BCA needs to address definition of legal push shot

[satman]

I have to agree with Jay

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.

If 2 balls are frozen, and you shoot straight thru them, it takes much more of a push. My personal opinion, is any ball within a chalks distance, should have to be shot away from at least 45* angle, or jacked up at a 45* angle. The 2 balls nearly frozen, the cue ball cannot pass thru the area of the object balls original position.

 

[satman]

On frozen balls

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.

There are still a lot of nice little tricks you can do, perfectly legal even when you jack up 45*. And being allowed to shoot directly thru the ball, you can turn the obect ball like a a nice little masse'

 

[Cuebacca]

If 2 balls are frozen, and you shoot straight thru them, it takes much more of a push. My personal opinion, is any ball within a chalks distance, should have to be shot away from at least 45* angle, or jacked up at a 45* angle. The 2 balls nearly frozen, the cue ball cannot pass thru the area of the object balls original position.

I'm still a little confused as to how being jacked up to 45 degrees changes anything when shooting through a frozen ball. I mean, how does it really change anything in terms of what you consider to be a bad hit?

The feedback that the shooter gets in his hand does feel different, but what does it really change? Whatever the answer is, I think that shooting through a frozen ball at any angle (elevated or angled with a level cue) is going to produce the same effect, just to a lesser degree.

Just my humble opinion as an amateur, of course, with awareness that some professionals that I hold in very high regard will disagree.

 

[wincardona]

finally!!!

Thanks for your comments, Pat.



Good point.





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.

This illustration is a perfect example/reason why the frozen ball push shot should not be allowed. I have always played with the rules Jay described in reference to the frozen and almost frozen ball method of shooting. As long as you elevate executing back spin on the cue ball,resulting in the cue ball showing character,than in my opinion it's a legal shot,and it's also a shot representing dignity.

 

[longhair]

This illustration is a perfect example/reason why the frozen ball push shot should not be allowed. I have always played with the rules Jay described in reference to the frozen and almost frozen ball method of shooting. As long as you elevate executing back spin on the cue ball,resulting in the cue ball showing character,than in my opinion it's a legal shot,and it's also a shot representing dignity.

so, by your prefered rules, if I shoot into ten balls frozen in a line, but I jack up on the shot, it's a good hit?

I actually am asking for clarity, as I have no standing to disagree with the heavy persona that are in this discussion.

 

[mjantti]

Couldn't find the wording on the new set of (WPA) rules, but I'm fairly certain that if you have 2 balls frozen together and a cueball in a straight line (3 balls total), it's a foul to shoot through them. The frozen ball -rule applies only when there is only one ball frozen to the cueball.

Now, don't kill the messenger, I'm not certain on this. I remember that there might have been a sentence saying this in the old set of WPA rules but can't say I'm positive. I also remember asking this personally from the WPA official Thomas Overback and he said it's a foul.

Greets,
Mikko, official EPBF referee

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Billy:
As long as you elevate executing back spin on the cue ball,resulting in the cue ball showing character,than in my opinion it's a legal shot,and it's also a shot representing dignity.

??

I thought an undignified shot was one where you took your pants off first. Well, not you necessarily...

pj
chgo

 

[wincardona]

I agree

Couldn't find the wording on the new set of (WPA) rules, but I'm fairly certain that if you have 2 balls frozen together and a cueball in a straight line (3 balls total), it's a foul to shoot through them. The frozen ball -rule applies only when there is only one ball frozen to the cueball.

Now, don't kill the messenger, I'm not certain on this. I remember that there might have been a sentence saying this in the old set of WPA rules but can't say I'm positive. I also remember asking this personally from the WPA official Thomas Overback and he said it's a foul.

Greets,
Mikko, official EPBF referee

First I would like to say that I dont like or agree that it is ok to shoot a frozen ball shot with any type of stroke,which includes pushing the shot.That to me is in poor taste and undegnified. Secondly if the shot is allowed it would be even uglier to be able to shoot the shot with multiple balls that were frozen. So your interpretation of the rule on that makes complete sense,and if it's not the rule it should be.Just an old timers opinion. Right ironman?

 

[wincardona]

you're right

??

I thought an undignified shot was one where you took your pants off first. Well, not you necessarily...

pj
chgo

Your right Patrick,in terms of poor taste it ranks slightly behind the frozen ball push shot.

 

[mikepage]

First I would like to say that I dont like or agree that it is ok to shoot a frozen ball shot with any type of stroke,which includes pushing the shot.That to me is in poor taste and undegnified. Secondly if the shot is allowed it would be even uglier to be able to shoot the shot with multiple balls that were frozen. So your interpretation of the rule on that makes complete sense,and if it's not the rule it should be.Just an old timers opinion. Right ironman?

I don't care much one way or the other what the rule is here other than I'd like it to be clear, widely understood, and widely accepted.

I think your view that these shots shouldn't be allowed is fine. But the strength of your negative reaction to the shot being allowed is interesting.

