Is this type of hit legal?

[Donny Lutz]

Forward motion?

I don't know of any. You probably know the reason. They are going to say you are striking the ball with the ferrule INTENIONALLY. I think it is a very innovative idea that should be legal, provided the ferrule does not strike the ball. I know I'm going to get 'jumped' for these next statements by the physics techs. But... I used to shoot jump shots by striking the cue ball very low with a 'level' stick before they outlawed the shot. I did not 'sccop or lift' the ball AND I never felt or heard or thought that the ferrule contacted the ball. I tried to shoot it leagallly. But many shot it illegally, so, they outlawed the shot, I think, to prevent arguments & to take referee subjectiveness out of the equation. What is the difference between elevating the butt to shoot down to eliminate the double hit or what you propose, 'lower the tip & bring it up'. I personally think your way has less chance off a double hit or ferrule contact than the elevated butt method, so long as you don't putthe tip TOO far under the ball. What made you think of this?

I tend to agree with you. If a "forward motion" is required, then are extreme masses and jump shots always illegal? When the shot comes up, I'll ask my opponent (if not in a league or tournament with a director to ask) if s/he considers it a legal shot. I use the shot only when I can't reach the shot easily enough to use another method of avoiding the double hit.

Now let me put on my hard hat for protection from the stones thrown at us for our heresy!

Donny L
PBIA/ACS Instructor

 

[ENGLISH!]

I tend to agree with you. If a "forward motion" is required, then are extreme masses and jump shots always illegal? When the shot comes up, I'll ask my opponent (if not in a league or tournament with a director to ask) if s/he considers it a legal shot. I use the shot only when I can't reach the shot easily enough to use another method of avoiding the double hit.

Now let me put on my hard hat for protection from the stones thrown at us for our heresy!

Donny L
PBIA/ACS Instructor

A hard hat is not enough!. Keep your elbows down for the body blows! AND... you better put a cup on also!

 

[Bob Jewett]

I tend to agree with you. If a "forward motion" is required, then are extreme masses and jump shots always illegal? ...

Here is the relevant text from the WPA rules:

8.2 Shot
A shot begins when the tip contacts the cue ball due to a forward stroke motion of the cue stick. A shot ends when all balls in play have stopped moving and spinning. A shot is said to be legal if the shooter did not foul during the shot.​

"Forward stroke motion" was intended to mean "motion along the major axis of the cue stick in the direction of butt to tip." The wording needs to be improved to make that clear.

A player is not allowed to move the cue ball when it is in play other than by a shot. Lifting the stick and brushing the tip sideways across the ball is not a shot. I suppose it could be argued that it is a miscue since the tip slips on the cue ball (or the cue ball would be lifted off the table) and intentional miscues are explicitly unsportsmanlike conduct.

http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play

 

[ENGLISH!]

Here is the relevant text from the WPA rules:

8.2 Shot
A shot begins when the tip contacts the cue ball due to a forward stroke motion of the cue stick. A shot ends when all balls in play have stopped moving and spinning. A shot is said to be legal if the shooter did not foul during the shot.​

"Forward stroke motion" was intended to mean "motion along the major axis of the cue stick in the direction of butt to tip." The wording needs to be improved to make that clear.

A player is not allowed to move the cue ball when it is in play other than by a shot. Lifting the stick and brushing the tip sideways across the ball is not a shot. I suppose it could be argued that it is a miscue since the tip slips on the cue ball (or the cue ball would be lifted off the table) and intentional miscues are explicitly unsportsmanlike conduct.

http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play

How do you KNOW what the rule's intentions are? Are you stating fact or are you stating your belief as fact. Depending on how one 'folcrum levers' the stick, the tip can be moved forward although on an arc. As I stated in another post if the stroke must be EXACTLY STRAIGHT FORWARD relative to the stick(long axis), then many, many strokes are illegal as manystrokes 'arc' up or down or sideways to a degree.

Part of the rules referring to miscues are in particular reference to jump shots & would not apply in this case. Why do you say it is not a shot. It is very similiar to any english shot except that the tip angle is of an extreme nature. I think it is the opposite of a miscue in that in a miscue the tip travels from toward the middle of the cue ball to the outer edge of the cue ball. In this instance the tip is traveling from outside the center & then through the center edge to the other side. I do not think that it is a miscue. In fact I doubt there would be enough force to even create a miscue.

