Is this a legal shot in pool

[DaveK]

The shot is illegal. Laying the cue on the table, releasing it, and regripping it up by the shaft is an infraction of the rule stating that you must have a hand on the cue at all times when shooting.

The rule 3.42 is quoted in an earlier post in this thread. It doesn't say "you must have a hand on the cue at all times when shooting". It says (I paraphrase) "you can't let go if you are using the cue to measure or line-up a shot".

If there is another rule please post it Scott (or anyone for that matter). I used www.bca-pool.com as my source.

Further to the 'legal stroke' discussion, here is the BCA / World Standardized rule :

3.3 STRIKING CUE BALL
Legal shots require that the cue ball be struck only with the cue tip. Failure to meet this requirement is a foul.

No mention of any directional requirements, just hit it with the tip.

I tried to look at the APA rules, but no time to download an 88M pdf (I wonder wtf they put in that to make it so MASSIVE).

The VNEA doesn't have their rule booklet on-line (that I could find anyway).

What other 'official' written rules are there ?

Dave

 

[shinyballs]

Several years ago at the BCA 9-Ball Pro tournament in Vegas, I saw one of the oriental ladies try this shot in a match. She did not remove her hand from the cue to set it up. The ref (Tipton?) called it a foul.

 

[PlynSets]

I've used this shot for years, and nobody has ever called a foul.. I don't play leagues though.. I've used it in several tourny's when I felt it was the best option, and if anything have been rewarded by opponent and TD for having a peace of knowledge neither of them had been privy to in the past.

I have another question about "legallity" though that comes up occasionally. Picture a shot that requries a bridge, and a ball right in front of the cueball that would normally be a jack-up shot. Sometimes it's difficult to get the angle of attack you need (rare occasion) and so I've put one bridge on the table, then grabbed another bridge and put it on top of that one to "stack" the two to get the proper "bridge height" i'd use if I was just using my hands.. I had someone argue with me all day long about that one, but the TD ended up seeing it my way. Legal or not? 2 bridges

DJ

 

[TSW]

I have another question about "legallity" though that comes up occasionally. Picture a shot that requries a bridge, and a ball right in front of the cueball that would normally be a jack-up shot. Sometimes it's difficult to get the angle of attack you need (rare occasion) and so I've put one bridge on the table, then grabbed another bridge and put it on top of that one to "stack" the two to get the proper "bridge height" i'd use if I was just using my hands.. I had someone argue with me all day long about that one, but the TD ended up seeing it my way. Legal or not? 2 bridges

Yes, two bridges is legal. Any more than that is illegal.

BCA/World Standardized Rule 1.3:

1.3 USE OF EQUIPMENT
[N]o more than two mechanical bridges may be used at one time

 

[rhncue]

I've used this shot for years, and nobody has ever called a foul.. I don't play leagues though.. I've used it in several tourny's when I felt it was the best option, and if anything have been rewarded by opponent and TD for having a peace of knowledge neither of them had been privy to in the past.

I have another question about "legallity" though that comes up occasionally. Picture a shot that requries a bridge, and a ball right in front of the cueball that would normally be a jack-up shot. Sometimes it's difficult to get the angle of attack you need (rare occasion) and so I've put one bridge on the table, then grabbed another bridge and put it on top of that one to "stack" the two to get the proper "bridge height" i'd use if I was just using my hands.. I had someone argue with me all day long about that one, but the TD ended up seeing it my way. Legal or not? 2 bridges

DJ

In the BCA rule book rule # 1.3 it states up to two bridges but not more than two bridges may be used at one time.

Dick

 

[Snapshot9]

I believe

the push shot rules come into play on the shot also. The cue ball has to be struck with a hit, and can not be pushed. Considering the height of a tip vs. the curvature of the cue ball, it would be almost impossible to get a 'hit' with an upward motion. This shot is, in fact, a push shot with a scooping motion, only the cue ball does not usually rise above the cloth, but can, depending on how it is executed.

I do believe this shot was addressed after the original rules came out and put onto the internet, and that the actual additional rule addressing it is not on the internet.

You also have the problem of the tip coming into contact with the cue ball before the actual shot is executed, which is a foul.

RandyG - Where are you?

 

[ShaneT58]

I've used this shot for years, and nobody has ever called a foul.. I don't play leagues though.. I've used it in several tourny's when I felt it was the best option, and if anything have been rewarded by opponent and TD for having a peace of knowledge neither of them had been privy to in the past.

I have another question about "legallity" though that comes up occasionally. Picture a shot that requries a bridge, and a ball right in front of the cueball that would normally be a jack-up shot. Sometimes it's difficult to get the angle of attack you need (rare occasion) and so I've put one bridge on the table, then grabbed another bridge and put it on top of that one to "stack" the two to get the proper "bridge height" i'd use if I was just using my hands.. I had someone argue with me all day long about that one, but the TD ended up seeing it my way. Legal or not? 2 bridges

DJ

A snooker player showed me how to hold the bridge head up off the table and keep it steady to shoot this type of shot without using a second bridge. It is very simple to do but hard to describe over the internet. You could probably get it higher than you could using two bridges. The first time I saw this shot we only had a simple bridge shaped like an X. I was pretty impressed with the simple but not so obvious technique.

