Push shot foul?

iusedtoberich said:
Right. Karl is like many others and he's using the same term "push" to mean "double hit". Crazy how so many players don't know the difference.

I kind of think maybe it's because they weren't around hustlers. The hustlers would do legit "push" shots in prop bets to win money. Young players around them, and that lost money to them, would know what a "push" is for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...
I remember these frozen ball shots being documented in the Robert Byrne book from the 80's, it has been a rule for a long time. I can understand why amateur leagues may not use the rule, but this isn't an amateur league that we are talking about...
 
Bob Jewett said:
If you are not allowed to shoot towards a frozen ball, what other rule do you propose? Like snooker, where you must shoot away?
Click to expand...
I don't think there is anything wrong with the pool or snooker version for dealing with frozen balls. Its just what each evolved to to handle the situation.

Just very suprising that pro level players or pro refs don't know there is a difference in the rules for the different disciplines. I'm not a snooker player or a blackball player or a heyball player, but I know enough about them to know there are minor variations in the rules.

I'd expect an expert in blackball to know enough about pool to know there are a few differences.

.... and then make a concerted effort to learn those differences if taking the game seriously as either player, fan, or ref.....
 
iusedtoberich said:
Right. Karl is like many others and he's using the same term "push" to mean "double hit". Crazy how so many players don't know the difference.

I kind of think maybe it's because they weren't around hustlers. The hustlers would do legit "push" shots in prop bets to win money. Young players around them, and that lost money to them, would know what a "push" is for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...
Karl's problem is that he grew up with snooker and UK pool, which use different definitions. Karl never bothered to learn the rules of pool. I wonder if Karl wanted Pongers to shoot away from the six.
 
Badpenguin said:
Oh, well that is different. Was that a local ref?
Click to expand...
The local ref was called over by Pongers and made a determination that the balls were frozen and then made the foul call.

In fact, the local ref should not have waited to be called over. He should have come over immediately when the cue ball stopped close to the six.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Karl's problem is that he grew up with snooker and UK pool, which use different definitions. Karl never bothered to learn the rules of pool. I wonder if Karl wanted Pongers to shoot away from the six.
Click to expand...
Just so weird...he played TOP level pro pool for 10 years. You'd think when he started he would have asked about the differences.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The local ref was called over by Pongers and made a determination that the balls were frozen and then made the foul call.

In fact, the local ref should not have waited to be called over. He should have come over immediately when the cue ball stopped close to the six.
Click to expand...
This is why the rule should be benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter. No replay would have been required and Marcel could have overruled.

Either that or just make them shoot away from it like APA, lol.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The local ref was called over by Pongers and made a determination that the balls were frozen and then made the foul call.

In fact, the local ref should not have waited to be called over. He should have come over immediately when the cue ball stopped close to the six.
Click to expand...

I can’t tell if the TV table has a dedicated ref or if it’s still an area ref (which would explain why he had to be called over).
 
Bob Jewett said:
The local ref was called over by Pongers and made a determination that the balls were frozen and then made the foul call.

In fact, the local ref should not have waited to be called over. He should have come over immediately when the cue ball stopped close to the six.
Click to expand...
That's a good point... supporting that the ref must thinking he must shoot away.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Karl's problem is that he grew up with snooker and UK pool, which use different definitions. Karl never bothered to learn the rules of pool. I wonder if Karl wanted Pongers to shoot away from the six.
Click to expand...

I agree that his problem with terminology comes from snooker/blackball, where any movement of the frozen ball is called a push and is a foul. My guess is he knows you can’t shoot away like in snooker and blackball but thinks you have to thin the ball so you aren’t “pushing through” the balls at all. I think perhaps the ref had the same thought.

I just think that to someone of that background the concept of being able to shoot straight through a frozen ball does not compute.
 
iusedtoberich said:
Just so weird...he played TOP level pro pool for 10 years. You'd think when he started he would have asked about the differences.
Click to expand...
That's not how most players learn the game. They pick up the rules by watching. Sometimes the best shooter at the pool room will pour piss into their ear about the rules. I once played in a tournament against a player who had toured the South with Lassiter, trimming the suckers. A discussion of an obvious close-ball double hit came up. He said it was no double hit -- since the cue ball had just left the tip, it still had a lot of momentum, and that's what made it continue to go forward. Really. And I think he believed what he told me. You can't argue with logic like that.

And sometimes players assume that rules are uniform through all cue sports. A surprising counter-example: at carom billiards, if the cue ball is frozen to a cushion, it is forbidden to shoot into the cushion. At pool and snooker, it is OK, and allows some useful shots.
 
Bob Jewett said:
That's not how most players learn the game. They pick up the rules by watching. Sometimes the best shooter at the pool room will pour piss into their ear about the rules. I once played in a tournament against a player who had toured the South with Lassiter, trimming the suckers. A discussion of an obvious close-ball double hit came up. He said it was no double hit -- since the cue ball had just left the tip, it still had a lot of momentum, and that's what made it continue to go forward. Really. And I think he believed what he told me. You can't argue with logic like that.