It reminds me of a conversation I had a couple years ago with a good (occasional five pack) local 8-ball player. Our league had just changed to BCA rules for which a scratch on the 8-ball is not a loss.

This guy went on for an hour about how it was JUST WRONG! He would shake his head and say "I'm sorry; it's wrong. It's just wrong." You would think he was talking about human rights abuses or intimate relations with animals.

I sense with you an element of "it's wrong because it's not the way we used to do it."

There's a logical basis for the current rules. That is, the foul is a double hit. The frozen ball situation is not a double hit, so it's not a foul.

There can also be a logical basis that disallows the shot if you say the stick during the shot should not "feel" the object ball. This would disallow the frozen ball shot. But importantly it would also disallow such shots even at shallow angles. That is, for CLOSE balls shooting at a thin angle gets rid of the double hit. But for FROZEN balls, shooting at a shallow angle doesn't get ride of the tip and object ball feeling one another.

So if you don't like the straight-through-the-frozen-ball shot, the logical alternative is to allow shooting away from a frozen ball, like in snooker.

You're probably not a fan of my close/frozen balls video, in which I do a few poor taste, undignified shots ;-)

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

 

[wincardona]

just curious

I don't care much one way or the other what the rule is here other than I'd like it to be clear, widely understood, and widely accepted.

I think your view that these shots shouldn't be allowed is fine. But the strength of your negative reaction to the shot being allowed is interesting.

It reminds me of a conversation I had a couple years ago with a good (occasional five pack) local 8-ball player. Our league had just changed to BCA rules for which a scratch on the 8-ball is not a loss.

This guy went on for an hour about how it was JUST WRONG! He would shake his head and say "I'm sorry; it's wrong. It's just wrong." You would think he was talking about human rights abuses or intimate relations with animals.

I sense with you an element of "it's wrong because it's not the way we used to do it."

There's a logical basis for the current rules. That is, the foul is a double hit. The frozen ball situation is not a double hit, so it's not a foul.

There can also be a logical basis that disallows the shot if you say the stick during the shot should not "feel" the object ball. This would disallow the frozen ball shot. But importantly it would also disallow such shots even at shallow angles. That is, for CLOSE balls shooting at a thin angle gets rid of the double hit. But for FROZEN balls, shooting at a shallow angle doesn't get ride of the tip and object ball feeling one another.

So if you don't like the straight-through-the-frozen-ball shot, the logical alternative is to allow shooting away from a frozen ball, like in snooker.

You're probably not a fan of my close/frozen balls video, in which I do a few poor taste, undignified shots ;-)

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

Mike,I dont condone the push shot in pool or billiards for several reasons,one being that I have been charged with fouls on that particular shot too often ,not to recognize that it is an illegal shot. Secondly in my opinion there is no grace, finesse,adroitness,or skill in pushing through a frozen ball, so I find it hard to swallow that it is accepted.I do understand that it is now a revised rule and players are recognizing it as such. In spite of that I still view the shot as clumsy,ignorant,and unskillfull. By the way,what is the rule on the frozen ball shot in three cushion? I really dont know,just curious.

 

[mbvl]

By the way,what is the rule on the frozen ball shot in three cushion? I really dont know,just curious.

In three-cushion (or any other carom game) it is never permitted to shoot toward a ball frozen to the cue ball. The shooter has the option of having the frozen balls respotted, or shooting away from the frozen ball. Also it is not permitted to shoot toward a cushion when the cue ball is frozen to that cushion. Not only does the cushion not count, it is a foul to shoot toward it.

Mark

 

[watchez]

I don't care much one way or the other what the rule is here other than I'd like it to be clear, widely understood, and widely accepted.

I think your view that these shots shouldn't be allowed is fine. But the strength of your negative reaction to the shot being allowed is interesting.

I sense with you an element of "it's wrong because it's not the way we used to do it."

There's a logical basis for the current rules. That is, the foul is a double hit. The frozen ball situation is not a double hit, so it's not a foul.

There can also be a logical basis that disallows the shot if you say the stick during the shot should not "feel" the object ball. This would disallow the frozen ball shot. But importantly it would also disallow such shots even at shallow angles. That is, for CLOSE balls shooting at a thin angle gets rid of the double hit. But for FROZEN balls, shooting at a shallow angle doesn't get ride of the tip and object ball feeling one another.

So if you don't like the straight-through-the-frozen-ball shot, the logical alternative is to allow shooting away from a frozen ball, like in snooker.

I think the real reason the BCA went to this rule is simply because it is easier for their referees @ national tournaments & easier also on a local level. Some BCA national referees simply don't have enough knowledge & this is something that the BCA has come to recognize. Just as Billy states that the frozen push shot is unskilled, the BCA has taken away the skill in having to call this shot good or bad.

I have seen Billy first hand live give an explanation to what is or is not a push shot on a frozen ball, and it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Couldn't find the wording on the new set of (WPA) rules, but I'm fairly certain that if you have 2 balls frozen together and a cueball in a straight line (3 balls total), it's a foul to shoot through them. The frozen ball -rule applies only when there is only one ball frozen to the cueball.

