BCA needs to address definition of legal push shot

[fan-tum]

The World Standardized Rules don't attempt to really define the one shot that has caused untold arguments-the push shot. Many don't know the difference between a legal push or foul.
IMHO the following criteria should be included in the definition:
a. The cue stick must be elevated approx. 45 degrees,
b. After contact. the cue ball CAN go forward, but at a noticeably slower speed than the object ball and travel a fraction of the same distance as the obj. ball.
This is for nearly frozen cb and obj. ball. I assume that if they are frozen, you can pretty much do anything you want.
Jay-any input?

 

[mbvl]

Many don't know the difference between a legal push or foul.

It's clear that you are one of the many. You first need to distinguish between a push shot and a double hit. The push shot virtually never happens. Jacking up does not necessarily eliminate a double hit, nor does not jacking up necessarily mean that one will get a double hit. The ball moving forward, regardless of how far or at what speed, almost always indicates that a double hit occurred.

Mark

 

[mikepage]

The World Standardized Rules don't attempt to really define the one shot that has caused untold arguments-the push shot. Many don't know the difference between a legal push or foul.
IMHO the following criteria should be included in the definition:
a. The cue stick must be elevated approx. 45 degrees,
b. After contact. the cue ball CAN go forward, but at a noticeably slower speed than the object ball and travel a fraction of the same distance as the obj. ball.
This is for nearly frozen cb and obj. ball. I assume that if they are frozen, you can pretty much do anything you want.
Jay-any input?

Check this out, Fan-tum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rip8xwobksc

 

[fan-tum]

It's clear that you are one of the many. You first need to distinguish between a push shot and a double hit. The push shot virtually never happens. Jacking up does not necessarily eliminate a double hit, nor does not jacking up necessarily mean that one will get a double hit. The ball moving forward, regardless of how far or at what speed, almost always indicates that a double hit occurred.

Mark

So if the cb and ob are fractionally not frozen, and I elevate the cue, stroke the cb below center,and the cb goes forward at a lesser speed than the ob, is that a foul? If you say yes, then many seasoned players are at fault.

 

[randyg]

The World Standardized Rules don't attempt to really define the one shot that has caused untold arguments-the push shot. Many don't know the difference between a legal push or foul.
IMHO the following criteria should be included in the definition:
a. The cue stick must be elevated approx. 45 degrees,
b. After contact. the cue ball CAN go forward, but at a noticeably slower speed than the object ball and travel a fraction of the same distance as the obj. ball.
This is for nearly frozen cb and obj. ball. I assume that if they are frozen, you can pretty much do anything you want.
Jay-any input?

I thought they had and very well I might add.....SPF=randyg

 

[Bob Jewett]

The World Standardized Rules don't attempt to really define the one shot that has caused untold arguments-the push shot. Many don't know the difference between a legal push or foul.
IMHO the following criteria should be included in the definition:
a. The cue stick must be elevated approx. 45 degrees,
b. After contact. the cue ball CAN go forward, but at a noticeably slower speed than the object ball and travel a fraction of the same distance as the obj. ball.
This is for nearly frozen cb and obj. ball. I assume that if they are frozen, you can pretty much do anything you want.
Jay-any input?

Your criteria may be the way that some leagues and TDs play, but they have little to do with physical reality on the table.

One rational way to proceed is to decide which shots you want to ban and then come up with a rule that bans them. The WPA rules basically say:

1.) You are not permitted to hit the cue ball twice. Further, if the cue ball is separated from the object ball, it is a foul if the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue ball hits the object ball.

2.) If the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, it is permitted to shoot towards that ball with any normal stroke.

The second sentence of rule 1 is in there simply to prevent the quibble that some players make that if the balls are quite close the ball has not left the tip by the time the cue ball hits the object ball, and therefor there was only one hit.

I think there are good reasons to not allow the player to hit the cue ball more than once on any shot.

I am ambivalent on allowing a shot through a frozen ball, but some games would require new rules if the shot were forbidden. A lot of players think wrongly that a double hit occurs on a frozen ball shot. Many of those players are not convinced by either reason or high-speed video.

 

[Bob Jewett]

So if the cb and ob are fractionally not frozen, and I elevate the cue, stroke the cb below center,and the cb goes forward at a lesser speed than the ob, is that a foul? If you say yes, then many seasoned players are at fault.

It is a sad fact that many seasoned players are as dumb as dirt when it comes to the official rules. Many of them get their rules by word of mouth or aggressive discussion. I think it is better to read the rules and try to understand them and play by them. Of course, if you play in bars or hustle the unwary in pool halls, it may be wiser to avoid the official rules except when a particular rule is in your favor.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Many don't know the difference between a legal push or foul.