And sometimes players assume that rules are uniform through all cue sports. A surprising counter-example: at carom billiards, if the cue ball is frozen to a cushion, it is forbidden to shoot into the cushion. At pool and snooker, it is OK, and allows some useful shots.
Click to expand...
The shame is that the only guy who clearly knew the rule was the shooter and he got screwed. He did his homework, no one else did.
 
Badpenguin said:
... Either that or just make them shoot away from it like APA, lol.
Click to expand...
The official APA rules don't actually require shooting at an angle, but they do suggest that or jacking up to 30 degrees elevation to reduce the chance of a double hit on a close ball. The APA seems to be the same as the WPA for a frozen ball.
 
Badpenguin said:
If that was the rule already, this would not have been ruled a push foul by Marcel.
Click to expand...
We don't know if either the area ref or Marcel ruled it a push or a double hit, or what Marcel did (although, as has been suggested, he might have just told the player that he wouldn't overrule the area ref)...
 
Bob Jewett said:
Marcel did not rule it as a foul. Marcel declined to overturn the ruling of the ref at the table. They do not have video review.
Click to expand...
I think the call still could (and arguably should) have been overruled by a good knowledgeable head referee, and part of the issue here was that Marcel is not a good knowledgeable head ref (to put it kindly).

In his protest Pongers presumably told Marcel "the ref declared the balls to be frozen, and I shot through the balls with a normal stroke as allowed when the balls are frozen, so it was not a foul". Presumably Marcel then asked the ref why he felt it was a foul when hitting into a frozen ball is legal (or he certainly should have if he didn't), and if the ref said something along the lines of that it was based purely off of the "cue ball and object ball moving forward together at the same speed" Marcel should know right there that is not the measure for whether that shot is a foul or not (since it would have been the expected action) and overruled the call.

If the ref instead said something along the lines of "well it just looked like a push stroke to me" Marcel should have then asked some follow up questions such as "what speed did he hit the ball at", "what made you think it looked like a push", and "did he first put the tip on the ball and then push forward" along with a couple others as needed. When the ref presumably answered with something like "he hit the shot fairly hard, and no, he didn't put the tip on the ball first and then push, he just hit it like a regular shot, it just seemed to me that the tip was in contact with the cue ball a little longer than it would normally be" Marcel should have known that the ref just didn't know what he was doing on the call and clearly made a bad call. With good questioning from a qualified head ref I think there was enough there to overrule the call, although I also understand the hesitation to do so without the ability to look at a replay in this particular case.

One thing is certain. Matchroom refs in general, and Marcel in particular, need a lot more knowledge and training before they are qualified to be refereeing professional level events.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
I think the call still could (and arguably should) have been overruled by a good knowledgeable head referee, and part of the issue here was that Marcel is not a good knowledgeable head ref (to put it kindly).

In his protest Pongers presumably told Marcel "the ref declared the balls to be frozen, and I shot through the balls with a normal stroke as allowed when the balls are frozen, so it was not a foul". Presumably Marcel then asked the ref why he felt it was a foul when hitting into a frozen ball is legal (or he certainly should have if he didn't), and if the ref said something along the lines of that it was based purely off of the "cue ball and object ball moving forward together at the same speed" Marcel should know right there that is not the measure for whether that shot is a foul or not (since it would have been the expected action) and overruled the call.

If the ref instead said something along the lines of "well it just looked like a push stroke to me" Marcel should have then asked some follow up questions such as "what speed did he hit the ball at", "what made you think it looked like a push", and "did he first put the tip on the ball and then push forward" along with a couple others as needed. When the ref presumably answered with something like "he hit the shot fairly hard, and no, he didn't put the tip on the ball first and then push, he just hit it like a regular shot, it just seemed to me that the tip was in contact with the cue ball a little longer than it would normally be" Marcel should have known that the ref just didn't know what he was doing on the call and clearly made a bad call. With good questioning from a qualified head ref I think there was enough there to overrule the call, although I also understand the hesitation to do so without the ability to look at a replay in this particular case.

One thing is certain. Matchroom refs in general, and Marcel in particular, need a lot more knowledge and training before they are qualified to be refereeing professional level events.
Click to expand...

Here is what the WNT Rules say:

“10. Protest Ruling

If the tournament is being played with an Area Referee, players do have the right to ask for a decision making call by such official at all times.

Players do have the right to ask for a second opinion after such a call has been made,
the Area Referee will then call over a Senior Referee.

If Table Referees are in charge of the matches, there shall be no right for either player to ask for a second opinion; the referees are in sole charge of the matches and their decision is final.”

So IF there was a Table Referee (and I’m not sure) Marcel would have had to tell Pongers that the head referee had no ability to change the call. This would be the correct application of their rules by Marcel (as much as I don’t like that rule).

If it was an Area Referee, there is an opportunity for a second opinion, but I don’t know what restrictions they place on the type of review. Can he look at a replay? Is it only on interpretation issues and not factual. For example, if the referee says he knows you can shoot into a frozen ball but says he feels it was a 3.8 push, the WNT might take the view that the Area Referee’s factual decision has to stand. As easier example is if the Area Ref determines that the CB didn’t hit a cushion after contact- the rule and its interpretation aren’t in dispute, just the facts.

Personally I think the rule SHOULD be that the head referee can review any ruling by any referee, including by looking at the video. I do think you’d need something like the NFL standard of “plain and obvious” to overturn a call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top