New WPA World Standardized Rules

Patrick Johnson said:
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
Click to expand...

Issue in debate is not about 'double hit'.It is about 'push shot'.In frozen ball situation it can`t be anything but push as there is no way one can execute that shot with out pushing it unless one is hitting the cue away from the object ball like in snooker.If the framers of the rules say that in certain situations push shot is allowed and one of such situations is 'frozen balls' then nobody will have a problem.
 
vagabond said:
Issue in debate is not about 'double hit'.It is about 'push shot'.In frozen ball situation it can`t be anything but push as there is no way one can execute that shot with out pushing it ...
Click to expand...
You are not using the phrase "push shot" in the same way it is used in the rules, so there is some confusion. The case of what is legal when the cue ball is frozen to the object ball is handled explicitly, and those who plan to play or referee under WPA rules should learn what the rule is and how to apply it.

Those who don't like the rule should start campaigning now for a change in 2013, which is theoretically the next time that anything other than a wording clarification will be considered.

I think the best solution for pool -- if there is to be a change -- is to adopt rules like those of snooker, which is to say that you must shoot away from a frozen ball and you get credit for hitting the ball if that would be helpful. (Carom usually allows or requires spotting balls when frozen, and that's harder to apply at pool.) I think the game affected the least would be nine ball since it is rare to find yourself frozen the to lowest ball. The most frequent would be one pocket and straight pool in which the players often work hard to leave the cue ball frozen to a ball.

There are some who favor allowing any single stroke no matter how many times the cue ball is struck, but I hope we can discard that bogosity without further consideration.

For those who haven't read the new rules yet, and it's clear that is most of you, be ready for a tough slog, especially if you begin with a distorted notion of what the current rules are. Expect to go through them at least twice before they start to fit together for you since there are a lot of references from one part to another.
 
jay helfert said:
....I commend the BCA rules committee for attempting to come up with a standardized set of rules for Eight Ball, but don't condemn another country because their version of Eight Ball was different than ours. Their version of Black Ball (aka English Eight Ball) was actually more consistent with one set of rules over there, than we were over here, with all our rule changes.....
Click to expand...

Jay, I don't know enough about the USA situation.....so wouldn't like to enter the debate about the respective extents of rule variation practices within American 8 ball as compared to within uk 8 ball but have to disabuse you of the notion of any historic or current uniformity or harmony in uk style 8 ball rules in use within uk.

Please see my post 37 for a very brief summary of the main points surrounding the appallingly disorganised 8 ball rules situation in uk. The abundance of different rules for uk style 8 ball is one of the single biggest factors holding back any progress in that particular type of pool. The debate rages on almost on a daily basis and has done for many many years. The quite recent introduction of an affiliation to the WPA by a small proportion of uk style 8 ball players and the simultaneous introduction of the new term "Blackball" into the equation, have changed absolutely nothing in that respect either for better or worse. The situation is an utter unmitigated shambles with no likely solution in sight.
 
vagabond 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.:cool:
Click to expand...
OK... but before I can answer that for you...

Please provide a definition of 'sustained contact' within the context of a masse` shot.
Just making sure we have the same definitions before proceeding... Otherwise we could post 20 posts and not even be talking about the same thing.
 
Last edited:
vagabond said:
... 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. ...
Click to expand...
There seems to be some confusion about the wording for increased contact time. There are many things you can do that increase the tip-ball contact time over the time for an average shot that are permitted and unquestioned. These include using a softer tip, shooting more softly, gripping the stick more tightly, using a heavier stick, using any sort of spin, elevating the cue stick including up to a full masse, and on and on. Also including shooting the cue ball towards a ball it is frozen to, which increases the contact time but not as much as when you use extreme english or a very soft tip.

I think it's good to begin by understanding those push shots which are illegal (and very, very rare). I've described them before, and you can find examples in the RSB FAQ listing at the start of the misc files on the sfbilliards web site.
 
OK, a "Push Shot" is legal according to the WPA rules but to my way of thinking it will always be a foul.
The definition of "push shot" is; when the CB, the OB and the Cue are all in contact at the same time. How anyone can argue against that statement is beyond me.

What about my other point regarding "cue ball fouls only"?
A rule which is a foul if there is a referee present suddenly becomes a good shot when there is no referee!!!

Regulation 5 states that the non shooting player will perform all of the duties of the referee, if that is the case, why can he not call a foul if the shooter touches a ball with his shirt etc????

As far as I know, such an action has always been a foul in Europe, the "cue ball fouls only" rule does not exist
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
I think it's good to begin by understanding those push shots which are illegal (and very, very rare).
Click to expand...

Hi Bob,

I may have missed most of this thread, but does this mean if you hit the cue directly into a ball it's in touch with, the fact that the cue passes over the path of the object ball, it's no longer a foul?

PS, Never saw a response on whether there's a "change document" showing what changes were made between the old and new. It's easier to compare documents if the changes are outlined.

Thanks,
Poolmouse
 
FLICKit said:
OK... but before I can answer that for you...

Please provide a definition of 'sustained contact' within the context of a masse` shot.
Click to expand...

I am glad that u raised that issue.on few occasions in the past in one of the AZB threads I raised that question.I also asked about whether we have any tools available to measure the contact time.In the research labs we may have tools but in reality in everyday practice in the pool hall that is not possible.
In the last two posts from Bob jewet and the gentleman from spain , I heard different definitions of push shot.If that is how a push shot is defined I then rest my case.however I will raise another question.What do you call that shot when the distance between the cue ball and object ball was more than 3 feet and I shove the cueball with a sustained contact ( like a chimney sweep) but the cue ball and object ball were not hit at the same time.
 
