Push shot foul?

[GideonF]

because it's very rare to shoot it like that and probably most ref's never had to rule on such shot so if it was me, before shooting, I would make sure that the ref knows the rule

As far as I know, most refs are trained such that they can’t explain a rule or tell you what the outcome is before the shot. So you can’t ask “great, you’ve said it’s frozen. So that means I can shoot straight into them with a normal stoke?” Plus a properly trained ref would be insulted I think if you were making sure they knew the rule.

 

[garczar]

Bob’s posts above are blunt, but I think properly highlight some of the difficulties with pool rules. Well intentioned people with experience can be very wrong on how they interpret a rule. I’ve had trained refs demonstrate that they misunderstand a specific rule. Maybe they aren’t well trained etc… but people get things wrong all the time. Like the befuddled announcers in this thread.

I can handle blunt just no bullshit. I like his replies for sure.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... and even though legal no reason it should be allowed in pool. ...

If it is not allowed, then how do you handle the case in nine ball when you are frozen to the target ball? Get ball in hand? Shoot away like at snooker? Jack up and all is OK?

Actually, ball in hand would be pretty interesting. It would change 14.1 and one pocket a lot -- you frequently get frozen to a ball during safety battles.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Wierd rule. Some things are bit off here.
How can you shoot towards or partialy into the ball and NOT to move the ball?

I think this rule is covering a different situation, because it defines what counts as a contact. If you shoot cueball towards the rail for example its legal only if ob moved, otherwise its a foul. Initial frozen contact does not counts as a contact if ob haven't moved.

The wording is slightly awkward. You are required to contact an object ball on the shot. Normally, that is when the cue ball comes into contact with a ball. For a frozen ball, the cue ball starts in contact. Requiring movement just keeps that initial contact from counting.

 

[GideonF]

It was a normal, although powerful stroke. You also don't understand what a push shot is within the rules.

Unfortunately it seems Karl Boyes is now quoting the push rule. My guess is that Marcel is as confused as some of our posters and is the one who fed him this.

 

[Bob Jewett]

As far as I know, most refs are trained such that they can’t explain a rule or tell you what the outcome is before the shot. So you can’t ask “great, you’ve said it’s frozen. So that means I can shoot straight into them with a normal stoke?” Plus a properly trained ref would be insulted I think if you were making sure they knew the rule.

Under the current regulations, the ref is supposed to explain rules. I think this is not a good situation, but it seems to be necessary with so many different rule sets and modifications being used. It's not just DCC that makes up its own. Here is the applicable WPA regulation:

9. REFEREEʼS RESPONSIVENESS
The referee shall answer playersʼ inquiries regarding objective data, such as whether a ball will be in the rack, whether a ball is above the head string, what the count is, how many points are needed for a victory, if a player or his opponent is on a foul, what rule would apply if a certain shot is made, etc. When asked for a clarification of a rule, the referee will explain the applicable rule to the best of his ability, but any misstatement by the referee will not protect a player from enforcement of the actual rules. The referee must not offer or provide any subjective opinion that would affect play, such as whether a good hit can be made on a prospective shot, whether a combination can be made, or how the table seems to be playing, etc.

 

[Island Drive]

Sadly and surprisingly, you have no idea what the rules are. You might try reading them some time. Here is a brief exerpt:

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. ​

What rule number is that above Comment in print?
I'm all for learning from my mistakes.

shoot towards or partly into that ball What Rule # is that?
Then....

What's the definition of ''towards'' in the rule book?

Also.... what's Partly mean in the rule book?

Please explain, I want to learn more.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Please explain, I want to learn more.

The WSR are available on the WPA website.

 

[iusedtoberich]

@Bob Jewett apologies, I had not clicked on your video. I had already clicked on one on FB before commenting in this thread, and thought you were just sharing the FB one. The one on FB starts at the shot address, and didn't show the situation leading up to it. The one on FB does have the early commentary by Boyes stating that in snooker one must shoot away, while in pool it doesn't matter (which does sound like he doesn't know the rule).

