BCA needs to address definition of legal push shot

[Bob Jewett]

Ok...I am confused on rule 1.........I understand the intent of the rule is that you can not shoot the CB directly into the OB without a double hit.

The rule states that it is a foul if the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue ball hits the object ball...........Even if you were shooting the CB at an angle or "thinning it" wouldn't the close proximity of the two balls mean that the tip would still be on the CB as it contacts the OB????

By rule that would still be a foul.........

In all games there is the problem of what is permitted if the cue ball is very close to the object ball but not frozen. The rule that is accepted in all disciplines, so far as I know, is that if you play for a very thin hit, the shot is assumed to be good even if the tip may have still been on the cue ball when it hit the object ball. This is a very special stated exception to the general rule. Here is the wording from snooker:

A push stroke is made when the tip of the cue remains in contact with the cue-ball
(a) after the cue-ball has commenced its forward motion, or
(b) as the cue-ball makes contact with an object ball except, where the cue-ball and an object ball are almost touching, it shall not be deemed a push stroke if the cue-ball hits a very fine edge of the object ball.​

(And please note the the usage of the word "push" in the snooker rules is different from the usage in the pool rules.)

It is a fairly simple exercise in geometry to figure out how far the cue ball will travel when barely grazing a near-by object ball. If the balls are separated by 1mm, then the cue ball might travel as much as 10.7mm before just barely grazing the object ball. The formula is sqrt((D+s)^2 - D^2) where D is the diameter of the ball or 57mm and s is the separation. While it is unlikely that the tip would still be on the cue ball after 10mm, it is possible, and the player may shoot more directly into the ball which would cause a sooner contact.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Here's a guy who knows exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for the back up.

When you've been around as long as we have, you know the difference between a good shot and a foul. Enuff said!

No offense intended, but it would appear that this is exactly false. I totally understand the idea of not liking the shot, and thinking it should not be allowed. This is an opinion about what the rules should be. A foul by definition is something that happens with respect to a set of rules that are being played by. A foul is defined by what the rules are, not the opinion of what the rules should be. If the rules say shooting straight into two frozen balls is ok and you call it a foul, then you definitely do not know the difference between a good shot and a foul.

The length of time that you have been familiar and comfortable with a misconception does not really have any influence on its accuracy. Perhaps you meant "When you've been around as long as I have, you would have accumulated enough opinions from respected pool players to believe that this type of shot should be considered a foul". If that is what you meant, then I totally understand, and that makes sense. However I happen to not agree unless a compelling reason can be given for why it shouldn't be allowed. If it has been proven that the cue tip does not touch the cueball a second time, then what is the harm, other than not liking the shot?

Patrick--you are extremely well spoken and articulate. I would love to have a conversation with you about pool. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you certainly offer reasonable explanations.

Just wanted to throw out my 2 cents. Again, no offense intended.

KMRUNOUT

 

[highrun55]

Somewhere, a long time ago, someone lost some serious jellybeans from a player using this shot and the push shot rule was made. LOL

highrun55

 

[Bob Jewett]

This rule is , in the modern day, a joke. If you hit it twice, or push it, it's a foul.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. If you mean that the 45-degree rule is idiocy perpetrated by fools or crooks, then I would agree with you. Is that what you were getting at?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Somewhere, a long time ago, someone lost some serious jellybeans from a player using this shot and the push shot rule was made. LOL

highrun55

Have you seen the rule from 1914 that I posted?

 

[BRKNRUN]

In all games there is the problem of what is permitted if the cue ball is very close to the object ball but not frozen. The rule that is accepted in all disciplines, so far as I know, is that if you play for a very thin hit, the shot is assumed to be good even if the tip may have still been on the cue ball when it hit the object ball. This is a very special stated exception to the general rule. Here is the wording from snooker:

A push stroke is made when the tip of the cue remains in contact with the cue-ball
(a) after the cue-ball has commenced its forward motion, or
(b) as the cue-ball makes contact with an object ball except, where the cue-ball and an object ball are almost touching, it shall not be deemed a push stroke if the cue-ball hits a very fine edge of the object ball.​

(And please note the the usage of the word "push" in the snooker rules is different from the usage in the pool rules.)

It is a fairly simple exercise in geometry to figure out how far the cue ball will travel when barely grazing a near-by object ball. If the balls are separated by 1mm, then the cue ball might travel as much as 10.7mm before just barely grazing the object ball. The formula is sqrt((D+s)^2 - D^2) where D is the diameter of the ball or 57mm and s is the separation. While it is unlikely that the tip would still be on the cue ball after 10mm, it is possible, and the player may shoot more directly into the ball which would cause a sooner contact.

Simple...for you to say...

I had understood the total acceptance of thinning a ball....The snooker rules is a better wording of the rule as it identifies the acceptance of thinning a ball.

 

[highrun55]

Have you seen the rule from 1914 that I posted?

Yes I did Bob,

 

[Bob Jewett]

Simple...for you to say...

I had understood the total acceptance of thinning a ball....The snooker rules is a better wording of the rule as it identifies the acceptance of thinning a ball.

Perhaps you overlooked the section of the pool rule (6.7) that applies to this:

If the cue ball is very close to an object ball, and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball contact is made.
​

 

[Cuebacca]

How does the resistance, cue slowing, and contact time compare between a masse shot and a shot through a frozen ball? It seems to me that an extreme masse shot could potentially have similar or even more severe characteristics in all three of these areas, due to the mass of the slate bed holding back the cue ball before it squirts out from between the tip and the slate.

Is this a legitimate comment? Basically I'm saying that if a shot through a frozen ball were to be made illegal on the grounds of slightly prolonged tip contact and/or increased resistance behind the cue ball, then an extreme masse should also be illegal on those very same grounds. Would that be a valid statement or is there a critical difference that makes my logic flawed here?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Is this a legitimate comment? Basically I'm saying that if a shot through a frozen ball were to be made illegal on the grounds of slightly prolonged tip contact and/or increased resistance behind the cue ball, then an extreme masse should also be illegal on those very same grounds. Would that be a valid statement or is there a critical difference that makes my logic flawed here?

Do you understand the kind of push shot that the prolonged contact rule is trying to outlaw? Is there a better wording that could be used for that rule?

 

[BRKNRUN]

Perhaps you overlooked the section of the pool rule (6.7) that applies to this:

If the cue ball is very close to an object ball, and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball contact is made.
​

I must have...cause I did not see it posted in the thread...that was why I was confused.

makes sense now......

Thanks

 

[rhncue]

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 believe your description of elevating the cue to avoid a double hit when the cue and object ball is not frozen is exactly the opposite of what occurs. At any time someone elevates their cue to shoot this shot I automatically call a foul before they even shoot. Unless the shot is done very gently so that the cue can be removed before the cue ball comes back and contacts the ferrule or if the cue ball moves forward, even a quarter of an inch it has to be a foul. After all, if you are shooting down on the cue ball then you are putting draw on the ball so how can the cueball move forward unless it had backed up and bounced off of the shaft.

Dick

 

[Cuebacca]

Do you understand the kind of push shot that the prolonged contact rule is trying to outlaw? Is there a better wording that could be used for that rule?

Yes, sorry I should have made that more clear. I'm not referring to true "push" shots but rather to shots through a frozen object ball. My understanding is that one of the arguments against keeping shots-through-frozen-balls legal is that there is additional mass behind the cue ball which causes (very slightly) prolonged tip-to-cue-ball contact.

My argument would be that a masse does the same.

I don't even know for sure that a shot through a frozen ball would prolong contact time. I tried to compare the contact times once on Dr. Dave's videos and it looked to be about the same as a normal shot, but I thought maybe the time difference was just too small for me to detect. I haven't watched the Jacksonville video yet.

 

[randyg]

I don't really care much about this particular shot, but I do care about the principles that guide the making of rules. I think rules should be made for objective reasons and be clear, unambiguous, readily enforceable, reflect reality, and prevent real, specific things we really don't want in the game.

