First of all there has to be a WPA tour to begin with before we start talking about rule changes, lets see if they can get off the ground first before we start talking about what is going to happen. We dont want to have what happened in the IPT to trap us in again do we?
New WPA World Standardized Rules
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
In the UK, thre are to this day, at least three different sets of rules in use and that does not include Black Ball.
I occasionally play in a UK style 8 ball league in Spain where there are two divisions, one playing "EPA Rules" and the other playing "World Rules" neither have anything to with WPA Rules.
Is that crazy or not!
The biggest game in Spain is American style 8 ball played as far as possible to WPA rules. With minor variations e.g We do not accept the "Cue Ball Only Fouls" rule/regulation which seems to be popular in the USA.
My other big gripe is the touching ball rule as it is contradictory, I know that the rules committe have tried to word it so that there is no misunderstanding but a push shot always occurs when the player is allowed to play through a cue ball that is touching an object ball.
The snooker rule is better in my opinion, you must play away from a touching ball.
What do others think about this?
I occasionally play in a UK style 8 ball league in Spain where there are two divisions, one playing "EPA Rules" and the other playing "World Rules" neither have anything to with WPA Rules.
Is that crazy or not!
The biggest game in Spain is American style 8 ball played as far as possible to WPA rules. With minor variations e.g We do not accept the "Cue Ball Only Fouls" rule/regulation which seems to be popular in the USA.
My other big gripe is the touching ball rule as it is contradictory, I know that the rules committe have tried to word it so that there is no misunderstanding but a push shot always occurs when the player is allowed to play through a cue ball that is touching an object ball.
The snooker rule is better in my opinion, you must play away from a touching ball.
What do others think about this?
Last edited:
Peter@CEP said:
Good luck with this one Pete. I hate the WPA rules where you can shoot directly through the ball. A total push every time! The rule we used in the states before the "lawyers" took over the rules committee was that you could shoot at an angle to the object ball, thus avoiding the push. Or you had to jack your cue up in the air and "hold" the cue ball. You know, something that required a degree of skill.
I agree. The American rules on this seem a bit inconsistent.Peter@CEP said:
If the cue ball is 1/16 or 1/32 of an inch apart, then the shooter has to be very careful how to hit it, or it's a foul. But if the balls are touching, they can swing away any way they want, including the most blatantly non-careful method of swinging directly at it.
I could see where the snooker rule of playing away from a touching ball would be better.
Of course, you'll likely hear it from a lotta American players who will focus on arguing for status quo because they aren't used to it any other way...
I agree but 1 slight prob. Didn't all the high speed video experiments prove that when they are touching, even the jacked up cue in the air and "hold" shot, results in a double hit? It basically can't be seen by the naked eye, but the video evidence is clear that it's a double hit still.jay helfert said:
But I'd even tolerate that option, as a better option than the way it currently is...
FLICKit said:
I'm not sure. What I don't like is allowing a blatant push shot to be a legal shot. BAD RULE!
No. When the balls are touching and you shoot towards the touching ball, there is no double hit. There is a single contact of tip on ball. Many people are confused about this point. Jacking up does not significantly change the shot in this regard.FLICKit said:
jay helfert said:
Seems the problem stems from the fact that when the balls are frozen any 'hit' will be a push in that the stick will be directly influencing the OB. Jacking up does not change this at all. Seeing it is not possible to make a "good hit" on the OB, the rules just throw in the towel and let you blast away.
As Bob has explained, it's not a push shot or a double hit (we can see that from the high speed video). It used to be a contradiction of the rule about not being in contact with the CB when the CB contacts the OB, but that's been cleared up now ("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.") I'm not sure why that rule still exists anyway - maybe Bob knows the logic behind it.jay helfert said:
What problem do you want to prevent?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Fragged said:
A push shot is when the tip stays on the CB for an unusually long period of time. It has nothing to do with the OB, and high speed video shows it doesn't occur when the CB is frozen to the OB.
"6.8 Push Shot
It is a foul to prolong tip-to-cue-ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots."
What's "a good hit on the OB"? Do you mean on the CB? It's almost impossible to make a bad hit on the CB in this situation.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Consider other object balls very close by.
Patrick Johnson said:
I think you just contradicted yourself my man. In one post you say it is okay to shoot directly through the OB. And now you indicate the rules say there can not be prolonged contact with the OB. What do you think happens when you shoot directly through the ball. There IS prolonged contact, and it damn sure is a push, rules or not!
Regardless, this is a rule that has been argued at tournaments forever, and they may still be arguing it long after we are gone. So be it. The BCA rules gurus took the easy way out and said you can do anything you want with a frozen ball. Just fire away. So in this case, if the balls are frozen next to the pack, you can just blast the entire pack wide open with one big stroke through the cue ball. That's a nice shot!
