thread, I probably wouldn't have watched it once I saw it was 20 min. I think the people who would watch the whole thing are super pool fanatics (like us), but probably already knew everything you discussed. So who is the video for? A beginning pool fanatic who is not familiar with frozen ball rules?

To help get more views (if that matters to you), maybe do make a YT short version, 45-60 second range?
 
iusedtoberich said:
View attachment 889398

The video was super good. I meant what I wrote in the YT comment.

From a production standpoint, It had a good flow and script, and kept my attention the whole time. I only slightly lost interest during the VNEA segment. I felt it took a lot of portion of the overall video to counter a very minor comment that Karl made (jacked up).

I was also right that few watched it in its entirety, or even at all. You can tell by the YT comments that they didn't. I read them all, and I believe 2 of them didn't know it was frozen, yet you said in the first 15 seconds that you confirmed it was frozen with Marcel. Another comment said he thought it was a foul because the CB went a bit sideways, and a person who DID watch the whole thing replied to him you covered that in your VNEA 45 deg analysis, showing that the CB can go in almost any direction depending on the hit direction.

One guy who DID watch it had an interesting comment. He said the snooker/blackball definition of the word "push" is different than the WPA definition of the word "push", and that is where some of the confusion might arise from. He said in the snooker/blackball games if all 3 are in contact at once (which they were) it's a push.

I'll retract my recommendation to make it 3 min, partially. Most don't have the attention span to watch the 20 min. If I hadn't stuck my nose into this thread, I probably wouldn't have watched it once I saw it was 20 min. I think the people who would watch the whole thing are super pool fanatics (like us), but probably already knew everything you discussed. So who is the video for? A beginning pool fanatic who is not familiar with frozen ball rules?

To help get more views (if that matters to you), maybe do make a YT short version, 45-60 second range?
Click to expand...

The problem with a 1 to 3 minute version is I think it would just have to be declarative: its a foul if not frozen, but if declared frozen the rules allow you to shoot into balls. The balls were declared frozen. Its not a push, that’s a very different thing.

The problem is that many many people have been saying exactly that since it happened. Not just people like me but also Bob Jewett (and a a few pros) and so many people reject it. Aside from Dr Dave’s reputation and pool fame maybe convincing a few people, it wouldn’t help much. All the detail and video clips are the actual evidence, as opposed to just an appeal to authority.
 
GideonF said:
The problem with a 1 to 3 minute version is I think it would just have to be declarative: its a foul if not frozen, but if declared frozen the rules allow you to shoot into balls. The balls were declared frozen. Its not a push, that’s a very different thing.

The problem is that many many people have been saying exactly that since it happened. Not just people like me but also Bob Jewett (and a a few pros) and so many people reject it. Aside from Dr Dave’s reputation and pool fame maybe convincing a few people, it wouldn’t help much. All the detail and video clips are the actual evidence, as opposed to just an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...
I agree. It is tempting for Dr. Dave to just weigh in with a short easy-to-digest clip that relies partly on his established authority.

But we also have to recognize he established that authority by opting instead for succinct but thorough analysis. One way to think of his approach is not as reaching the most people directly but as reaching the people willing to invest a little who will then reach others.
 
iusedtoberich said:
View attachment 889398

The video was super good. I meant what I wrote in the YT comment.

From a production standpoint, It had a good flow and script, and kept my attention the whole time. I only slightly lost interest during the VNEA segment. I felt it took a lot of portion of the overall video to counter a very minor comment that Karl made (jacked up).

I was also right that few watched it in its entirety, or even at all. You can tell by the YT comments that they didn't. I read them all, and I believe 2 of them didn't know it was frozen, yet you said in the first 15 seconds that you confirmed it was frozen with Marcel. Another comment said he thought it was a foul because the CB went a bit sideways, and a person who DID watch the whole thing replied to him you covered that in your VNEA 45 deg analysis, showing that the CB can go in almost any direction depending on the hit direction.

One guy who DID watch it had an interesting comment. He said the snooker/blackball definition of the word "push" is different than the WPA definition of the word "push", and that is where some of the confusion might arise from. He said in the snooker/blackball games if all 3 are in contact at once (which they were) it's a push.

I'll retract my recommendation to make it 3 min, partially. Most don't have the attention span to watch the 20 min. If I hadn't stuck my nose into this thread, I probably wouldn't have watched it once I saw it was 20 min. I think the people who would watch the whole thing are super pool fanatics (like us), but probably already knew everything you discussed. So who is the video for? A beginning pool fanatic who is not familiar with frozen ball rules?

To help get more views (if that matters to you), maybe do make a YT short version, 45-60 second range?
Click to expand...

Thank you the positive feedback, observations, and suggestions. If I have the time and energy tomorrow, maybe I’ll try to create a short to post.
 
mikepage said:
I agree. It is tempting for Dr. Dave to just weigh in with a short easy-to-digest clip that relies partly on his established authority.

But we also have to recognize he established that authority by opting instead for succinct but thorough analysis. One way to think of his approach is not as reaching the most people directly but as reaching the people willing to invest a little who will then reach others.
Click to expand...
Great points. He reached his rep by doing the detailed analysis.

Ok, I'm convinced, keep the same format:) Bug me to watch them and I actually will:)
 
mikepage said:
I agree. It is tempting for Dr. Dave to just weigh in with a short easy-to-digest clip that relies partly on his established authority.

But we also have to recognize he established that authority by opting instead for succinct but thorough analysis. One way to think of his approach is not as reaching the most people directly but as reaching the people willing to invest a little who will then reach others.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Mike. I like your answer. Well stated, as always.
 
Bob Jewett said:
In a remarkable twist of the tail, one of the most obstinate foul claimers on FaceBook is the President of the Belgian Pool Federation. Sigh. I hope he gets to see this video.
Click to expand...

I had more than a few people on Facebook who should know better tell me it was a foul. Maybe this one was influenced by Dutch-Belgian rivalry lol
 
By the way, did you get an answer from Marcel on whether it was a Table Referee or an Area Referee? This is supposed to matter a great deal in terms of his ability to do anything on a blown call.

The fact that they had to call him to the table suggests an Area Ref, but it could also be a new ref who didn’t know enough to immediately come inspect the balls once it was clear they might or might not be frozen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top