I certainly understand that one might think it is bad & poor sportsmanship to circumvent the rules & I would agree. But this seems to be an innovative applicaton of the rules as they are now stated. When I shot low tip jump shots, they were not illegal in my APA league. I did not 'lift' or 'scoop' the ball & I did not feel or hear any miscue & I did not contact the ball & the cloth at the same time. I did it in a way that I thought was legal & at that time was legal in that league. Too many people would try but could not do it without miscueing or lifting the ball as I & others could, so that they inserted a rule against that type of shot defining that a jump shot must be struct above the vertical equator of the ball.

Not trying to create a stir. We just disagree & I'm trying to support my sie.

If this shot were to be demmed legal by the rules as now stated, it would probably soon be out lawed by an amendment or an addito to the rules.

I read both BCA/WPA & APA rules last night & as longs as a hand remains on the stick & the tip has a 'forward' motion (which a folcrum / lever action would produce) the shot seems to be legal to me.

 

[zpele]

How do you KNOW what the rule's intentions are? Are you stating fact or are you stating your belief as fact. Depending on how one 'folcrum levers' the stick, the tip can be moved forward although on an arc. As I stated in another post if the stroke must be EXACTLY STRAIGHT FORWARD relative to the stick(long axis), then many, many strokes are illegal as manystrokes 'arc' up or down or sideways to a degree.

Part of the rules referring to miscues are in particular reference to jump shots & would not apply in this case. Why do you say it is not a shot. It is very similiar to any english shot except that the tip angle is of an extreme nature. I think it is the opposite of a miscue in that in a miscue the tip travels from toward the middle of the cue ball to the outer edge of the cue ball. In this instance the tip is traveling from outside the center & then through the center edge to the other side. I do not think that it is a miscue. In fact I doubt there would be enough force to even create a miscue.

I certainly understand that one might think it is bad & poor sportsmanship to circumvent the rules & I would agree. But this seems to be an innovative applicaton of the rules as they are now stated. When I shot low tip jump shots, they were not illegal in my APA league. I did not 'lift' or 'scoop' the ball & I did not feel or hear any miscue & I did not contact the ball & the cloth at the same time. I did it in a way that I thought was legal & at that time was legal in that league. Too many people would try but could not do it without miscueing or lifting the ball as I & others could, so that they inserted a rule against that type of shot defining that a jump shot must be struct above the vertical equator of the ball.

Not trying to create a stir. We just disagree & I'm trying to support my sie.

If this shot were to be demmed legal by the rules as now stated, it would probably soon be out lawed by an amendment or an addito to the rules.

I read both BCA/WPA & APA rules last night & as longs as a hand remains on the stick & the tip has a 'forward' motion (which a folcrum / lever action would produce) the shot seems to be legal to me.

Bob Jewitt is one of the foremost BCA instructors in the country and one of the most knowledgeable pool players alive today. If anyone in the world knows how to interpret the rules its him.

 

[branpureza]

Bob Jewitt is one of the foremost BCA instructors in the country and one of the most knowledgeable pool players alive today. If anyone in the world knows how to interpret the rules its him.

Give it up... it's like talking to a brick wall.

A common theme in this forum is that the posters with the least knowledge have the most to say. That's why you hardly ever see pros post on here and people like Bob Jewitt with a vast amount to contribute are few and far between... because certain people, who have nothing to contribute and very little knowledge of the game don't know how to keep their foot out of their mouth and take notes instead of blabbing nonsense.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Bob Jewitt is one of the foremost BCA instructors in the country and one of the most knowledgeable pool players alive today. If anyone in the world knows how to interpret the rules its him.

I can respect that. But, how am I & others here to know that. Is it too much trouble to type, 'IMO' or 'I interprete that to mean'? Unless he was in on the discussions & converstions regarding the construction of the rule & the whys & wherefores, he does not 'know' the specific intention & he is merely interpreting them as anyone can. As I said I do not mean to creates a 'stir', but too many on here seem to 'say' things as if they are the final judge, jury & executioner. I agree with Mr. Jewitt, if the rule can be legitamately interpreted differently then it needs to be redefined to take that ambiguity out. But until then we play as the rule is stated, not how it was intended.

One should not 'declare' something as illiegal based on interpretation unless they have the authority to do so. State you opinions & interpretation, yes! Pass down judgement, no, unless you have the authority to do so. I apologize if I came off as disrepectful. That was not my intention, as I am not a disrespectful person. I was merely supporting my side of the 'discussion'. If I new I was speaking to the judge & jury I would have praised them before seeking their final decision.

PS Why did you post this thread if you could have just simply asked Mr. Jewitt?

