Push shot foul?

freds said:
Because the rules say it isn't? From WPA 6.7:

"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."
Click to expand...
Figures. Cheap fix if you ask me. Other jurisdictions define (as well as Dr. Dave to an academic degree) frozen cue balls as single entities. Hence the no push logic. A shot like Ponger's with a subsequent legal hit <by the cue ball> should be the only allowed solution.

Thanks for digging that rule up by the way.
 
Rickhem said:
Karl put out a video and is addressing his error. I credit Quinton Pongers for being a part of this too.
One of the comments listed there said that he felt the ref went with "extended contact" since that is opinion, and can't be contested. Probably all he had left as a defense.

Anyway, here's the video:

Click to expand...
thanks for the link
 
also one rule states to the effect it is unsportsmanlike conduct which i think is more than a foul or could be. if your stroke is a long one.
which pushes balls. so a shorter , how much shorter stroke pushing balls is okay?

either both are fine or neither is not. what kind of rules allow for it to be called in one instance and not in another.

and one perfectly legal and the other perfectly legal until you make a longer than normal stroke it now becomes unsportsman like.
and not an automatic foul.

so some shots you can use a longer bridge and some you cant?

all the more reason in my mind that both should not be allowed.
 
maha said:
also one rule states to the effect it is unsportsmanlike conduct which i think is more than a foul or could be. if your stroke is a long one.
which pushes balls. so a shorter , how much shorter stroke pushing balls is okay?

either both are fine or neither is not. what kind of rules allow for it to be called in one instance and not in another.

and one perfectly legal and the other perfectly legal until you make a longer than normal stroke it now becomes unsportsman like.
and not an automatic foul.

so some shots you can use a longer bridge and some you cant?

all the more reason in my mind that both should not be allowed.
Click to expand...

You really should watch Dr Dave’s video to understand what an illegal push is. It has nothing to do with bridge length.

It’s bringing your tip right up to the CB and literally pushing the CB rather than stroking it. It’s unsportsmanlike because it’s wrong to move the CB with anything other than a legal stroke (eg deliberately pushing the CB with the side of tip or ferrule or deliberately moving the CB with your hand).
 
that's not the rule. its a long stroke. or longer than necessary. and judged subjectively by a referee. and a penalty to be determined by him.
and this has nothing to do with what youhave in parentheses.

i am very familiar with what a push is as defined by a book of rules.
 
maha said:
that's not the rule. its a long stroke. or longer than necessary. and judged subjectively by a referee. and a penalty to be determined by him.
and this has nothing to do with what youhave in parentheses.

i am very familiar with what a push is as defined by a book of rules.
Click to expand...

The part in parentheses was to illustrate other examples of similar conduct that is unsportsmanlike because you were questioning why one might treat it as unsportsmanlike.

The wording of the rule is “It is a foul to prolong tip-to-cue-ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots”. It’s not a long stroke or a short stroke. It’s achieved by not stroking like a shot. If a ref thinks he’s just supposed to eyeball the shot and subjectively determine if it looks too long, then IMO the ref doesn’t understand the rule and needs better training.
 
GideonF said:
The part in parentheses was to illustrate other examples of similar conduct that is unsportsmanlike because you were questioning why one might treat it as unsportsmanlike.

The wording of the rule is “It is a foul to prolong tip-to-cue-ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots”. It’s not a long stroke or a short stroke. It’s achieved by not stroking like a shot. If a ref thinks he’s just supposed to eyeball the shot and subjectively determine if it looks too long, then IMO the ref doesn’t understand the rule and needs better training.
Click to expand...
normal shots, the tip to cueball contact is so fast it cant be seen. so any push type of shot is not a normal one. and the rule i saw stated , mentioned long stroking as un sportman like..
yours may be different.

but in any case it is a subjective call by the ref. with the penalty not defined, and that really is bad.
 
Last edited:
maha said:
normal shots, the tip to cueball contact is so fast it cant be seen. so any push type of shot is not a normal one. and the rule i saw stated , mentioned long stroking as un sportman like..
yours may be different. but in any case it is a subjective call by the ref. and that really is bad.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between hitting the cue ball with a cue that has been swung into it, and pushing the cue ball forward with the cue tip so that the cue ball intentionally stays in contact with it for much longer because you are literally pushing it forward for a while instead of having hit it. I think like everybody else you know the clear and obvious difference between a push and a hit, but if not there were a number of videos posted in the thread that clearly show what a push is, and how so totally different from a hit it is, and that will quickly clear up any remaining confusions you might have.
 
bbb said:
the cue ball started out contacting the object ball (they were froze) then cue ball hit 2 rails
Click to expand...
That's the point. The contact occurs before the shot takes place. Therefore blah bla... Some wordings say or or imply the obstructing ball doesn't exist. All that is just the no foul logic yada yada...