That may be because there is no difference - a push shot is a foul. And so is a double hit (which you seem to be talking about), and they're both well defined in the rules.

I think what you mean is that the rules don't describe how to avoid these fouls, and you're mostly right*, but there's a good reason for that: there's generally no foolproof way to do it that doesn't either allow fouls or prevent good hits (or both).

pj
chgo

*(There are one or two "safe harbor" ways to shoot very close balls without double hitting.)

 

[jay helfert]

This shot and the one where the cue ball and object ball are very close together has plagued tournament officials for decades. I do not like what the BCA has done in their current rules, allowing a player to shoot directly through two frozen balls. This is contrary to everything I learned in well over 30 years of playing pool and officiating. Plain and simple, the above is a bad shot and should be ruled as such.

The BCA rules committee took the easy way out on this one and did their best to make it easier for less skilled officials to make a call. JMHO
My point of view is that if the balls are frozen or near frozen, extreme care must be used in executing any shot here. I would NOT allow "pushing" or shooting directly through the balls. Either an elevated cue stroke must be used or you must shoot at an angle into the object ball.

Of course those are "Jay's" rules now. And the ones we used for about 50 years before the BCA mucked it up!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I do not like what the BCA has done in their current rules, allowing a player to shoot directly through two frozen balls. This is contrary to everything I learned in well over 30 years of playing pool and officiating. Plain and simple, the above is a bad shot and should be ruled as such.

The tip doesn't stay on the ball any longer than normal. It isn't a double hit. What's bad about it?

I don't think we should define fouls based on what lots of players grew up believing. I think they should be defined to prevent specific things we want to prevent (like pushing or double hitting the CB). What do you want to prevent?

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

This shot and the one where the cue ball and object ball are very close together has plagued tournament officials for decades. I do not like what the BCA has done in their current rules, allowing a player to shoot directly through two frozen balls. This is contrary to everything I learned in well over 30 years of playing pool and officiating. Plain and simple, the above is a bad shot and should be ruled as such.
...

I think the BCA/WPA rules have remained essentially unchanged for these shots since 1945.

 

[jay helfert]

The tip doesn't stay on the ball any longer than normal. It isn't a double hit. What's bad about it?

I don't think we should define fouls based on what lots of players grew up believing. I think they should be defined to prevent specific things we want to prevent (like pushing or double hitting the CB). What do you want to prevent?

pj
chgo

I would suggest to you that when you shoot directly through two frozen balls, the tip actually does stay on the cue ball slightly longer, due to the resistance of the second ball.

Maybe Mr. Jewett would offer a differing opinion based on his physical analysis of such a shot. But I remain unconvinced. It seems only logical to me that when you strike an object that is impeded by a second object, it will take more effort (and longer) to move that first object (i.e. the cue ball). That seems like relatively simple physics to me.

I'd like to do a "frames per second" view of both shots. And get an accurate timing of both. The first where you are hitting a cue ball out in the open and the second where you are hitting a cue ball directly at a frozen object ball. How long will the tip of the cue be in contact with the cue ball. Let it be done by an impartial third party and I'd be willing to bet the second scenario is longer in duration.

I'm no scientist, just a guy with a few brain cells still intact.

 

[jay helfert]

I think the BCA/WPA rules have remained essentially unchanged for these shots since 1945.

I beg to differ. Allowing a player to shoot directly through two frozen balls is relatively new. Or maybe you don't think that is an "essential" rule change.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
The tip doesn't stay on the ball any longer than normal. It isn't a double hit. What's bad about it?

Jay:
I would suggest to you that when you shoot directly through two frozen balls, the tip actually does stay on the cue ball slightly longer, due to the resistance of the second ball.

That may be true, but the tip stays on the ball slightly longer on other shots too, like those with sidespin or when using a softer tip. What's different about the extra tip/ball contact time from shooting into a frozen combination that makes it something you want to prevent?

pj
chgo

 

[jay helfert]

That may be true, but the tip stays on the ball slightly longer on other shots too, like those with sidespin or when using a softer tip. What's different about the extra tip/ball contact time from shooting into a frozen combination that makes it something you want to prevent?

pj
chgo

You know Patrick, there is a reason why they never allowed shots like this in snooker. It is no longer a "stroke" shot but more like a "shove" when you are moving two balls at once. When you shoot directly through a frozen ball, the object ball becomes a "surrogate" cue ball. You and others can talk till you're blue in the face, but you will never convince me such a "shot" is okay in professional pool. It's just not a shot, it's a shove, or a "push".

