Difficult to agree on
- Thread starter 1ab
- Start date
Foul, spot one. If you do it again, your head gets stuffed into the side pocket.
Here’s CSI / BCA Pool League...
...and my opinion is that they have the best, most comprehensive rule set.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
...and my opinion is that they have the best, most comprehensive rule set.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I’m wondering if walking to the other side would help you with a legal stroke in one of those very touchy situations, happening in the middle of the head rail. You lay the cue on the table and walk around and now pull it towards you and the cue ball while you’re right on top of, and in front of the action. Nothing obstructing your view and your not stretching out or using a bridge.
You’ve got forward motion with the cue. Are there any rules pertaining to your body in relation to the cue or the cue being on the cloth?
Can't lay stick on table without maintaining grip...?
I understand in some APA areas the LO has forbidden this, however I believe it's still legal
in the APA on the National Level
in the APA on the National Level
Angh??
Lol maybe I’m not describing it correctly.
I’m in a bad spot playing 1P, the guy can make a ball from anywhere somehow except for right behind this ball on the head rail at the middle diamond, the CB is also real close to this OB. Instead of standing at the foot rail and reaching way down with a bridge or leaning in from one side or t’other, I put my tip near the CB/OB, the butt is around the center spot of the table just laying there.
Can I just stand behind the head rail and grab the shaft right below the tip (heheeee) and pull it towards me to hit the CB?
As long as you do pull it toward you such that the cue is moving forward (from the cue's perspective in this case), I think this would be legal. It doesn't seem to me like it would actually help achieve the desired result in any way though.
You don't say which rule set you are playing by. What is true to some people is totally wrong to others.
The BCA made an explicit ruling barring this play a long time ago. The BCAPL/CSI rules quoted above makes it perfectly clear that the play is a foul. The WPA rules do not give this example but do require a shot to be executed with a forward (along the axis of the cue stick) motion. Also, the play is a miscue, so it would fall under the WPA rule that forbids intentional miscues.
I wrote about this play -- I won't call it a shot -- in 1997 in Billiards Digest. You can find that article here: http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1997.pdf
I believe that the BCA ruling came within a year of that banning the play.
I think there are still some people teaching the play. I believe Kinnister was teaching the play for a while.
This stroke came up on the Redneck Riviera late 90s at a Mizerak tournament....
..the player asked before he played...Scott Smith said it wasn’t allowed.
I’m curious, Bob....is it okay to give a ruling before the man plays the shot?
Yeah it seems like leaning over and shooting left handed would still be more controllable than that. But you never know. If the cue ball is nearly frozen to the ball you’re hitting it might be better than the off handed lean to prevent a double hit...I’ll try some things
I think so. The practical problem is that the rules keep changing. TDs feel the need to "mark" their territory. If the player can't ask what the rules are they are playing blind in that environment.
In the best of all possible worlds, there would be one set of rules.
If the criteria for legality is the lack of stroke, would it be legal to graze the cue ball from the side with a piston stroke instead of from underneath?
If you are lining up with most of the shaft outside the cue ball, that is an intentional miscue. Intentional miscues are not allowed. They're not just fouls, players are not allowed to play them under the penalties of unsportsmanlike conduct.
In snooker intentional miscues are allowed. Some players when faced with getting a very soft hit on a near ball out in the middle of the table will miscue. At snooker you are not required to get to a cushion.
Then the vertical swipe is an intentional miscue. Should not need clarification. Miscues, intentional or not though, should be fouls if the ferrule or shaft contacts the cue ball.
I think you have found a loophole!
Jeff,
Unless they slapped you with a general rule not intended to cover something like this, I think you have found a loophole. A cue ball could be hit like this with a tiny movement of your fingers and I don't think I have ever seen a rule prohibiting this. You can maintain a hand on the cue at all times if that is a possible issue. Of course when they can't find a little rule to hit you with they could hit you with a big one, unsportsmanlike behavior.
It would be fun to see the reactions and how it was ruled if someone did this in a big match.
Hu
Jeff,
Unless they slapped you with a general rule not intended to cover something like this, I think you have found a loophole. A cue ball could be hit like this with a tiny movement of your fingers and I don't think I have ever seen a rule prohibiting this. You can maintain a hand on the cue at all times if that is a possible issue. Of course when they can't find a little rule to hit you with they could hit you with a big one, unsportsmanlike behavior.
It would be fun to see the reactions and how it was ruled if someone did this in a big match.
Hu
Things like this I'm still confused how players that are not beginners don't know what the rule is. Along with what a push shot is or a double-hit foul at close distances. Or if the ball is on the "line" with the base or edge. Those are all clear rules if you don't count league modifications or "I have seem Billy Joe Bob do this in a tournament in 75 and the ref let him". I think TAP has a rule about some fouls where basically they throw up their hands and made a rule that pretty much comes down to "if you look like you are trying not to foul, it's not a foul" LOL There was a shot Eckert posted a year ago that was a clear push shot and half the people in the comments were saying it was legal, someone just posted this week that it was legal to a reply of mine a year ago. Just silly.
Last edited: