Is This a Legal Shot?

[nobcitypool]

I wish people would(the APA) stop using the wrong terms to describe a shot.

6.8 Push Shot: It is a foul to prolong tip-to-cue-ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots.

I didn't watch the video on my computer to start, must of lost some video quality on my phone. After rewatching the video on my computer I need to restate my opinion. It's not a double hit, but it's a push foul. Not a double hit because the speed of the stroke is slow enough, and the downward angle allow the cue tip to stay in contact the entire time. He prevents the double hit foul by pushing through it creating a different foul.

I share a similar opinion. I wish the APA (and other leagues) would offer more concise definition of what is legal and what is not. There is some great data out there such as that at Dr. Dave's site as well as what Bob Jewitt has put out. The APA local web site has a couple of instructional videos on their site for proper scoring and defining defensive shots. Why they couldn't add a couple of more that cover some of the more frequently violated rules and those that are difficult to understand is beyond me. These seem to be where most of the arguments and disputes arise from.

 

[Neil]

Looks like its legal according to the BCA as well ?

"However, if the cue ball is touching an object ball at the start of the shot, it is legal to shoot towards or partly into that ball (provided it is a legal target within the rules of the game) and if the object ball is moved by such a shot, it is considered to have been contacted by the cue ball."
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/bca-pool.com/resource/resmgr/imported/Fouls_January2008.pdf

Though its a bit unclear if you may ONLY shoot PARTLY into the frozen ball ?
or can you blast straight into the frozen ball with a full ball hit sending whitey around the table along with said frozen object ball ?

Seems clear to me. You are allowed to shoot directly through the centers of the two frozen balls. (the part that says "towards")

However, as said in a previous post, this is NOT a push shot. In other parts of the rules, it defines what a push shot is, and that when frozen you must use a normal stroke. That is, you are not allowed to use a push shot stroke.

In the local APA rules here, there is no such thing as a push shot or a double hit foul.

 

[xXGEARXx]

What's ironic, years ago, especially in a Biker bar, the scoop jump was legal. One things for sure, by each posters responses, we know ALLOT more about their skill level. :thumbup2:

That's right. Solid "D" player here. PM me with some weight...

 

[hang-the-9]

That's amazing!

randyg

Yep, and to the other poster that asked if it was in the official rules, it is, see last line. Now the rule here is when the balls are a chalk width or less apart. If they are more than a chalk apart, then the regular rules for a double or push shot apply, where you actually have to not foul rather than "try" not to foul.

Push Shot – If the cue ball is frozen to the object ball,
pushing through the cue ball is a legal hit. If there is separation between
the two balls equal to or less than the width of a piece of chalk, the
shooter must keep from double hitting the cue ball. To make a legal hit
the shooter must either 1) When shooting directly at the two balls
elevate the back of the cue in an attempt to put draw on the cue ball, or
2) Shoot at an angle not directly in line with the two balls. As long as
an honest attempt at either is made, no foul can be called.

 

[rhatten]

Yep, and to the other poster that asked if it was in the official rules, it is, see last line. Now the rule here is when the balls are a chalk width or less apart. If they are more than a chalk apart, then the regular rules for a double or push shot apply, where you actually have to not foul rather than "try" not to foul.

Push Shot – If the cue ball is frozen to the object ball,
pushing through the cue ball is a legal hit. If there is separation between
the two balls equal to or less than the width of a piece of chalk, the
shooter must keep from double hitting the cue ball. To make a legal hit
the shooter must either 1) When shooting directly at the two balls
elevate the back of the cue in an attempt to put draw on the cue ball, or
2) Shoot at an angle not directly in line with the two balls. As long as
an honest attempt at either is made, no foul can be called.

And just so that we're clear... (within a "width of a piece of chalk")

I "honestly" can raise the butt of my cue 10 degrees (more??) ...as if that is somehow a better way to "draw" the cue ball(...btw what instructor teaches an APA 3 or 4 this technique??) in order to avoid a double hit..(regardless of the end result... "no foul can be called" see above)

or...(either) make an "honest attempt" -(even without raising the butt of my cue) to not hit the CB 'directly in line with the object ball' (as in CCB to center OB) "no foul can be called" see above.

Just so there is no confusion... Honestly I mean... (but what about my round chalk??)

What sanctioning body granted their approval on this wording?? Clear as Mud to the masses.

Randy

 

[whammo57]

Lol definitely a foul. But I have heard rules in the past - even official league rules - that say if you jack up at more than a 45-degree angle, that shot is not a foul. Maybe that's what he's thinking.