 

[zpele]

I can respect that. But, how am I & others here to know that. Is it too much trouble to type, 'IMO' or 'I interprete that to mean'? Unless he was in on the discussions & converstions regarding the construction of the rule & the whys & wherefores, he does not 'know' the specific intention & he is merely interpreting them as anyone can. As I said I do not mean to creates a 'stir', but too many on here seem to 'say' things as if they are the final judge, jury & executioner. I agree with Mr. Jewitt, if the rule can be legitamately interpreted differently then it needs to be redefined to take that ambiguity out. But until then we play as the rule is stated, not how it was intended.

One should not 'declare' something as illiegal based on interpretation unless they have the authority to do so. State you opinions & interpretation, yes! Pass down judgement, no, unless you have the authority to do so. I apologize if I came off as disrepectful. That was not my intention, as I am not a disrespectful person. I was merely supporting my side of the 'discussion'. If I new I was speaking to the judge & jury I would have praised them before seeking their final decision.

PS Why did you post this thread if you could have just simply asked Mr. Jewitt?

Your going off course again. I'm not going to lay into you but there are plenty that might.

What it comes down to is that there are a lot of big names in billiards on this forum and unless you know otherwise just figure that whoever you are talking to is someone with the knowledge and authority to back up what they are saying.

As for asking Bob directly I figured he had other things to do and to be honest didn't expect him to respond directly to this thread.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I can respect that. But, how am I & others here to know that. Is it too much trouble to type, 'IMO' or 'I interprete that to mean'? Unless he was in on the discussions & converstions regarding the construction of the rule & the whys & wherefores, he does not 'know' the specific intention & he is merely interpreting them as anyone can. As I said I do not mean to creates a 'stir', but too many on here seem to 'say' things as if they are the final judge, jury & executioner. I agree with Mr. Jewitt, if the rule can be legitamately interpreted differently then it needs to be redefined to take that ambiguity out. But until then we play as the rule is stated, not how it was intended.

One should not 'declare' something as illiegal based on interpretation unless they have the authority to do so. State you opinions & interpretation, yes! Pass down judgement, no, unless you have the authority to do so. I apologize if I came off as disrepectful. That was not my intention, as I am not a disrespectful person. I was merely supporting my side of the 'discussion'. If I new I was speaking to the judge & jury I would have praised them before seeking their final decision.

PS Why did you post this thread if you could have just simply asked Mr. Jewitt?

Dude, Mr. Jewett is not expressing his personal interpretation of anything, he is expressing fact as to what the rule is and fact as to the reasons for the rule. If anyone would know it is him since he has served on the Rules Committee. So yes, he is in a position to know.

 

[justadub]

I can respect that. But, how am I & others here to know that. Is it too much trouble to type, 'IMO' or 'I interprete that to mean'? Unless he was in on the discussions & conversations regarding the construction of the rule & the whys & wherefores, he does not 'know' the specific intention & he is merely interpreting them as anyone can. As I said I do not mean to creates a 'stir', but too many on here seem to 'say' things as if they are the final judge, jury & executioner. I agree with Mr. Jewitt, if the rule can be legitimately interpreted differently then it needs to be redefined to take that ambiguity out. But until then we play as the rule is stated, not how it was intended.

One should not 'declare' something as illegal based on interpretation unless they have the authority to do so. State you opinions & interpretation, yes! Pass down judgement, no, unless you have the authority to do so. I apologize if I came off as disrespectful. That was not my intention, as I am not a disrespectful person. I was merely supporting my side of the 'discussion'. If I new I was speaking to the judge & jury I would have praised them before seeking their final decision.

PS Why did you post this thread if you could have just simply asked Mr. Jewitt?

People get a pass for being new, regularly.

However, just because you are new to the site, doesn't mean you have no responsibility. It is really rather inappropriate for anyone, ESPECIALLY if they are new to the site, to start throwing around questions of someones knowledge ,experience and respect in this industry.

Take a breath, look around, read A LOT more than you post, and you'll start to realize who is who. We are VERY fortunate that Bob Jewett takes the time to post here, and to interact with us. Mr. Jewett, among a host of other "movers and shakers" here. At least those who are left, not having been driven off by irresponsible participants of the forum.

I appreciate your passion in what you believe in, and most folks here (including, I suspect, Mr. Jewett) have no issue discussing most anything here. just try and not get too crazy in the process, hmmkay?

 

[Bob Jewett]

How do you KNOW what the rule's intentions are? ...