Once you say no foul, you require a subsequent and actual legal hit. The Pongers shot satisfies that condition. Or maybe it doesn't. Makes for some interesting complexities.

For Instance: one ball left on the table with the cue ball frozen to it. If it's not wired for a pocket you'd have to kick or masse for a legal hit. Even if the frozen balls are wired for a pocket you could extend the logic to reason those wired shots cannot score unless they were kicked or massed in. IOW actually struck by the cue ball.
 
straightline said:
That's the point. The contact occurs before the shot takes place. Therefore blah bla... Some wordings say or or imply the obstructing ball doesn't exist. All that is just the no foul logic yada yada...

Once you say no foul, you require a subsequent and actual legal hit. The Pongers shot satisfies that condition. Or maybe it doesn't. Makes for some interesting complexities.

For Instance: one ball left on the table with the cue ball frozen to it. If it's not wired for a pocket you'd have to kick or masse for a legal hit. Even if the frozen balls are wired for a pocket you could extend the logic to reason those wired shots cannot score unless they were kicked or massed in. IOW actually struck by the cue ball.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation is not the rule though.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
There is a big difference between hitting the cue ball with a cue that has been swung into it, and pushing the cue ball forward with the cue tip so that the cue ball intentionally stays in contact with it for much longer because you are literally pushing it forward for a while instead of having hit it.
Click to expand...
A good illustration of this is the illegal push shot with the OB against a rail near a corner pocket and the CB frozen to the OB opposite the rail - the CB is pushed softly into the OB, straight into the rail with sidespin on the side opposite the pocket, rotating the OB in the opposite direction so it rolls along the rail into the pocket.

A demonstration or video of that shot would be instructive - the shot has to be pushed, not hit, so the OB doesn't rebound off the rail.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
A good illustration of this is the illegal push shot with the OB against a rail near a corner pocket and the CB frozen to the OB opposite the rail - the CB is pushed softly into the OB, straight into the rail with sidespin on the side opposite the pocket, rotating the OB in the opposite direction so it rolls along the rail into the pocket.

A demonstration or video of that shot would be instructive - the shot has to be pushed, not hit, so the OB doesn't rebound off the rail.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I mentioned that shot in post #125 as a good example that most have likely seen since it is a very common trick shot, but I didn't (and still don't) have a link to it at the time. Like you, I think it would be a good representative example shot of a push foul to post if somebody has a link to one or wants to do a quick video of it as it may help clarify for some people (although I posted some other examples that showed a push foul equally well, so maybe it wouldn't do anything if they didn't get it from the others).
 
Patrick Johnson said:
A good illustration of this is the illegal push shot with the OB against a rail near a corner pocket and the CB frozen to the OB opposite the rail - the CB is pushed softly into the OB, straight into the rail with sidespin on the side opposite the pocket, rotating the OB in the opposite direction so it rolls along the rail into the pocket.

A demonstration or video of that shot would be instructive - the shot has to be pushed, not hit, so the OB doesn't rebound off the rail.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

FYI, I have many demonstrations of push shots, including this one, in the videos here:

 
maha said:
when you are going to shoot a controversial shot you really need to tell your opponent or the ref what you are going to do.

and settle it before you shoot, not after.
Click to expand...

Last year, I played in a 9-ball tournament, and I had a frozen cue ball shot. I checked to see if the balls were frozen, they were, then I asked my opponent to come look, and he agreed they were frozen. Then I asked my opponent, "That means I can shoot through the cue ball, right?", and he replied, "Yes". I stroked the shot, and we continued on with our match.

In another match, I was hitting the cue ball at an object ball that was frozen to another object ball, and it was going to be somewhat close to a simultaneous hit. I called the tournament director over, and she held her phone over the two balls and videoed the shot. Before she could review the tape, my opponent declared it was a legal shot. I continued on with my inning.
 
Rickhem said:
Karl put out a video and is addressing his error. I credit Quinton Pongers for being a part of this too.
One of the comments listed there said that he felt the ref went with "extended contact" since that is opinion, and can't be contested. Probably all he had left as a defense.

Anyway, here's the video:

Click to expand...
If the guilty ref is going to be reffing for future pool tournaments I certainly hope he is asked to learn pool rules so he can make the correct calls in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top