Now that I saw your clip (both of them), which is much longer and shows the player calling the ref over, I'm dumbfounded. We can't make out what the ref said. If he said "frozen", of course the shot was legal, as the player used an otherwise normal stroke. If he said "not frozen", of course the shot was a foul.

It just doesn't add up regardless of what the ref declared to explain what happened. If the player was smart enough to call the ref over, one would assume the player knows the rule. One would have to assume the ref does! I mean this is weekly handicap common knowledge to any D and above player. (not bangers). Also Marcel came over at the end and he could have overruled the ref if they were indeed declared frozen.

Maybe the player and ref had a miscommunication? Maybe the ref said "not frozen" and the player heard "frozen"? That's the only thing that somewhat makes sense to me.

I still think from the reaction of the balls they were NOT frozen.

I also still think Karl knows the rule for American Pool. Even though he was a bit dumb in his commentary, he's got to know it.

IMO as always

 

[David in FL]

Assuming the balls were frozen there was absolutely nothing wrong with that shot!

 

[Island Drive]

I quoted rule #'s to support my position.
I looked it up.
Since you looked it up, what are the rules for referee responsiveness?
Your HOF knowledge will be helping us all.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I guess the only other explanation is the Ref has not reffed American pool before, and in Blackball or Snooker you can't shoot into a declared frozen ball, and he was thinking of those.

 

[GideonF]

I guess the only other explanation is the Ref has not reffed American pool before, and in Blackball or Snooker you can't shoot into a declared frozen ball, and he was thinking of those.

The other explaination is that the ref and/or Marcel don’t understand what an actual push shot is. Karl’s FB post suggests that to me (see my post above).

 

[skor]

If I'm not mistaken, Marcel is part of the WPA rules committee, he should have known better

 

[Cornerman]

I can’t listen to the audio, but I see Pongers pointing to the handle area. Did the ref think he heard a double hit, and Pongers was saying it was the handle of the cue stick banging the rail?

 

[Island Drive]

This clip is all over fb.

The ref didn’t declare them frozen. (Unless it was earlier before the clip started).

There is no way in a million years those balls were frozen! You can tell by the sound and the reaction of both balls that there was a gap. When they are frozen, they separate and go at slightly different speeds even if follow is used, and the sound is pure like hitting a normal CB.

Karl for sure knows the American Pool frozen ball rule. He played pro American style pool for 15 years.

I think he just had a brain fart at the very end when he mentioned snooker and shooting away from a declared frozen ball….. Because he couldn’t believe what he just saw!

That is the most blatant foul I’ve ever seen in pro pool. The last time I’ve seen that foul was 20 years ago at the local Tuesday night handicap tournament by a complete banger.

Jewett said

Sadly and surprisingly, you have no idea what the rules are.

You might try reading them some time. Here is a brief exerpt:

​

Bob I'm going to throw dirt on your above comment.
If you don't like me fine, but keep those comments to your self, give us your HOF knowledge not thee other.

 

[skogstokig]

I guess the only other explanation is the Ref has not reffed American pool before, and in Blackball or Snooker you can't shoot into a declared frozen ball, and he was thinking of those.

looks like a local balkan ref. they mainly play am. pool there. icbw

but it cannot not have been frozen. pongers is experienced enough to not do something like that

 

[skor]

looks like a local balkan ref. they mainly play am. pool there. icbw

but it cannot not have been frozen. pongers is experienced enough to not do something like that

The ref called it frozen, you can see in the video that he bumps his fists to call it

 

[jtompilot]

i listened again and it sounds like the CB came back ad struck the tip again. anyone hear the 'clicky' sound? is that the foul here?

My cue makes a sound every time I hit the cue ball. There’s no such thing as a quiet hit

 

[iusedtoberich]

The ref called it frozen, you can see in the video that he bumps his fists to call it

I thought so too when I first watched it. But I can't be certain. He might have been pressing his stopwatch it looks like he had something in his hand.