Double hit question I haven't found in WPA rules

This is taken from the applied ruling section of Playbca/CSI pool league rules. Although WPA rules do not specifically address the situation, a referee judging the legality of the shot or the players involved would use the same criteria to evaluate if a double hit foul occurred with a nearby ball. In your example, cue ball frozen to 1 ball, the shooter can legally shoot straight through 1ball, but a double hit foul could occur if tip continues forward as the 1ball strikes the 2ball.

fiftyyardline said:

View attachment 540803

This is taken from the applied ruling section of Playbca/CSI pool league rules. Although WPA rules do not specifically address the situation, a referee judging the legality of the shot or the players involved would use the same criteria to evaluate if a double hit foul occurred with a nearby ball. In your example, cue ball frozen to 1 ball, the shooter can legally shoot straight through 1ball, but a double hit foul could occur if tip continues forward as the 1ball strikes the 2ball.

Click to expand...

Many try to beat this rule, but in the end (regardless of the myriad scope of various/official organizational assumptions of propriety), it is up to the honor of the competitor to realize the probability of a ‘double hit’. Most thus would not risk it, since traditionally, it has ALWAYS been ‘verboten’. When a sanctioning group tries to legalize it out of convenience (jack-up 45 degrees?) you have to wonder what’s next? Maybe when ‘barbox bangers’ knock a ball off the table in future, they could just spot it and continue shooting? THAT should likely make bar league tournaments progress more smoothly.

DynoDan said:

...you have to wonder what’s next? Maybe when ‘barbox bangers’ knock a ball off the table in future, they could just spot it and continue shooting? THAT should likely make bar league tournaments progress more smoothly.

Click to expand...

Continue shooting, but... you have to call it that the ball will fly off the table and how many times it will bounce on the playing surface or rail, if any, before going off fully. They don’t play that slop shite.

JazzyJeff87 said:

Continue shooting, but... you have to call it that the ball will fly off the table and how many times it will bounce on the playing surface or rail, if any, before going off fully. They don’t play that slop shite.

Click to expand...

Don’t laugh, but I think that might actually have been the local rule when I was a kid (fished a few balls out of spittoons growing up).

Let Newton solve your problem

You won't normally find specific situations like your OP in rule sets because the variables of ball position and the action of the cue stick as wielded by the player are virtually infinite and definitely unpredictable. To write a rule covering every possible position is impossible, and to write a thousand rules covering the most common possible results in impractical.


The closest a rule set can come to assisting in the understanding of the situation is to slightly clarify and explain double hit dangers of nearby OB's (and cushions), an example of which is the material I wrote for CSI as quoted above from CSI AR 1-20/1-30 General Discussion. What is NOT unpredictable is the actions of the balls given certain collisions occurring. It is up to officials themselves and the organizations that employ them to ensure they are properly trained in the techniques to analyze the action of the balls in order to determine whether a double hit occurred. Unfortunately that training is frequently severely questionable.

Regarding your specific quoted situation, in which the nearby additional OB is on (or very near) the line of centers through the CB and frozen OB, the call is ridiculously easy for any properly trained official. Just let Newton's third law do the work for you.

By CSI and WSR rule, it is legal to shoot toward the frozen OB. If that shot is executed on or nearly along the line of centers, there will be two balls worth of energy entering the collision with the nearby non-frozen OB. Therefore, according to the laws of physics, two - and ONLY two - balls worth of energy may leave that collision unless acted upon by some other force. Just like Newton's Cradle...two balls in, two balls out.

So in a legal hit the CB and the frozen OB are the two balls in, and the frozen OB and the nearby non-frozen OB are the two balls out. The frozen OB and the non-frozen OB will will proceed along the line of the shot at nearly the same speed, while the CB must either stop (if skidding), or stop briefly and then continue ahead or back at a (probably) much slower speed than the OB's if there is significant spin applied to the vertical center of the CB during the stroke.

If the CB moves down the table along with the OB's at nearly the same speed, or if the CB, with reverse spin, skids forward of the position of the frozen OB where it contacts the nearby non-frozen OB, then it is virtually certain there has been a double hit. There could conceivably be some extraneous wacky factors such as extra heavy CB's (mud balls) that might vary results slightly, but in almost any reputable competition with decent equipment the analysis is reliable to the point of certainty for a properly trained official that is paying attention.

That analysis is a safe bet if the setup is close to the line of centers. If the nearby OB is off the line of centers of the CB/frozen OB, it's a little tougher to make the analysis, but not all that bad. You just have to apply the right angle rule to the collision between the CB and non-frozen OB (if any), and ignore the frozen OB. If the non-frozen ball is off the line of centers and there is no collision between the CB and non-frozen ball, a good hit at almost any speed is a virtual certainty.

Buddy

Bad rules made by uninformed people always make me cry. I won't even get into it.

DynoDan said:

Many try to beat this rule, but in the end (regardless of the myriad scope of various/official organizational assumptions of propriety), it is up to the honor of the competitor to realize the probability of a ‘double hit’. Most thus would not risk it, since traditionally, it has ALWAYS been ‘verboten’. When a sanctioning group tries to legalize it out of convenience (jack-up 45 degrees?) you have to wonder what’s next? Maybe when ‘barbox bangers’ knock a ball off the table in future, they could just spot it and continue shooting? THAT should likely make bar league tournaments progress more smoothly.

Click to expand...

Any pool player that is respecting as well as knowledgeable of the rules and courteous enough to not put the tournament director on the spot in judging such a tough shot, would elect to play a shot that will not be hard to judge for the tournament director.

As a TD myself, if a player chooses to put me in that position by electing to shoot a shot like that and my having to judge such a shot for its legality, if I have any question at all after the shot is played as to whether it was a legal hit, I’m likely to rule it a foul if for no other reason than that the shooter should not have placed me in that position. Most TD’s would never admit that but I can assure you that’s the way they’d feel.

Bob Jewett said:

For those who don't understand the problem, here is a diagram of the situation. Try playing the top shot with draw. The cue ball should draw back after it hits the 1 ball the second time after the 1 is stopped by the 2 ball.

As you try the other shots with the 2 ball closer and closer to the 1 ball, eventually the cue ball will not draw back properly because the cue stick hits it a second time.

View attachment 540852

Click to expand...

I would use draw on the upper two shots, but I would shoot away from the bottom scenario.

The next-to-the-bottom shot would have me thinking for a while. Maybe some draw with a jacked-up cue???

Maniac

Has always been difficult for me to determine how any of those shots can not be a "Push."

Sorry don't know the snooker rule.

To me if you are frozen to the cue ball you must hit away from the ball to avoid a "Push" I don't see how it can be otherwise--especially consistently as you must know everyones stroke length. It's frozen so you must be pushing.

The guys I play with agree it is the only way to avoid arguments. You get a bad roll hit it at an angle. You play bad shape hit it at an angle. Makes our life simpler and friendlier.

I always thought if you hit the cueball in the same direction as the object ball and they are touching if you don’t either hit the ball at a down 45 degree angle or a or to the left or right at a 45 degree angle to stop the push. And the way you judge the shoot is if the cueball follows the same path as the object ball it is a push.

Saturated Fats said:

Some of the posters here are not differentiating berween a push and a double hit. Why is this such a common problem? A push has nothing to do with the situation presented.

Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing. It drives me nuts . Also, I don't know where the 45 degrees stuff comes from. I know it's a local rule of convenience in certain leagues and tournaments, but just because you jack up or shoot partially away doesn't prevent you from committing a double hit.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk