Why do we need a rule that doesn't reflect reality because reality seems "discontinuous" to us? What's the problem with it seeming discontinuous? Doesn't bother me.
pj
chgo
BCA needs to address definition of legal push shot
- Thread starter fan-tum
- Start date
Why do we need a rule that doesn't reflect reality because reality seems "discontinuous" to us? What's the problem with it seeming discontinuous? Doesn't bother me.
pj
chgo
wincardona said:
I know what you mean; it just doesn't "seem" right. In fact, it's illegal in all other circumstances for the tip to be in contact with the CB when the CB is in contact with an OB - this frozen ball situation is a special exception.
And it's a special exception because it's a different situation with a different effect: the CB doesn't do anything "funny" in the frozen balls situation (except taking off right away with the OB), but it does do funny things if it doesn't start out frozen to the OB and then the tip is still in contact when the CB hits the OB.
pj
chgo
Cuebacca said:
THETA approaches a constant value as D gets smaller that depends on the stick weight.
Assume for a minute the tip-ball contact time is very short, i.e, takes no time at all. Then avoiding a double hit is really about whether the cueball is going to move (out of the way) faster than the stick. If you call your fixed stick speed (stroke speed) V, then just after the tip hits the cueball, the stick will continue moving forward at approximately V/2. There is a cutoff angle theta above which the cueball will be moving faster than V/2 after it hits the object ball and will get out of the way no matter how small D is. [Incidentally a trick for avoiding double hits is to use your lighter jump cue on some of these touchy shots]
Aside from this angle depending on the stick weight, the real pesky blackhead pimple here is that the tip-ball contact time is not infinitely short. It lasts about a millisecond which means the tip is on the ball for a millimeter or two depending on the shot speed. When there is a very small gap between the balls (say half a dime's thickness), then the tip is still in contact with the cueball when the cueball hits the object ball NO MATTER HOW THIN the shot is struck.
So even on that nice delicate elegant safety where you thin a very close ball moving it a few millimeters while the cueball travels to the back of another ball on the other end of the table, the perfectly legal and applauded shot has an element of that "push" character that Billy and others find distasteful.
Bob Jewett said:
Anything but that! 
Yeah, the snooker rule, I think, would bother me more than almost any other way to rule it, with the exception of maybe the pre-1965 rule that you mentioned.
When you say 45 degree rule, I assume you mean 45 degrees with a level stroke, and not the elevated 45 degree rule from the DCC, right?
Is 45 degrees the limit that I was talking about in my previous post? Aside from the fact that you get the same effects at 45 degrees that you get at 0 degrees, only less detectable, what are the other problems with the 45 degree rule? (Sorry for asking so many questions.)
No, I'm slandering all 45-degree rules as well as those poor, lost souls that promote them. They are all pitifully broken. 45 degrees has nothing to do with anything real. When people go for 45, they often don't reach it. You may as well ask people to stand on one foot, and shoot one-handed behind their backs on the shot. It would make more sense.Cuebacca said:
I think a couple of wannabe Tom Cruises I saw last night were playing with this rule.
pj
chgo
Here we are 16 years later and Marcel calls a foul on Sky when Sky executed a stroke with his cue well above 45 degrees. Matchroom WNT rules don't speak to this they say "standard rules and regulations". Under "Jay's" rules would you deem the shot a foul? Doesn't this come up often enough to have a specific "frozen or near frozen" rule and go over said rule in every player's meeting?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!
Yes, in virtually every case, it's a foul
i have not re read this thread but plan to
dennis "whitey" young is very much into rule writing and was integral in helping onepocket.org make their rules
regarding "close proximity" shots
here is what in the onepocket.org rules
..................................................
6.8 Close proximity shots — foul criteria: Close proximity shots often come up in One Pocket with no referee available. When stroking towards a ball in close proximity to the cue ball, a double hit foul is indicated when the cue ball is driven immediately forward through the contact point, or immediately forward through the carom tangent line, without first exhibiting the pause and accelerate action of legal follow or draw. This foul criteria applies whether stroking with an elevated cue or not. With advanced skill, it is possible to play close proximity shots without committing these common double hit fouls. Alternatively, players may agree that shooting away at a sufficiently thin angle reasonably avoids a
double hit. A ball declared frozen to the cue ball may be legally stroked through.
dennis "whitey" young is very much into rule writing and was integral in helping onepocket.org make their rules
regarding "close proximity" shots
here is what in the onepocket.org rules
..................................................
6.8 Close proximity shots — foul criteria: Close proximity shots often come up in One Pocket with no referee available. When stroking towards a ball in close proximity to the cue ball, a double hit foul is indicated when the cue ball is driven immediately forward through the contact point, or immediately forward through the carom tangent line, without first exhibiting the pause and accelerate action of legal follow or draw. This foul criteria applies whether stroking with an elevated cue or not. With advanced skill, it is possible to play close proximity shots without committing these common double hit fouls. Alternatively, players may agree that shooting away at a sufficiently thin angle reasonably avoids a
double hit. A ball declared frozen to the cue ball may be legally stroked through.
Jay's rules are more are less the rules used at Derby City. They are not the rules used in Matchroom events.
Matchroom uses the World Standardized Rules. You can find those on the WPA website.
The particular rule in this situation is that if the tip hits the cue ball twice or is still in contact with the cue ball when it hits the object ball, the shot is a foul.
I hope everyone agrees that if the balls aren't frozen but are so close they look on camera like they're frozen then Sky's shot violated the rule above.
I
I don't like rules for close hits that state you must elevate or angle the cue, because you can still make an illegal hit with an elevated cue and make a legal hit without one. TAP has a bad rule for them, they basically said you need to elevate, and if you do then it is OK. If you actually foul when elevating does not matter, you just need to look like you are not fouling and it is a legal hit in that league. The main issue with close hits is a lack of experience and knowledge, as well as some players that played for decades without knowing or caring about the push or double hit rules. Try explaining this rule to a 65 yr old that has been shoooting for 40 years at bars, they will argue with you till the world ends.
There was a 75 yr old in the 14.1 league I ran. Everyone knew when to call me over. The discussions didn't take forever but there were many of them.
Dumb nit picky rule that shouldn’t exist
oscargrouch
Active member
MR has clearly raised the bar on what professional pool looks like, but it's amateur hour that these types of rules issues are not defined after all this time and a ref and player have the same discussion as will take place at every APA division this week and for the nine billionth time since the first ivory pool ball was hit.
The players have access to the complete, printed rules.
I think Sky's problem is that he was playing by Derby City rules. If you jack up at Derby City, you are allowed to hit the cue ball two times. Under the WNT rules, you are only permitted to hit the cue ball once.
The fault is all with Sky.
I was involved in directing tournaments for over 40 years and this was always a problem. For most of that time we did not allow players to shoot directly through a frozen ball. Then the BCA in their esteemed wisdom decided this was now okay. This led to some pretty heated discussions at the player's meeting. My stance then and now is that it should not be allowed, but I'll leave that to the new generation of tournament directors, promoters and various organizations to decide. I fought that battle for years!