Last edited:
FLICKit said:
OK... but before I can answer that for you...

Please provide a definition of 'sustained contact' within the context of a masse` shot.
Click to expand...

I am glad that u raised that issue.on few occasions in the past in one the AZB threads I raised that question.I also asked whether any tools are available to measure the contact time.In the research labs we may have tools but in the reality in everyday practice in the pool hall that is not possible.
In the last two posts from Bob jewet and the gentleman from spain , I heard different definitions of push shot.If that is how a push shot is defined I then rest my case.however I will raise another question.What do you call that shot when the distance between the cue ball and object ball was more than 3 feet and I shove the cueball with a sustained contact ( like a chimney sweep) but the cue ball and object ball were not hit at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Peter@CEP:
OK, a "Push Shot" is legal according to the WPA rules but to my way of thinking it will always be a foul.
The definition of "push shot" is; when the CB, the OB and the Cue are all in contact at the same time. How anyone can argue against that statement is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It's beyond me how you can read the rules and come to that conclusion.

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

So:

1. A Push Shot is a foul.
2. A Push Shot is "tip-to-cue-ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots".

pj
chgo
 
A snooker definition.

push shot: The cue tip maintains contact with the cue ball when the cue ball hits another ball. This is normally deemed a foul, unless the cue and object ball where already almost touching each other and the object ball is hit on a very fine edge.
 
Peter@CEP said:
A snooker definition.

push shot: The cue tip maintains contact with the cue ball when the cue ball hits another ball. This is normally deemed a foul, unless the cue and object ball where already almost touching each other and the object ball is hit on a very fine edge.
Click to expand...

Here's the rule from the WorldSnooker.com website. Notice the first definition (in blue).

18. Push Stroke
A push stroke is made when the tip of the cue remains in contact with the cue-ball
(a) after the cue-ball has commenced its forward motion, or
(b) as the cue-ball makes contact with an object ball except, where the cue-ball and an object ball are almost touching, it shall not be deemed a push stroke if the cue-ball hits a very fine edge of the object ball.
Click to expand...

pj
chgo
 
Bob Jewett said:
In November, the WPA General Assembly accepted new Rules and Regulations for pool. The games covered are 9 ball, 8 ball, 14.1 and black ball (a game like 8 ball played in the UK and many Commonwealth countries). There is an explanation of the editing and revision procedure on the WPA web site, which is www.wpa-pool.com. The rules themselves are not up there yet but are available here:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/WPA_New_Rules_21Dec2007.pdf

Besides the rules, there is a set of regulations, which cover things like the penalties for being late, proper attire, and playing without a referee, and possible additional requirements for the break at nine ball. The regulations are available here:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/WPA_New_Regulations_30Nov2007.pdf

The rules are intended to remain the same for the next five years. The regulations are more malleable.
Click to expand...


I am sorry if you have already replied to this. I wanted to know about when someone intentionally taps the cue ball with his ferrule while fouling in 14.1, ala Reyes and West in that match many years ago. Is it a loss of an additional 15 and a rerack, and where in the rules is it covered. This came up in our league play just last Thursday.

Also, what is the rule on consecutive safeties to the same rail and where is it found?

Thank you for your time.
 
What about lunging at the table with your huge belly and or hips in an attempt to assist a hanging ball into a pocket? Ive seen a few guys that think the pool table is a pin ball machine.
 
dmgwalsh said:
I am sorry if you have already replied to this. I wanted to know about when someone intentionally taps the cue ball with his ferrule while fouling in 14.1, ala Reyes and West in that match many years ago. Is it a loss of an additional 15 and a rerack, and where in the rules is it covered. This came up in our league play just last Thursday.
Click to expand...
you know dm, I was wondering about that myself, because I recall Bob Jewett mentioning that it will be required by the new rules to move a cue along its axis during the shot. So I was going to ask him, but then after studying the rules I found smth relevant. I think the following is to be applied (and generally the same just without word "axis"):

8.2 Shot
A shot begins when the tip contacts the cue ball due to a forward stroke motion of the cue stick. , and
6.6 Touched Ball
It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot.

So if a shooter does not strike the ball properly it is a foul. And a serious one, as we can see that
6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct
...
(b) changing the position of the balls in play other than by a shot;
(c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing; cover that pretty well, part (b) especially.
Is it a 15-ball penalty and rerack? 4.11 Serious Fouls says that "For 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct, the referee will choose a penalty depending on the nature of the offense". And that is "Among other penalties possible are a warning; a standard-foul penalty, which will count as part of a three-foul sequence if applicable; a serious-foul penalty; loss of a rack, set or match".
Though I wonder if there is a general guideline like instruction for referees which one to choose in that particular case.

Also, what is the rule on consecutive safeties to the same rail and where is it found?
Click to expand...
I believe we can forget about it now. And for good, since it was too confusing and complicated to understand and apply in the game.

edit: I found the respective thread and Bob's post about it. It reads the same in the World rules as Bob puts it here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=655483&postcount=10
The whole thread is here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=57315
 
Last edited:
Fragged said:
What about lunging at the table with your huge belly and or hips in an attempt to assist a hanging ball into a pocket? Ive seen a few guys that think the pool table is a pin ball machine.
Click to expand...
See rule 6.6 Touched Ball, it covers that situation I think. That is unsportsmanlike conduct and a warning, a foul, loss of rack, loss of match depending on the ref's choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top