You have to replace the rule with something else. What do you propose? Otherwise, what prevents a player from purposely doubling-hitting the CB when it's 2 inches away from the OB?
BCA needs to address definition of legal push shot
- Thread starter fan-tum
- Start date
Your imagination is very limited if you don't think purposely doubling-hitting or even triple-hitting the CB can't be used to your advantage.
The carom authorities seem to be really big on banning push shots. Are they idiots? At carom you can't even shoot into a rail you're frozen to.
In pool, escapes can be simplified - nullifying those kinds of traps.
the 45 degree rule was a way to stop any argument, as it gave a clear way to shoot a shot that was subjective on whether it was a good hit or not.
whether it sometimes or not was a good hit doesn't matter as it works for both sides who shoot. and that makes it fair and usable in a game.
if you cant tell if you are going to break a rule how can you shoot a shot that is close.
whether it sometimes or not was a good hit doesn't matter as it works for both sides who shoot. and that makes it fair and usable in a game.
if you cant tell if you are going to break a rule how can you shoot a shot that is close.
Like Texas Express. I don't recall if they required balls being frozen.
oscargrouch
Active member
But at this point shouldn't it be defined? i.e. the cue ball can't travel forward at less than x angle from OB direction for distance y between CB and OB?
I'm not arguing that the shot was legal, but the ref's claim that the CB traveled forward is not entirely accurate, as it went in a direction that was a decent amount of an angle from the OB direction. At some angle the CB going "forward" no longer matters, right?
The refs are looking for how much, if any, the cue ball immediately goes ahead of the tangent line. It requires some experience. The timing of the shot has to be considered. With only a half inch separation you can follow forward on a full hit with a level cue a table length and no foul. A simple rule might make that shot a foul.
An alternative allows any single stroke regardless of how many times the cue ball is struck. That's the DCC rule with the addition of elevation. That has its own set of problems.
You mean on a legal follow shot or the old straight pool one continuous stroke no foul rule?
Legal by the strict rules.
also the grip hand against the rail hit can be used for that one. actually saw one in a WNT satellite event some month ago, i think it was oscar dominguez.
Yup. There are several techniques to do it.
You can whip me and beat me till my skin falls off...but I prefer the 45 degree rule.
There are not enough perfect ref's out there...and then there is the rule 'if you can not determine if it was good or not the advantage goes to the shooter'. So it is still subjective.
There are not enough perfect ref's out there...and then there is the rule 'if you can not determine if it was good or not the advantage goes to the shooter'. So it is still subjective.
sounds like it would be a subjective call and not consistent with all refs. or between players among themselves in a game.
that makes a rule worthless. even though it may be accurate.
if you want true accuracy of the rules then you lose fairness. so pick accuracy or fairness. choose wisely.
that makes a rule worthless. even though it may be accurate.
if you want true accuracy of the rules then you lose fairness. so pick accuracy or fairness. choose wisely.