CB and OB Almost Frozen, Good Hit or Foul?

[soulcatcher]

But, all in all, I do not know exactly what angle would justify getting away from or causing a double-hit. You would have to do exactly as you did, use your own judgment. I usually look for someone aiming at a quarter ball overlap to feel comfortable making the call. If less than that, I use my judgment.

Whenever I judge a situation like this, I usually give them an explanation (as you tried to do) of what occurred so they know better next time.

In BCA, there is a ruling that if you are close to an object ball, you are jacked up drawing the shot, you get a good hit and the cue ball travels forward past half the distance of where the object ball was sitting, it is classified as a bad hit..

This is similar to what I use when judging a bad shot. In general, if CB travels forward from where the OB started, then there was a double hit. It would be nearly impossible to put forward spin on the ball and not double hit in this situation, and left/right does not affect the CB trajectory off the OB.

 

[av84fun]

The rule you quoted doesn't say that angles less than "barely grazed" are fouls. It only defines "barely grazed" as a "safe harbor" that definitely isn't a foul.

There is no rule that I know of that defines the angle below which a good hit can't be made. In fact, I think it would be practically impossible to write such a rule because the distance between the balls makes such a big difference.

pj
chgo

But that is not what you previously stated which was.

If it does act normally, then even if it was a double hit it doesn't really matter.
pj

First, if their is a double tap, then the shot cannot "act normally" by definition.

Second, re: your above statment, you didn't answer my question as you what rules you relited on for making it.

The rule you quoted doesn't say that angles less than "barely grazed" are fouls. It only defines "barely grazed" as a "safe harbor" that definitely isn't a foul.

I believe your are misinterpreting the rule which states....


"If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul."

So, contrary to your statement that double taps don't matter, the rule clearly provides that they do.

With respect to your "safe harbor" assumptions, you are equally incorrect IMHO.

The ONLY "angle" that triggers the safe harbor is one that would result in "barely grazing" the OB. Any thicker contact would extinguish the safe harbor by the clear language of the rule.

With respect to your comment re: the impossibility of writing a precise rule...you are correct...but that is why referrees are vested with decision-mnaking judgments. The spirit of the rule is clear...If the OB is anything more than barely grazed AND if the referee judges that there was a double tap, then a foul would be called.


If the cue ball is close to but not touching an object ball and the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue ball contacts that object ball, the shot is a foul. 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,

 

[OneArmed]

I had heard/been told that aiming the stick at least 45 degrees off, whether to the side or from above, would make it a fair hit. Wrong?

I have heard that the APA had a rule that you could even shoot into a close ball, as long as you were jacked up 45 degrees. I don't think that would apply in another game or rule set however.

 

[soulcatcher]

I have heard that the APA had a rule that you could even shoot into a close ball, as long as you were jacked up 45 degrees. I don't think that would apply in another game or rule set however.

The APA books actually do not have any close shot rules. The only thing even close to this is the following statement:
"A foul may be called only if the player fouls while actually stroking the cue ball, meaning a double hit of the cue ball (sometimes called double clutching)."
However, this is in a section on ball in hand fouls, and is about a double clutch shot rather than a close hit object ball.

 

[klockdoc]

There is no rule that I know of that defines the angle below which a good hit can't be made. In fact, I think it would be practically impossible to write such a rule because the distance between the balls makes such a big difference.

pj
chgo

Question: Normally, a referee is called to observe the shot when the distance is small between two balls. Knowing that a double-hit will occur when the cue ball is struck in a direction that allows the cue ball to bounce off of the object ball and return to the cue tip.

I would think that there is a constant angle that could be attributed to this situation. To where it would miss this bounce back effect. (Of course, people then have to decide if the angle used was in fact the angle that determines the foul.. ) Could be not touching to maybe some distance?

 

[Bob Jewett]

When the CB and OB are almost touching, I know that you have to aim 'away' from the object ball with a level cue to avoid a double hit. How much away from the OB do you have to aim? 1/2 ball? 1/4 ball? I am looking for an accurate or exact amount here. Thanks.

I wrote several articles about close-ball situations and close calls. Look through http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/BD_articles.html for likely titles.

You judged the shot correctly by looking at the line the cue ball took off the object ball. The player's claim that a half-ball hit would automatically be OK is false.

For very close shots when you are shooting a very thin hit, it's possible to estimate by physics whether the shot was actually a foul or not, but there's not much point in doing that. You need to know how soft the tip is, the exact fullness of the hit and the speed of the stick. Instead, just look for a departure angle not far from 90 degrees.

As pointed out in the articles, inside english can help on shots with a little more separation, and outside english usually -- but not always -- gets a double hit.

If the cue ball and object ball are separated by 1/4 inch, you can shoot directly towards the object ball with a center-ball hit on the cue ball and stop the cue ball dead. Most players -- and even some top players -- don't know the techniques that get out of the double hit.