It's also wrong, I think, to aim that shot to the left like a cut shot. A gap that small should throw almost identically to frozen balls. I doubt you can cut it at all, because the throw is going to cancel out any cut. I believe you'd need close to a quarter inch or so to cut it.

Lots of people repeat the 45 deg angle thing but is is not written in any rule book....

Kim

 

[StraightPoolIU]

This is from the APA Rule book: "A foul may be called only if the player fouls the
cue ball while actually stroking at the cue ball, meaning a
double hit of the cue ball (sometimes called double
clutching)."

A couple of problems with this as it's written in the APA rules. 1. Who calls it double clutching? It's a double hit. Just call it that. 2. This doesn't address push shots which are different than double hits 3. Even though it says it's a foul it is not listed under the section of the rulebook that states "these are the only fouls resulting in ball-in-hand". This would then fall under the purview of "sportsmanship violations" which is less clear. The APA rulebook muddies the waters so much on these fouls who is to say how to proceed? I think it should just be clearly listed as a bih foul and be done with it. The rules invite argument.

 

[hang-the-9]

And just so that we're clear... (within a "width of a piece of chalk")

I "honestly" can raise the butt of my cue 10 degrees (more??) ...as if that is somehow a better way to "draw" the cue ball(...btw what instructor teaches an APA 3 or 4 this technique??) in order to avoid a double hit..(regardless of the end result... "no foul can be called" see above)

or...(either) make an "honest attempt" -(even without raising the butt of my cue) to not hit the CB 'directly in line with the object ball' (as in CCB to center OB) "no foul can be called" see above.

Just so there is no confusion... Honestly I mean... (but what about my round chalk??)

What sanctioning body granted their approval on this wording?? Clear as Mud to the masses.

Randy

It's a league rule, they don't have to get the rule approvals from anyone except whatever group of people made up the rules for the league.

The idea behind all those modification of the rules, which I find to be totally detremential to people learning how to play, is that low level players that can't execute the shots or know the methods on how to avoid these close ball fouls are helped. The en masse explination for the rule changes is "it's an amateurs league" so the general word standard pool rules should not apply. I don't see how that should make any difference, you just need to teach those "amateurs" what is a legal shot and what is not. If we want people to play by kiddie and bar rules and have a bunch of league players not actually know how to play in the real pool world, that is what we are getting by having a bunch of people learning wrong things.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Lots of people repeat the 45 deg angle thing but is is not written in any rule book....

Kim

By George, I think you're right. I could not find 45 deg in any current set of rules, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it in print (other than in a forum) and it was given as either 45 degrees of elevation or 45 degrees of cut. Maybe some independent leagues use such a rule. Maybe we are rid of it. The TAP rules do recommend elevation but don't specify how much -- just the honest attempt thing.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... 1. Who calls it double clutching? It's a double hit. Just call it that. ...

I don't think that's what they're talking about. I think they mean when you touch the cue ball on your last warm-up stroke and then quickly take a power stroke. But I could be wrong. Someone should ask Rene.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

To make a legal hit the shooter must either 1) When shooting directly at the two balls elevate the back of the cue in an attempt to put draw on the cue ball, or 2) Shoot at an angle not directly in line with the two balls. As long as
an honest attempt at either is made, no foul can be called.

So, if I possess the skill to stop the CB or even draw it back several inches in this circumstance using a level cue it's a foul because I didn't jack up? The CB path is irrelevant, only the "appearance" of the stroke itself? But if I do jack up and the CB travels forward after the hit it's OK because I demonstrated good intent?

Holy cow! One more reason to not want to join a league.

 

[nobcitypool]

It's a league rule, they don't have to get the rule approvals from anyone except whatever group of people made up the rules for the league.

The idea behind all those modification of the rules, which I find to be totally detremential to people learning how to play, is that low level players that can't execute the shots or know the methods on how to avoid these close ball fouls are helped. The en masse explination for the rule changes is "it's an amateurs league" so the general word standard pool rules should not apply. I don't see how that should make any difference, you just need to teach those "amateurs" what is a legal shot and what is not. If we want people to play by kiddie and bar rules and have a bunch of league players not actually know how to play in the real pool world, that is what we are getting by having a bunch of people learning wrong things.

Then the rule should be they clearly have to hit "away from the shot to avoid the double hit. There are a lot of shots a low skill player cannot execute, why allow some ambiguous exception that will result in a foul?

 

[hang-the-9]

So, if I possess the skill to stop the CB or even draw it back several inches in this circumstance using a level cue it's a foul because I didn't jack up? The CB path is irrelevant, only the "appearance" of the stroke itself? But if I do jack up and the CB travels forward after the hit it's OK because I demonstrated good intent?