By contrast, the rules about this shot are for subjective reasons, vary widely, are just about always unclear and ambiguous, are not readily enforceable, almost never reflect reality, and don't prevent anything we don't want in the game as far as I can tell (in particular, controversy). Because of all of this, the rules about this shot actually contribute to the confusion and misunderstanding about it. Come to think of it, most of these rules themselves should be fouls.

pj
chgo

Patrick, I think you have finaly lost it......SPF=randyg

 

[jay helfert]

They've been arguing about this shot (particularly a near frozen object ball) since I've been around. And look where it's gotten us. Right back to square one. I quit bringing it up at players meetings long ago just because of the endless discussion that usually occurred (with no real resolution).

Good luck guys. I hope you all work it out. I'll check back in ten years and see how you're doing.

For me the bottom line is that if you shoot directly through a frozen object ball, it should be deemed a bad hit. If it is now considered a legal shot by the powers that be on the BCA rules committee, then shame on them for copping out, and allowing a poorly played shot to be rewarded.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Cuebacca:
My understanding is that one of the arguments against keeping shots-through-frozen-balls legal is that there is additional mass behind the cue ball which causes (very slightly) prolonged tip-to-cue-ball contact.

The argument should be limited to the prolonged contact - the extra mass that causes it is irrelevant.

My argument would be that a masse does the same.

I believe you're right - in fact, I believe masse prolongs tip/ball contact more than shooting through frozen combos does. Again, the argument should be about the undesired effect (prolonged contact), not the innocent cause (twice the mass).

I don't even know for sure that a shot through a frozen ball would prolong contact time.

It seems it would, but it doesn't appear to be a significant amount.

I tried to compare the contact times once on Dr. Dave's videos and it looked to be about the same as a normal shot, but I thought maybe the time difference was just too small for me to detect. I haven't watched the Jacksonville video yet.

One nice thing about the Jax Tape is that you can step through it frame by frame, counting the thousandths of a second as you go (at least you can with an actual tape). I'll have to drag my copy out and look at this part of it again. Another nice thing about it is that when Bob first offered the tape he also sent his own handwritten notes with it, keyed to the specific segments of the tape. I wonder if any copies are still available...

pj
chgo

 

[Cuebacca]

They've been arguing about this shot (particularly a near frozen object ball) since I've been around. And look where it's gotten us. Right back to square one. I quit bringing it up at players meetings long ago just because of the endless discussion that usually occurred (with no real resolution).

Good luck guys. I hope you all work it out. I'll check back in ten years and see how you're doing.

LOL.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me losing it:
I don't really care much about this particular shot, but I do care about the principles that guide the making of rules. I think rules should be made for objective reasons and be clear, unambiguous, readily enforceable, reflect reality, and prevent real, specific things we really don't want in the game.

By contrast, the rules about this shot are for subjective reasons, vary widely, are just about always unclear and ambiguous, are not readily enforceable, almost never reflect reality, and don't prevent anything we don't want in the game as far as I can tell (in particular, controversy). Because of all of this, the rules about this shot actually contribute to the confusion and misunderstanding about it. Come to think of it, most of these rules themselves should be fouls.

Randy noticing:
Patrick, I think you have finaly lost it......SPF=randyg

I'll bite. Why, Randy?

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

... by the powers that be on the BCA rules committee, ...

The BCA does not set the rule of pool, although it participates in the process.

 

[Cuebacca]

Thanks for your comments, Pat.

The argument should be limited to the prolonged contact - the extra mass that causes it is irrelevant.

Good point.

I don't even know for sure that a shot through a frozen ball would prolong contact time.

It seems it would, but it doesn't appear to be a significant amount.

If there's ever a Jacksonville Part II, maybe this shot should be tested as an extreme case of the frozen combo contact time:

CueTable Help

I do like the simplicity of being able to shoot through a frozen ball, but I'm afraid that the above test just might hurt the cause a little bit.