At the DCC, the 45-degree rule was in effect. This was posted but is not in the on-line rules. I don't remember exactly how it was phrased, but at one point the cue ball was frozen to the object ball (for Shane?) and the ref was called over and he said the shot must be played with a 45-degree (or so) elevation. I believe this also applied to close-ball shots, but I'm not sure. The DCC does not use the WSR.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Knowing that a double-hit will occur when the cue ball is struck in a direction that allows the cue ball to bounce off of the object ball and return to the cue tip.

I would think that there is a constant angle that could be attributed to this situation. To where it would miss this bounce back effect. (Of course, people then have to decide if the angle used was in fact the angle that determines the foul.. ) Could be not touching to maybe some distance?

The cue ball doesn't exactly bounce back. If you hit the ball full, the cue ball stops dead. There is no bounce-back. For cut shots, the cue ball continues on its standard right-angle path which may put it in harms way from the following-through tip.

I think the angle the cue ball comes out of a double hit depends on the side spin used, but it will likely be close to the angle for a frozen ball shot using the "two times fuller" system. See Byrne's first book or the articles mentioned above for an explanation of that system. Ray Martin also explains it in 99 Critical Shots, but his double-angle system only works for small angles.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The ONLY "angle" that triggers the safe harbor is one that would result in "barely grazing" the OB. Any thicker contact would extinguish the safe harbor by the clear language of the rule.

You're misinterpreting what "safe harbor" means. A safe harbor rule is one that specifies the circumstances under which you're definitely "safe" but leaves open the question of whether or not you're safe outside those circumstances. It's a specific phrase with a specific meaning.

The phrase "safe harbor" is not in the rule, but it's the only reasonable interpretation of the rule. Saying the shot "is assumed not to violate the ... rule" under very specific circumstances is not the same as saying it is assumed to violate the rule under any other circumstances. This is just basic logic and common sense.

pj
chgo

 

[soulcatcher]

Question: Normally, a referee is called to observe the shot when the distance is small between two balls. Knowing that a double-hit will occur when the cue ball is struck in a direction that allows the cue ball to bounce off of the object ball and return to the cue tip.

I would think that there is a constant angle that could be attributed to this situation. To where it would miss this bounce back effect. (Of course, people then have to decide if the angle used was in fact the angle that determines the foul.. ) Could be not touching to maybe some distance?

I do not think you can make a standard rule. It completely depends on how close the two balls are, and where the player is striking the cue ball (top/bottom/left/right)

If CB is only a milimeter from the OB, you would need a 75+ degree angle, but if there was a 1/4" gap, you might be able to get away with a 60 or even a 45 degree hit depending on where you hit the CB. Inside english would have a better chance of avoiding a double hit than outside english at the same angle.

 

[av84fun]

You're misinterpreting what "safe harbor" means. A safe harbor rule is one that specifies the circumstances under which you're definitely "safe" but leaves open the question of whether or not you're safe outside those circumstances. It's a specific phrase with a specific meaning.

The phrase "safe harbor" is not in the rule, but it's the only reasonable interpretation of the rule. Saying the shot "is assumed not to violate the ... rule" under very specific circumstances is not the same as saying it is assumed to violate the rule under any other circumstances. This is just basic logic and common sense.

pj
chgo

No, I understand exactly what "safe harbor" means. But you said that

"There is no rule that I know of that defines the angle below which a good hit can't be made."

No, not an EXACT angle. The rule was clear in its "barely graze" language which leaves slight discretion to the referee.

But in your response to the OP you stated...

"If it does act normally, then even if it was a double hit it doesn't really matter."

That is not correct under the WSRs. If there is a double tap it is a foul UNLESS the departure angle is VERY NEARLY 90 degrees so as to cause the cb to barely graze the ob.

I was just pointing out that your above quoted statement was not correct under the WSR.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

av84fun:
in your response to the OP you stated...

"If it does act normally, then even if it was a double hit it doesn't really matter."

That is not correct under the WSRs.

From an earlier post:

av84fun:
What set of rules do you rely on for that statement?

Me:
Obviously (to most) it's not a statement about any specific rule; it's a statement about the purpose of rules and how concerned we should be with them in circumstances like these. If violating the rule doesn't make a difference, then it doesn't really matter if you can't detect it. And conversely if you can't detect it, then it probably doesn't make a difference.

Your pointless nitpicking is tiresome and boring. Think I'll ignore you some more.

pj
chgo

 

[AZE]

You don't have to aim away at all. There are ways to hit the ball and get it to roll forward without a bad hit.
What you should be doing is familiarizing yourself with knowing what a bad hit looks/sounds like so you can know it's bad, and adjust what you're doing until it isn't a bad hit.
There are a dozen legal 'tricks' to hitting the balls when they are very close to each other and getting the cue to do what you need it to do. They shouldn't be very hard to come across.

I was in a end-of-year (calcutta) tournament for this weekly 8-ball tournament, playing against a guy who is an active administrative member in one of the pool leagues - he left himself 1/2-a-chalks distance from the cue-ball to the 8-ball... jacked his cue up in the air and fired into the 8... the cue-ball went just as fast at the 8-ball towards the pocket - he said it was a good hit because he jacked up. Very wrong. And this guy runs a league, you'd think he would know... I guess this 'rule' is tricker to understand than I thought... I dunno, I picked up on it pretty quickly.