I, like everyone else, has an option. I don't have to play in their tournaments or by their rules. So I choose not to. I no longer play in any BCA pool leagues or events. And I will not use their rules in any independent event I produce.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You know Patrick, there is a reason why they never allowed shots like this in snooker. It is no longer a "stroke" shot but more like a "shove" when you are moving two balls at once. When you shoot directly through a frozen ball, the object ball becomes a "surrogate" cue ball.

I know what you mean - it sure seems like that intuitively. But I don't think anything unusual happens. I think the tip, the OB and the CB all part company in about a normal amount of time. I think the reason we feel it doesn't is because of the extra resistance we feel momentarily from the weight of the second ball. We become so familiar with what's "normal" that we're very sensitive to slight differences - like being able to feel a 2.5% difference in cue weight (1/2 ounce) or even less.

You and others can talk till you're blue in the face

Well, that's how long I plan to go on living, but I'm pretty sure I won't be talking the whole time - I'm married.

pj
chgo

 

[jay helfert]

I know what you mean - it sure seems like that intuitively. But I don't think anything unusual happens. I think the tip, the OB and the CB all part company in about a normal amount of time. I think the reason we feel it doesn't is because of the extra resistance we feel momentarily from the weight of the second ball. We become so familiar with what's "normal" that we're very sensitive to slight differences - like being able to feel a 2.5% difference in cue weight (1/2 ounce) or even less.



Well, that's how long I plan to go on living, but I'm pretty sure I won't be talking the whole time - I'm married.

pj
chgo

I agree to disagree Patrick. There is a reason we feel "resistance" on such a shot. Because it's there! We're carrying twice the weight for a moment in time on the end of our cue. Rule or no rule, it's a bogus shot and should be confined to fun games among amateurs.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I agree to disagree Patrick.

Sure, me too.

We're carrying twice the weight for a moment in time on the end of our cue. Rule or no rule, it's a bogus shot and should be confined to fun games among amateurs.

I agree it's twice the weight for a moment, but I don't think that makes the shot bogus. What's the negative effect? If it allowed the shooter to control the CB or OB in some unusual way, I'd be against it. I assume that's what you're thinking, and I think that's what we have to agree to disagree about - at least until Bob takes up another collection to rent a high speed camera again.

pj
chgo

 

[av84fun]

I agree to disagree Patrick. There is a reason we feel "resistance" on such a shot. Because it's there! We're carrying twice the weight for a moment in time on the end of our cue. Rule or no rule, it's a bogus shot and should be confined to fun games among amateurs.

What surprises me, is that no slow mo/stop action photography has been done to prove the issued one way or the other.

How can a set of RULES be promulgated to solve problems when it has not been proven that a problem exits.

Conversely, a rule can can create a new problem or pertetuate an old one of the physics regarding frozen balls has only been guessed at.

I am not SURE there is no conclusive research but the posts in this thread suggest there is none.

Bottom line, in my view, an object ball should not cause the cue tip to remain on the CB for any measurable length of time relative to what would occur if there was no frozen OB.

The only way for that to happen without scientific investigation is to require the player to shoot the CB at the most extreme angle possible...i.e. so slightly less than 90 degrees that the OB travel is insignificant.

Having said all that, Diamond created its own rule for the DCC which stated that if the cue is jacked up at least 45 degrees, then there is no foul.

It seems to me that the utter simplicity of that rule makes it worthy of consideration. Fact is that frozen CB/OBs are relatively infrequent (maybe one in every 5-10 racks as a wild guess). In addition, gaining an advantage by shooting through vs. shooting off at an angle would come up even less frequently...i.e. the odds would be relatively even that the best advantage would be had by shoot by one shot or the other.

So, I wonder what harm would result...in the form of an unfair advantage to the shooter, if simply jacking up was the rule regardless of the physics involved.

We all know that referee knowledge varies all over the map and the typical player's knowledge is generally even worse.

So there is a LOT to recommend utter simplicity in rule making unless a REALLY unfair advantage would be created and I just don't see any such unfair advantage coming up enough to spend much time worrying about it.

What do you think of the Diamond 45 degree rule?

Regards,
Jim

 

[jay helfert]

Sure, me too.



I agree it's twice the weight for a moment, but I don't think that makes the shot bogus. What's the negative effect? If it allowed the shooter to control the CB or OB in some unusual way, I'd be against it. I assume that's what you're thinking, and I think that's what we have to agree to disagree about - at least until Bob takes up another collection to rent a high speed camera again.

pj
chgo

Patrick, for your information, if you can shoot directly through a frozen ball you can do MANY things that you can't when being forced to jack up or shoot at an angle. It makes a huge difference in the shot. I'd like to show you a few shots that can be made by shooting straight through the ball. It will blow your mind! Any decent player is aware of these shots, and knows exactly what I'm talking about.