BCA needs to address definition of legal push shot

jay helfert said:
[...] 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.
Click to expand...

I think the contact time is close to the same as for a normal shot.

The primary feeling of increased resistance is not really what we feel during the contact but rather what we feel from what the stick is doing after the contact.

In a normal shot the stick is slowed down to about half it's original speed, while our hand is trying to forge ahead at the original speed. That's what causes the feeling of resistance.

With two balls, the stick is slowed closer to a dead stop, and our hand feels this difference.

I personally don't think it matters all that much to the game whether this shot is allowed. It's just not that big a deal. But having confusion about the shot and about whether it is allowed is a problem.
 
... 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.
Click to expand...

That's true for any shot. What can you do by shooting through a frozen combo that you think shouldn't be allowed?

I'd like to show you a few shots that can be made by shooting straight through the ball. It will blow your mind!
Click to expand...

I know a couple too, such as Bob Jewett's "2 times fuller" shot (or whatever it's called). That's a shot that can only be made by shooting through a frozen combo, but I don't think it needs to be banned.

Any decent player is aware of these shots, and knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Do I have to become a decent player to get "need to know" clearance?

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Mike:
I personally don't think it matters all that much to the game whether this shot is allowed. It's just not that big a deal. But having confusion about the shot and about whether it is allowed is a problem.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
fan-tum said:
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?
Click to expand...

This rule is , in the modern day, a joke. If you hit it twice, or push it, it's a foul.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
That's true for any shot. What can you do by shooting through a frozen combo that you think shouldn't be allowed?



I know a couple too, such as Bob Jewett's "2 times fuller" shot (or whatever it's called). That's a shot that can only be made by shooting through a frozen combo, but I don't think it needs to be banned.



Do I have to become a decent player to get "need to know" clearance?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Ask me again when I see you. I don't even know how to use the Wei Table to diagram a shot on here. Sorry Patrick.
 
ironman said:
This rule is , in the modern day, a joke. If you hit it twice, or push it, it's a foul.
Click to expand...

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!
 
pondering...

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.
 
Regarding My Own Practice

I am a recreational player and have a fair to poor understanding of the rules when it comes to these matters.

For some reason [it could be after reading Byrne's book in the late '70s] I always approached close ball or frozen ball situations by trying to glance my cue tip off the ball so as to minimize prolonged contact. If I wanted to shoot straight I glance the tip off the top, and if my aim is to throw a frozen object ball, I glance it off the side. As much as possible I try not to push through.

Would my approach be in violation of the rules? I imagine each shot would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis and that even then there wouldn't be a consensus.:o
 
Bob,
isn't there high speed video that speaks to this question? I thought that the tip stayed with the cueball after the frozen OB was gone until I saw the footage.

My apologies for being so lazy about this that I didn't search for an earlier thread, but just asked, hoping that someone else remembers it.
 
longhair said:
Bob,
isn't there high speed video that speaks to this question? I thought that the tip stayed with the cueball after the frozen OB was gone until I saw the footage.

My apologies for being so lazy about this that I didn't search for an earlier thread, but just asked, hoping that someone else remembers it.
Click to expand...
I've seen high speed video that clearly shows there is no push or double hit foul and no prolonged tip/CB contact when shooting through a frozen combo. But I don't remember if it was video from the Jacksonville Project or not.

pj
chgo
 
longhair said:
Bob,
isn't there high speed video that speaks to this question? I thought that the tip stayed with the cueball after the frozen OB was gone until I saw the footage.

My apologies for being so lazy about this that I didn't search for an earlier thread, but just asked, hoping that someone else remembers it.
Click to expand...
It's on the Jacksonville Tape, somewhere. The Jacksonville Tape is now up on the AZBTV www.azbtv.com under the "technical" section. I'm not sure at what time the frozen ball shots occur. I'll briefly summarize the conclusions from the tape and simple analysis:

When shooting towards a frozen ball, there is only one tip-to-ball contact.

The balls leave together and leave the tip behind.

The stick slows at contact more than for a normal shot, but does not stop dead.

(The contact time is slightly longer, but I think there was no Jacksonville sequence that shows this directly. See mikepage's note for an explanation.)

(A consequence of the equal "forward" speeds of the two balls is the "two times fuller" system for shooting towards frozen balls.)
 
Tom In Cincy said:
Am I wrong in thinking that the BCA didn't organize until 1947?
Click to expand...
Well, yes, but the BAA rule book, published in 1945, is more or less identical to the first BCA rule book published in 1948. They are hard to tell apart unless you look closely at the cover, and are impossible to tell apart if you just see one page.

I'll go out on a limb and say that the official pool rules in the US have permitted shooting directly at a frozen ball for more than 100 years. See for example rule 19 on page 31 (count 33 in the PDF document) in http://www.sfbilliards.com/rules_1914tpr.pdf which is part of the rules from 1914 of "Fifteen-Ball Continuous Pocket Billiards" which we would call straight pool or 14.1. From that rule:

When the cue-ball is in contact with another ball, the
player may play directly at the ball with which it is in contact or
directly from it, and the latter play shall not be recorded as a miss,
provided a cushion is struck, as specified in Rule 4.​

Note that at that time it was OK to shoot away and you got credit for hitting the ball, as at snooker.
 
Poolhalljunkie:
Here is a video that shows the foul.

http://www.billiards.colostate.edu/h...ew/HSVA-12.htm

Jay:
And most refs won't call it, or even see it.
Click to expand...

As you probably know, Jay, the way you can tell there was a foul in this situation is that the CB doesn't move naturally - instead of stopping after hitting the OB and then doing whatever the spin dictates, it follows immediately after the OB because it was hit the second time.

The same thing happens with a frozen combo shot, but for different reasons (there's no double hit) - this apparent similarity is one of the big reasons experienced players think there's a foul with a frozen combo shot.

pj
chgo
 
Bob Jewett said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.........:confused: :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top