 

[av84fun]

Your pointless nitpicking is tiresome and boring. Think I'll ignore you some more.

pj
chgo

In your mind, it is nitpicking whenever you are pointed out to have been in error.

Fine. You hold on to that Patrick. You always react that way when your errors are pointed out to you. But that doens't change the fact that you were in error.

And it is just TOO FUNNY that when you jump in to point out the errors of others, you do so while flying the banner of rushing to protect newer players from false information.

LOL.

But yes...PLEASE...tell the truth this time and ACTUALLY ignore me. Nothing would please me more.
(-:

 

[av84fun]

You don't have to aim away at all. There are ways to hit the ball and get it to roll forward without a bad hit.

What you should be doing is familiarizing yourself with knowing what a bad hit looks/sounds like so you can know it's bad, and adjust what you're doing until it isn't a bad hit.

There are a dozen legal 'tricks' to hitting the balls when they are very close to each other and getting the cue to do what you need it to do. They shouldn't be very hard to come across.

Would you kindly mention just a few of them that would work when the cb/ob are, say, 1/16 inch apart?

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Bob Jewett]

... - he left himself 1/2-a-chalks distance from the cue-ball to the 8-ball... jacked his cue up in the air and fired into the 8... the cue-ball went just as fast at the 8-ball towards the pocket - he said it was a good hit because he jacked up. ...

By one rule set I saw recently, I think you are permitted to hit the cue ball more than once as long as you have jacked up. Some leagues have strange rules.

 

[av84fun]

By one rule set I saw recently, I think you are permitted to hit the cue ball more than once as long as you have jacked up. Some leagues have strange rules.

That was the case at Derby City as I think you pointed out. I was posted along with their other rules on a sign next to the tournament desk.

It stated that if the cue was jacked up 45 degrees, then any double tap would not be a foul.

I can only GUESS that such a rule was imposed to reduce the number of times the small ref staff would be called to witness shots.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Darth]

In BCA, there is a ruling that if you are close to an object ball, you are jacked up drawing the shot, you get a good hit and the cue ball travels forward past half the distance of where the object ball was sitting, it is classified as a bad hit..

This is as accurate as you can be with this senario.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... In BCA, there is a ruling that if you are close to an object ball, you are jacked up drawing the shot, you get a good hit and the cue ball travels forward past half the distance of where the object ball was sitting, it is classified as a bad hit..

In the old WSR, there was Rule 2.mumble that gave a guideline for judging the hit when the cue ball was within a chalk's width of the object ball. That was not a rule, but only a guideline for inexperienced referees. In fact, it is possible to get a good hit and follow the length of the table when the balls are only a half-inch apart.

It takes experience to play and judge such shots. The vast majority of players and a good number of referees are not up to the task. One proposal to solve this ignorance/inexperience issue is allow any single stroke no matter how many times it may hit the cue ball. I offered this proposal in a column in BD and got zero feedback. Those who favor the change seem to fail to see the problems with it.

The World 14.1 Championships of 1980 were in effect played with the single stroke rule. Richie Florence was really ticked when Irving Crane clearly double-hit the cue ball. I happened to be the referee in that match. I was also the head referee in a tournament that Florence had just played in that allowed only one hit on the cue ball. I can understand his confusion. It was similar to the confusion that Shane VB showed when the 45-degree rule was trotted out for his shot.

It would be really nice if the whole pool world played by a single set of rules.

 

[klockdoc]

In the old WSR, there was Rule 2.mumble that gave a guideline for judging the hit when the cue ball was within a chalk's width of the object ball. That was not a rule, but only a guideline for inexperienced referees. In fact, it is possible to get a good hit and follow the length of the table when the balls are only a half-inch apart.

It takes experience to play and judge such shots. The vast majority of players and a good number of referees are not up to the task. One proposal to solve this ignorance/inexperience issue is allow any single stroke no matter how many times it may hit the cue ball. I offered this proposal in a column in BD and got zero feedback. Those who favor the change seem to fail to see the problems with it.

The World 14.1 Championships of 1980 were in effect played with the single stroke rule. Richie Florence was really ticked when Irving Crane clearly double-hit the cue ball. I happened to be the referee in that match. I was also the head referee in a tournament that Florence had just played in that allowed only one hit on the cue ball. I can understand his confusion. It was similar to the confusion that Shane VB showed when the 45-degree rule was trotted out for his shot.

It would be really nice if the whole pool world played by a single set of rules.

I agree that one set of rules would make things easier and better for all.

I had an instance at the BCA tournament in Vegas one year. I jacked up on a shot with draw, I clearly made a good hit, but, the cue ball went forward before it came backward. The referee called a bad hit. I tried to explain the shot to the ref, but he just walked off. My opponent looked confused and agreed that it was a good hit. But, since the referee had already grabbed the cue ball and gave it to my opponent, there wasn't much that could be done about it.

I have seen this many times with inexperienced refs in both APA and BCA.