Holy cow! One more reason to not want to join a league.

Yep, sounds about right LOL

I read another gem about a real APA rule call that was made by APA officials. If a player is on the 8 ball, and shoots the 8 directly into a pocket not even using the cueball, it's not only not a loss, the person that does it gets the 8 spotted where it was and can take the shot again.

I had someone do a clear push shot against my son, the cue ball was like 1/4 of an inch from the other ball or less, the guy shot right through the cueball, and followed it 2 rails up the table 8 feet for position on the next ball. Clearly a double hit but the only people that saw it as a foul was myself, my son and another good player that was watching. The other league players, even the captain of my team said it was a good hit. This is what happens when we use modified rules for leagues, the people playing in them never learn to play by real world rules.

You guys remember the movie Kingpin? The guy took an Amish on the road because he thought he had such a high bowling average. Turns out that his average was over two games not one because "the Amish have to do things twice as much as the regular folk". It's similar to someone that bases how good they are by playing in a handicapped league with modified rules. "I can beat an A player!" Sure if you need to win 2 games to their 6 or 7 and not have t worry about fould half the shots LOL

 

[BRussell]

Lots of people repeat the 45 deg angle thing but is is not written in any rule book....

Kim

I believe it was in our local league rule book (with exceptions/additions to BCA rules) at one point, but it's been years since I've even looked at it. But you may be right, and it's just one of those pool rule urban myths.

 

[StraightPoolIU]

I don't think that's what they're talking about. I think they mean when you touch the cue ball on your last warm-up stroke and then quickly take a power stroke. But I could be wrong. Someone should ask Rene.

Yes that's they other problem. It's not even entirely clear that they are talking about normal double hits like we're talking about here. The wording is horrendous which leads to a lack of understanding which leads to arguments on league nights.

 

[xXGEARXx]

It's a league rule, they don't have to get the rule approvals from anyone except whatever group of people made up the rules for the league.

The idea behind all those modification of the rules, which I find to be totally detremential to people learning how to play, is that low level players that can't execute the shots or know the methods on how to avoid these close ball fouls are helped. The en masse explination for the rule changes is "it's an amateurs league" so the general word standard pool rules should not apply. I don't see how that should make any difference, you just need to teach those "amateurs" what is a legal shot and what is not. If we want people to play by kiddie and bar rules and have a bunch of league players not actually know how to play in the real pool world, that is what we are getting by having a bunch of people learning wrong things.

Ok. I am an amateur, so help me out here. I keep reading this double hit thing. I didn't even notice it until it was slowed down. SO, fine for arguments sake, let's just say it is a foul due to a double hit. Cue ball traveled into impact on the object ball and then again before the object ball hit the pocket.

What about this then: I masse' the cue ball in the same exact shot as what is shown in the video. It makes contact with the object ball and then spins into it again, which then the object ball hits the pocket. Let's just say it is possible to do. Now we have a double hit again, even though the cue ball traveled across the table and slammed into it twice. Foul, lol?

 

[AtLarge]

... What about this then: I masse' the cue ball in the same exact shot as what is shown in the video. It makes contact with the object ball and then spins into it again, which then the object ball hits the pocket. Let's just say it is possible to do. Now we have a double hit again, even though the cue ball traveled across the table and slammed into it twice. Foul, lol?

No. A double hit means the cue stick hit the cue ball more than once. In your scenario, it's the cue ball hitting the object ball more than once, which is OK.

 

[xXGEARXx]

Well, thank goodness that makes sense. That at least falls in line with what I have been taught. I'll have to watch the video again. I didn't see that at first (stick hitting cue ball twice-which is a definite foul).

Just watched it and I still can't tell, LOL...

 

[BRussell]

Well, thank goodness that makes sense. That at least falls in line with what I have been taught. I'll have to watch the video again. I didn't see that at first (stick hitting cue ball twice-which is a definite foul).

Just watched it and I still can't tell, LOL...

You can't tell by looking for the double hit, it's too fast, which is why this foul causes problems. The way to tell is from the path of the cue ball.

 

[nobcitypool]

I'd be interested in understanding how the CB could ever hit the OB, when they are both traveling on a straight or similar path and no rails are involved, and there isn't a double hit on the CB. There are some really simple physics involved here making that quite impossible. The CB loses energy when it hits the OB, the OB gets that transferred energy. If the CB hits the OB square on and the CB isn't rolling. It stops dead. The two objects weigh the same. If the CB hits the OB with top spin, it momentarily stops just as it would if it were skidding, then the top spin causes it to roll forward again. There isn't a circumstance where that top spin would cause the CB to ever catch up and hit the OB.