2002 US Open - Deuel vs Strickland Foul?
- Thread starter Samiel
- Start date
Frozen/foul....
With that much forward movement of the cue ball, it's difficult to say good hit, since Both Balls went in the same direction.
If Corey would of Elevated Vertically, and the cue ball backed up immediately it would of been good.
If Corey would of Elevated Vertically, and the cue ball backed up immediately it would of been good.
If they were frozen, not a foul. If there is a gap of any kind between the balls, then a foul.
WPA Rule 6.8 Push Shot
It is a foul to Prolong tip-to-cue ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots.
Again....foul.
It is a foul to Prolong tip-to-cue ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots.
Again....foul.
Which is impossible when the balls are frozen. It's not a foul if the balls were frozen.
You would think but I had this situation come up refereeing in NV 2025.
But this guy hit the cue ball coming from 12 o'clock high, not like Coreys cue angle.
He hit it at 9 o'clock and the cue ball went 90 degrees to his left
WOW. Good hit, surprised the heck out ah me.
Scott was helping tell Corey what he'd allow to make a legal execution, that's not allowed these days/illegal.
Back then they did call these shots legal, but evidently they were not, players then thought they were, so did I.
If frozen, no foul, not even close to a foul. If not frozen, def a foul, no question a foul. This is from both the physics viewpoint, and "legit" WPA rules.
Who knows what the rules in play were for this even though. Billy didn't even know. I highly doubt they were following WPA rules. It might have been the "if you jack up real high, there is no foul, no matter what happens" rule.
Who knows what the rules in play were for this even though. Billy didn't even know. I highly doubt they were following WPA rules. It might have been the "if you jack up real high, there is no foul, no matter what happens" rule.
Just read CSI and WPA rules. Seems to me the shot is legal under both. Ambiguity is created by the caveats that a foul may occur with balls or cushions nearby. To me though, that clarification shouldn’t eliminate the rule that says you can shoot into a frozen ball. Why have a rule specifically saying you can do something if you can’t? What am I missing?You would think but I had this situation come up refereeing in NV 2025.
But this guy hit the cue ball coming from 12 o'clock high, not like Coreys cue angle.
He hit it at 9 o'clock and the cue ball went 90 degrees to his left
Good hit, surprised the heck out ah me.
Scott was helping tell Corey what he'd allow to make a legal execution, that's not allowed these days/illegal.
Back then they did call these shots legal, but evidently they were not, players then thought they were, so did I.
No prolonged contact. He simply shot through the frozen ball which is perfectly acceptable.
Cardone said foul.
He wasn’t there nor was he the ref.
He’s the guy who also said Sigel broke his cue by accident playing straight pool with Schmidt.