I was the chief editor of the 2008 revision of the WPA rules. Most of the wording of those rules is mine.
Here is a relevant comment on the WPA web site: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=124&pagetype=archived_news_details&newsid=68
For those who are reluctant to click through:

Friday, 28 December 2007
New Rules of Play starting January 1st, 2008

The WPA has already back in 1994 found the need to rewrite their Rules of Play. There were a lot of things in the rules that were redundant, unclear, misleading, etc. At the time, the task was given to Bob Jewett to prepare a set of Rules that would be much better than the one we had before. The goal was to have a new set of rules by January 1st, 2006. That goal was not achieved for many reasons. The main reason was that we felt that it was better to delay the publishing of the new rules rather than have a new set installed which would prove to not be practicable.

After Bob created a draft, a meeting was called in Gary, Indiana, USA, where 13 rules specialists from all over the world met and discussed the draft back and forth for three whole days. As one can surely imagine, the needs from the individual continents were very different, so the task to create a set of rules which would be valid on a worldwide level was not so easy. However, the meeting was successful and we came up with a draft in early 2007 which was again sent out to the federation member of the WPA, to players, to promoters for their input.

In September 2007, all these inputs were collected and together with Bob Jewett again, I read and discussed all comments, complaints, amendments, proposals, etc. I have to say that Bob's efforts and work cannot be regarded high enough and I would again like to thank him for all his time and dedication.

Finally, we came up with the New Rules of Play as they are today. The old rules have been divided into a set of actual rules of play and into a set of regulations. Furthermore, the rules were structured completetly different so that they are much easier to read.

We hope that all players around the world find these rules easy to understand, easy to read, easy to translate into their respective languages and easy to apply in competition and leisure play. The rules will be on this website for download by January 1st, 2008.

Yours in sports,

Thomas Overbeck

WPA Vice President / Sports Director
​

 

[ENGLISH!]

Give it up... it's like talking to a brick wall.

A common theme in this forum is that the posters with the least knowledge have the most to say. That's why you hardly ever see pros post on here and people like Bob Jewitt with a vast amount to contribute are few and far between... because certain people, who have nothing to contribute and very little knowledge of the game don't know how to keep their foot out of their mouth and take notes instead of blabbing nonsense.

I read both the BCA/WPA & APA rules last night & no where is that diagram present in what I read. I'm NOT accusing you of anythnig. But we have obviously consulted different versions.

However, that diagram does not display what I have been 'talking' about. That diagram depicts a straight up, non-forward movement of the tip. I have been 'talking' about an arching movement that has a forward component to it, that forward component satisfies that part of the rule.

I would not shoot that type of shot by laying the stick on the table & lifting the tip & I would not lift my bridge hand either.

I would use a low bridge with a high butt & ease in just under the circumference of the ball & then lower the butt causing the tip to move up AND slightly FORWARD. the cue ball would NOT be 'lifted' it would merely be'spun' foward slightly. I interprete that type of shot to be legal.

I do not take notes in hope of 'CATCHING" someone. I enter into any 'discussion' in a search for the truth of the matter & in the hope of finding that truth. I'm certainly not in any clicks & that may be to my disadvantage.

Someone on here has a quote from Einstein, 'You do not truly fully understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.' I am not a brick wall. I have an open mind to opinions other than my own but I am not a blind follower of anyone.

If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. It appers that I am causing too much heat on this site. I quess I'll have to turn it down so I don't burn kitchen staff.

The truth is the truth no matter how much you distort it. The distortion on the other hand is NOT THE TRUTH!

 

[ENGLISH!]

I was the chief editor of the 2008 revision of the WPA rules. Most of the wording of those rules is mine.
Here is a relevant comment on the WPA web site: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=124&pagetype=archived_news_details&newsid=68
For those who are reluctant to click through:

Friday, 28 December 2007
New Rules of Play starting January 1st, 2008

The WPA has already back in 1994 found the need to rewrite their Rules of Play. There were a lot of things in the rules that were redundant, unclear, misleading, etc. At the time, the task was given to Bob Jewett to prepare a set of Rules that would be much better than the one we had before. The goal was to have a new set of rules by January 1st, 2006. That goal was not achieved for many reasons. The main reason was that we felt that it was better to delay the publishing of the new rules rather than have a new set installed which would prove to not be practicable.