Now, don't kill the messenger, I'm not certain on this. I remember that there might have been a sentence saying this in the old set of WPA rules but can't say I'm positive. I also remember asking this personally from the WPA official Thomas Overback and he said it's a foul.

Greets,
Mikko, official EPBF referee

I'm pretty sure the new WPA rules are silent on the existence of another object ball frozen to the first one. If I recall correctly the rule says something like "when the CB is in contact with an OB" it's legal to shoot through them. Since the CB would be "in contact with an OB" no matter how many other OBs are also in contact with it, I think we must assume that's legal too. If it was illegal, it would have to be specified.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Billy:
...in my opinion there is no grace, finesse,adroitness,or skill in pushing through a frozen ball, so I find it hard to swallow that it is accepted.

No shot requires skill if you just hit it - the skill comes in when you need to make the OB and CB do what you want. That's the same for this shot as for any other.

I understand that it "seems like" a push shot, but we know it really isn't and the shooter can't do anything "sneaky" with it like he could with a push shot.

Maybe you just love the game the way it's always been, Billy, and don't like these newfangled rules changing it...? I know I feel that way about the new "entertainment centers" vs. the old pool halls.

pj
chgo

 

[wincardona]

strange

I'm pretty sure the new WPA rules are silent on the existence of another object ball frozen to the first one. If I recall correctly the rule says something like "when the CB is in contact with an OB" it's legal to shoot through them. Since the CB would be "in contact with an OB" no matter how many other OBs are also in contact with it, I think we must assume that's legal too. If it was illegal, it would have to be specified.

pj
chgo

You could be right with your assumption but I think there's something not right about moving more than one OB when your tip is still in contact with the cue ball.

 

[eastcoast_chris]

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

This made me think of an easy to understand analogy...

- Consider hitting a light snooker cue ball...
- Now, consider hitting the heaviest coin-op cue ball...

The coin-op ball has a 30% larger volume and its weight is probably 50% more than a snooker cue ball.... but hitting them in creates the same outcome... the ball goes forward with no foul and ...

When two objects are touching, they react completely as if they are one object (when hit in a straight line).

The problem with the rule is it doesn't say you have to hit directly through them.... because if you are hitting at any angle, the single body theory falls apart and there is definitely something going on in the shot that doesn't happen in a normal stoke of a cue ball.

If two frozen balls are hit at any angle, then odd things happen.... they don't immedialtly seperate. They slide together for a while based on the power of the stroke and then seperate.... at which point the tip may or may not still be in contact with the cue ball.... which in turn causes the cueball to possibly not react "normally".

So, what I'm trying to say, is there are too many variables for the shot to considered legal all the time.

Anyways, FWIW that's how I see it.

Chris

 

[Cuebacca]

More confusion to add...

I am still undecided on what is the most fair way, logical way, best way to make the rule. From what I can manage to gather from a scientific perspective, based on what happens between the tip and cue ball on a single frozen object ball hit, I think the frozen shot should be OK. However, from what I can manage to gather from intuition, frozen shot should be "no way".

Here is a hand-wavy argument against the frozen shot, from a mathematical approach, but feel free to shoot it down or correct it...

Take a given stroke speed, say a medium hard shot. Also, assume a center cue ball shot; no spin applied by the tip. Let the stroke speed be fixed for this discussion. Now put the cue ball close to the object ball, at a distance, "D". For the fixed variables (stroke speed, no english, etc.), there should be some minimum angle, THETA, required to avoid a double hit.

Now, put the cue ball a little closer to the object ball, for a smaller value of D. THETA will now be a larger angle. So what happens as D goes to zero (but does not equal zero)? Shouldn't there be some angle THETA that could be derived for the limit as D->0?

Now finally when D=0, all goes out the window and we have a discontinuity because you won't get a double hit at any angle. This is definitely an anomaly. Could a theoretical value of THETA (as D->0) be derived and used as the minimum angle required on a frozen shot, so as to remove this pesky discontinuity from the game?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If two frozen balls are hit at any angle, then odd things happen.... they don't immedialtly seperate. They slide together for a while based on the power of the stroke and then seperate...

I don't believe this is true. What makes you think so?

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

I am still undecided on what is the most fair way, logical way, best way to make the rule. ..

Perhaps we should return to the rule that was in force before 1965. You are permitted one stroke regardless of how many times you hit the cue ball or how close the object ball is. Really, that's the way the official written rule was. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the frozen ball shot forbidden, but if that's done, you have to figure out what to do instead. I think the 45-degree rule is even worse for several reasons. If the rule from snooker is used, there is not much problem in eight ball and nine ball, since frozen ball situations are fairly rare in those games. Note that in nine ball, if you were frozen to the one, the snooker rule would allow you to shoot directly towards the nine, layout permitting.

The snooker rule would be a larger problem at 14.1 and one pocket. Often you play a safety that freezes the cue ball and allowing the player to shoot away and get credit for a good hit is a problem.