I will continue to contend that shooting a frozen ball at an angle is an entirely different type of hit, and is not necessarily a push. The ball(s) act(s) quite differently when struck this way. Of course, I'm just another smuck that's been hitting balls for a million years. What would I know, and why would anyone with the BCA rules committee care?
There isn't prolonged contact. As I said above, high speed video has confirmed that. Bob Jewett, who has had a leading role in revising the rules, was also an organizer of the high speed video research project (The Jacksonville Project) I'm talking about. With all due respect for your experience, the rule reflects reality and isn't hastily or carelessly written.
I think this might be a good point that isn't covered in the rules. It isn't that rare in 14.1, for instance, for the cue ball to be frozen to the side of the pack, and having the mass of two or more OBs behind the CB might change the risk of fouling dramatically.
I think this is the problem people have with this shot: it's weird. In every other kind of shot there's a definite CB/OB impact with a sharp noise and an abrupt change in the CB's speed and direction. But shooting through a frozen CB/OB there doesn't seem to even be an impact, and the CB doesn't react normally. It just doesn't seem right. I get it. But I also get that what things seem like to me often isn't what they are (like how it seems like the sun goes around the Earth).
Hitting all those balls has made you a great player with extensive knowledge - and the physics of the game are mostly straightforward and intuitively obvious. But physics is known for its sometimes counterintuitive truths and this is one of them. There may be good reason to dislike this rule, but the possibility of double hits or push shots isn't it.
I do have another objection to the rule as-is, though - I think a legal shot should require that the CB impact an OB, defined as coming into contact after being separated during the same shot. For consistency, then, I suppose this should also be the definition of a "hit", so that merely moving a frozen OB without coming back into contact with it would not qualify as a hit.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Prolonged contact??? I think that's a different question.Patrick Johnson said:
The Jacksonville Project proved that hitting through a frozen ball doesn't result in an automatic double hit of the cue ball.
One slight distinction that is being a bit overlooked is: that experiment never said that it's "impossible" for there to be a double hit. It basically just says that a double hit isn't naturally going to occur. It would take some additional influence in order for there to be a double hit.
For example, a cue ball frozen to an object ball, which is a short distance away from another object ball. Thus, you could get a legal hit on the cue ball, and as the cue stick separates from the object ball, the other ball (short distance away) is impacted causing a second hit on the cue ball via chain reaction.
The current interpretation of the rule basically throws everything else out the window. Because the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, the shooter has a license to hit it however they want. This is because that initial hit will be legal, and any such resultant actions, might require a physics degree and maybe even a good camera in order to diagnose, so therefore ignore it and rule in favor of the shooter.
Trick Shot example: There's 1 trickshot which is actually a cheat, where there's a cue ball, an interference ball, and the true object ball, such that the cue ball and object ball are in line to a pocket, but the interference ball is right inbetween the other two with basically a halfball hit. The trickshot artist shoots the shot and knocks in the object ball. But, the object ball was never hit with the cue ball, instead the trick shot artist strokes his stick through the contact with the cue ball, and continues his stroke until the cue stick hits the object ball.
Now back on topic: If you have a cue ball frozen to an object ball and a cluster (large or small, maybe even a single ball) on the other side a short distance away. The shooter can swing away through it all, and it is very difficult to tell if everything happened cleanly or if the shooter stroked through and fouled as an after-effect of the initial clean hit.
I can see your point on that one. Makes for a simple resolution.Patrick Johnson said:
OK... But what are you pushing against? In a masse` you are pushing against the ball, which is backed up by the table. So your prolonged contact is on the cue ball between the cue stick and the pool table. And you can be assured that the pool table is gonna act consistently.vagabond said:
So you can get a consistent, predictable, and determinable result. Now, if you want to ask the question of whether that result should be allowed as legal, then you can open that up for debate.
It also showed there isn't prolonged contact.
The experiment showed that stroking through the frozen combo doesn't cause a double hit. The rule warns that double hits may occur for other reasons on the same shot.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Doesn't the Sun go around the Earth? News to me!
FLICKit said:
with due apolozies,I am not able to understand you.what is ' consistent,predictable,and deterninable result ' to do with determing whether there is a sustained contact between the tip of the cue stick and the cue ball?
If there is a sustained contact it then becomes a push shot.If it is a push it should then be considered as a foul.
By the way if you read mr.byrne`s book he will explain the physics/science involved in Masse` shots.his comments do indicate that there is a sustained contact.I have tremendous respect for mr.byrne and anything he says is bible to me.