After Bob created a draft, a meeting was called in Gary, Indiana, USA, where 13 rules specialists from all over the world met and discussed the draft back and forth for three whole days. As one can surely imagine, the needs from the individual continents were very different, so the task to create a set of rules which would be valid on a worldwide level was not so easy. However, the meeting was successful and we came up with a draft in early 2007 which was again sent out to the federation member of the WPA, to players, to promoters for their input.

In September 2007, all these inputs were collected and together with Bob Jewett again, I read and discussed all comments, complaints, amendments, proposals, etc. I have to say that Bob's efforts and work cannot be regarded high enough and I would again like to thank him for all his time and dedication.

Finally, we came up with the New Rules of Play as they are today. The old rules have been divided into a set of actual rules of play and into a set of regulations. Furthermore, the rules were structured completetly different so that they are much easier to read.

We hope that all players around the world find these rules easy to understand, easy to read, easy to translate into their respective languages and easy to apply in competition and leisure play. The rules will be on this website for download by January 1st, 2008.

Yours in sports,

Thomas Overbeck

WPA Vice President / Sports Director
​

Informative. But unless you are in the room I'm playing in and this comes up, you are not going to be the one to decide the outcome. It is not clear & clean cut & it needs to be clarified. Until then I have a valid argument.

PS I would probably NEVER shoot this shot but I can lawer up for tit.

 

[ENGLISH!]

People get a pass for being new, regularly.

However, just because you are new to the site, doesn't mean you have no responsibility. It is really rather inappropriate for anyone, ESPECIALLY if they are new to the site, to start throwing around questions of someones knowledge ,experience and respect in this industry.

Take a breath, look around, read A LOT more than you post, and you'll start to realize who is who. We are VERY fortunate that Bob Jewitt takes the time to post here, and to interact with us. Mr. Jewitt, among a host of other "movers and shakers" here. At least those who are left, not having been driven off by irresponsible participants of the forum.

I appreciate your passion in what you believe in, and most folks here (including, I suspect, Mr. Jewitt) have no issue discussing most anything here. just try and not get too crazy in the process, hmmkay?

Thanks. But I'm the one probably leaving. But I don't understand. You 'suspect' Mr. Jewitt' ?

 

[ENGLISH!]

Dude, Mr. Jewett is not expressing his personal interpretation of anything, he is expressing fact as to what the rule is and fact as to the reasons for the rule. If anyone would know it is him since he has served on the Rules Committee. So yes, he is in a position to know.

I've just been inform of his experience. The rules wording does not disqualify MY proposed shot & he will probably not be in the room you or I are playing in to decide a dispute. The rule needs to be updated to clarify.

 

[justadub]

Thanks. But I'm the one probably leaving. But I don't understand. You 'suspect' Mr. Jewitt' ?

English, the language....

"Most people here (including, I suspect, Mr. Jewett) have no problem discussing most anything."

That means that I suspect, suppose, pontificate, and assume that Mr. Jewett could very well be included in the larger grouping "most people here"

Hope that helps a little.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Your going off course again. I'm not going to lay into you but there are plenty that might.

What it comes down to is that there are a lot of big names in billiards on this forum and unless you know otherwise just figure that whoever you are talking to is someone with the knowledge and authority to back up what they are saying.

As for asking Bob directly I figured he had other things to do and to be honest didn't expect him to respond directly to this thread.

You're correct, but if 'they' can not make a convincing argument instead of preaching why would I assume they know what they are talking about. I get it & don't think this class click site is for me. I'm a respectful person, believeit or not, but I'm not into blind worship.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

I've just been inform of his experience. The rules wording does not disqualify MY proposed shot & he will probably not be in the room you or I are playing in to decide a dispute. The rule needs to be updated to clarify.

With all due respect, no it doesn't. The rule is just fine. Even the BCAPL rule, with diagram and all, isn't good enough for you.

What needs to be updated is the apparent ignorance of the rules by some people. If this shot is legal where you play then great, knock yourselves out. But no worries about a dispute. You won't find me there anytime soon.

 

[West Point 1987]

How is this not a form of the illegal "scoop shot"...surely brushing upwards from below the edge of the cue ball causes at least some lifting of the ball from the surface of the table? And if it's not caused by a downward stroke, then doesn't THAT make it illegal in and of itself?

 

[Bob Jewett]

How is this not a form of the illegal "scoop shot"...surely brushing upwards from below the edge of the cue ball causes at least some lifting of the ball from the surface of the table? And if it's not caused by a downward stroke, then doesn't THAT make it illegal in and of itself?

If the shot came up, I think I'd rule it as an intentional miscue as the tip is moving up and the cue ball is driven horizontally.