 

[DaveK]

the push shot rules come into play on the shot also. The cue ball has to be struck with a hit, and can not be pushed. Considering the height of a tip vs. the curvature of the cue ball, it would be almost impossible to get a 'hit' with an upward motion. This shot is, in fact, a push shot with a scooping motion, only the cue ball does not usually rise above the cloth, but can, depending on how it is executed.

This would be your interpretation Scott, no facts whatsoever. And it's not that difficult, certainly not 'almost impossible', to get the tip 'under' the cue ball without touching the cue ball.

I do believe this shot was addressed after the original rules came out and put onto the internet, and that the actual additional rule addressing it is not on the internet.

There is no mention of any adjustment to the rules as they pertain to this discussion in the "Summary of 2006 Changes". The rules that were standardized in 2001 were covered my a change moratorium for 5 years, so these new rules came into effect on Jan 1 2006.

You also have the problem of the tip coming into contact with the cue ball before the actual shot is executed, which is a foul.

Huh ? Properly exectuted the tip only touches the cue ball once.

Dave, does the due dilligence, it's not that hard

 

[Bob Jewett]

... and all i could say was.."I have no clue if that is legal or not"

The real answer is you ask the tournament director (or other rules authority), preferably before the shot. They may have no clue, either, judging from the range of answers you see here.

While there is no specific rule (so far as I know) in the BCA/WPA rules, there was a ruling by the BCA about 1997 or 1998 -- I'm pretty sure the ruling was made shortly after the article at
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1997-10.pdf
came out. I think I heard of the new ruling at the May, 1998 BCA Referee training course at the Nationals at the Riv.

 

[mjantti]

A snooker player showed me how to hold the bridge head up off the table and keep it steady to shoot this type of shot without using a second bridge. It is very simple to do but hard to describe over the internet. You could probably get it higher than you could using two bridges. The first time I saw this shot we only had a simple bridge shaped like an X. I was pretty impressed with the simple but not so obvious technique.

I used this technique in a tournament last weekend. The venue didn't have any high bridges (spiders some call them) so I had to raise the bridge head off the table to cue over an obstacle ball. I've seen snooker pro Mark Williams use the bridge like this in a tournament match too...

Yes, it requires a steady hand. Used with a hangover not recommended

 

[PlynSets]

I used this technique in a tournament last weekend. The venue didn't have any high bridges (spiders some call them) so I had to raise the bridge head off the table to cue over an obstacle ball. I've seen snooker pro Mark Williams use the bridge like this in a tournament match too...

Yes, it requires a steady hand. Used with a hangover not recommended

You guys are peaking my curiosity here.. Can you post a picture of what your talking about?

DJ

 

[SharpPT]

This shot was used against me in a major Senior Tournament in Biloxi. Scott Smith was the ref and was standing right there. The shot was ruled legal.

The laying the cue on the table was also called on me in a BCA Las Vegas tournament when I had to wait for the person on the next table to shoot a difficult shot. I laid my cue on the table and got a drink of water. My opponant called foul. The ref said no foul. The cue was not used to measure....

 

[PoolFool]

I'm pretty sure that the BCA issued a specific ruling on this shot, and that ruling was that the shot is illegal because a shot must be made with a forward motion of the cue stick.

So, "absolutely legal" isn't true. Maybe it is OK in the APA, which doesn't accept the World Standardized Rules (BCA/WPA).

My own feeling is that the shot should not be legal.

Well unless they have updated their rules. Rule 3.3 states "STRIKING CUE BALL
Legal shots require that the cue ball be struck only with the cue tip. Failure to meet this requirement is a foul." Nothing of a forward motion is mentioned anywhere. I could be mistaken, there could be a new ruling on this. However, I do not find it anywhere and still stand by original statement.

 

[Mark Avlon]

...She put her cuestick on the table slid it so that the tip of the cuestick was a close to the cue ball as she could without touching it. she then walked up toward the shaft put both hands on the shaft and lifted the shaft upward...when she lifted the shaft up ward the tip made contact with the cueball sending it softly into the 4 ball thus parking the 4 ball against the bottom rail with the cue ball snug against it....

Under BCA rules, this shot is illegal. It is not considered a normal stroke.

Although there isn't a specific rule that directly covers this, the referees refer to the glossary, which points the Instructional Playing Tips section. In this section, a stroke is defined as ‘A good throwing motion starts with a slow backswing with a smooth acceleration through the cue ball.’

Beware; the referees will be calling this shot a foul at the BCA 8 Ball tournament this week.

Note that it was not a foul when she let go of the cue. She was not using the cue to plan the shot. She was just moving closer to the tip so she could lift it to make the shot. Letting go of the cue on the table becomes a foul when it is done in order to use it as an aid to planning, aligning, or aiming the shot.

 

[DaveK]

Under BCA rules, this shot is illegal. It is not considered a normal stroke.

Although there isn't a specific rule that directly covers this, the referees refer to the glossary, which points the Instructional Playing Tips section. In this section, a stroke is defined as ‘A good throwing motion starts with a slow backswing with a smooth acceleration through the cue ball.’

BCA General Rule 3.3 would seem to be a specific rule, and it certainly does not make the stroke in question a foul. Beyond this, I would contend that there are many 'normal strokes' required depending on the situation, not all of which would be well described by the Player Tips comment. Either define them all, or leave it as is, with a legal stroke being as described in 3.3.

By this method of rule-interpretation I know quite a few players around here who would foul every stroke ! I'll be a bit facetious and ask, if a player has a bad throwing motion with a quick backstroke and jerky acceleration through the cueball, would this too be a BCA foul ? I toss this out to illustrate what I consider to be a poor process, deciding on a foul stroke based on instructional material rather than rules or rulings. jmo.

Dave

 

[Tom In Cincy]

. Either define them all, or leave it as is, with a legal stroke being as described in 3.3. <<much snipped>>

Dave

Dave,
Very good point, it's tough being a good ref and to have the refs refer to training methods is ludicurous.

The rules need to either address this lifting action as either being a legal stroke or not.

I can't think of any other shot that is legal that uses this 'lifting' method of contacting the cue ball. All legal shots require the cue tip to move forward from the stroke position NOT upwards. Even verticle masse shots the cue tip moves forward from the stroke.

I admire the ingenuity involved with this shot, but I am also curious about the legality.

Tip contact time could be argued as being illegal, but wouldn't this also be about the same time as masse shots?

Just because the cue tip didn't go forward, does that mean it is illegal?

What if the player just postioned the cue tip above the center of the cue ball and lifted the butt of the cue, striking the cue ball slightly and getting the desired results?

Very interesting thread. Still more questions than answers.

 

[Pete]

Under BCA rules, this shot is illegal. It is not considered a normal stroke.

Although there isn't a specific rule that directly covers this, the referees refer to the glossary, which points the Instructional Playing Tips section. In this section, a stroke is defined as ‘A good throwing motion starts with a slow backswing with a smooth acceleration through the cue ball.’

Beware; the referees will be calling this shot a foul at the BCA 8 Ball tournament this week.

Note that it was not a foul when she let go of the cue. She was not using the cue to plan the shot. She was just moving closer to the tip so she could lift it to make the shot. Letting go of the cue on the table becomes a foul when it is done in order to use it as an aid to planning, aligning, or aiming the shot.

Hi Mr. Avlon,

I don't want to sound like a jerk here, but, there are pros that foul according to you, Jullie Kelly is one that comes to mind. And as far as an upward stroke being a foul, well I know that there are times that my shaft is popping up after or even as I'm shooting. So are those times fouls in your mind???

You can say that this type or that type of a safty is not allowed and is a foul, but to sit there and say that the way most people (the bangers out weigh the serious players) are fouling is a bunch of fooy. I'm willing to bet that even the most scariest talented people on this forum (and you too) form time to time don't ‘A good throwing motion starts with a slow backswing with a smooth acceleration through the cue ball.’.

Plus what of the nip stroke, is that a foul???

I guess my point is, who are you, to say what defines a legal stroke. In your sand box ok, but in the world, I'm not so sure...

I am not trying to start crap with you, so I am sorry if this comes across the wrong way, but when someone says that it's a foul because it isn't "A GOOD THROWING ACTION", they are making a very, very, broad statement...

Pete

 

[Bob Jewett]

... but, there are pros that foul according to you, ...

Sadly, there are pros who have no idea what the rules say. I've seen lots of them. One problem is that the rules keep changing. The other is that most pros have never read the rule book. They just go by tradition, which is sometimes in conflict with the rules.

Can you push out with the side of your stick? No. It's unsportsmanlike conduct.

Can you pick up the cue ball before it stops rolling on the final shot of a rack of nine ball? No, that's a cue ball foul.

But if you ask pros or watch what they do in the corresponding situations, you will quickly conclude that many of them don't have a clue.

It would be nice if pool had a school for tour participation like golf, but the money is not here yet.

 

[Subsonic2u]

So Bob!

OK Bob. What do u have to say about the 2 shots mentioned here. The lift the shaft so the tip hits, and also the, basically miscue, hit on the very side of the Q ball. What would u call them? Fair or Foul? Just for the record, I'm a big fan of your site showing the different shots.

 

[TheBook]

Would the upward motion be any different than a downward motion used in a jump shot or Masse? If a stroke has to be a forward motion than wouldn't those shots also be illegal?