Rule 6.8 Push Shot.... "It is a foul to prolong tip-to-cue-ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots."
Push shot foul?
- Thread starter Bob Jewett
- Start date
Ultimate pool I don't think is a good comparison. They have a rule that they used in Denver.... when your match is on the TV table 8 on the break wins.
Ultimate Pool is a good comparison because it uses the English 8 ball/ world rules which Bob was discussing. It isn’t a good comparison to the applicable rule inWNT, WPA etc…. TV rules in the pro matches in UP are completely irrelevant of course.
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.
It was a normal, although powerful stroke. You also don't understand what a push shot is within the rules.
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.
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.
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.
Check out the first YouTube clip I posted above. The opponent was asked, then the ref came over, checked for frozenness and said something. I didn't hear what he said, but I very strongly suspect he called them frozen.
As I wrote above, Pongers called the ref over to inspect the balls and the ref said something after inspection. If he said “frozen” or “touching” then the shot was legal. If he said “not frozen” then it’s the clearest foul ever and Pongers is an idiot (I’m assuming he declared it frozen because I just have to believe Pongers knows the rule). And of course if they were declared frozen then by rule they are frozen even if the ref misses a small gap.
Karl clearly doesn’t know the rule. He didn’t discuss at all the issue of they were frozen and clearly thought you could never shoot into a frozen object ball.
Last edited:
Listen to Karl's comments in the second clip I posted. He hasn't got a clue, nor does the other commentator. (Michael something?)
Related to which, the vast majority of pro players don't know what the rules are. Part of the problem is that some events use their own made-up rules, like the DCC. At the DCC, as long as you elevate, you can shoot directly at a ball you are not frozen to and also into a frozen ball. At DCC, Pongers' shot was illegal because he did not jack up.
Last edited:
Michael McMullan. He is a TV guy - a presenter not an expert. By the way that’s not intended to slight him, as I think Matchroom has several of these types and they work well with a pro player expert (like say Joe Buck with a Troy Aikman in the NFL).
Derby bringing the VNEA rules back from the dead after Dr Dave killed them.
The zombie rule apocalypse.
I played one session of VNEA pool over 20 years ago and I got called on the “you have to jack up even if it’s frozen” rule. At that time I didn’t know enough to know that BCA/WPA rules didn’t apply everywhere. Lesson learned.
Why is the player an idiot?
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.
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
Yes. There is also an advantage to having a clear rule that is easy to judge or ref. I don’t think it is the right rule, but… the clarity avoids some problems.
Like the tush push rule in the NFL. I like the old rule and interpretation, I don’t like the current rule. There is now opposition to the new rule, but maybe not enough to change it back. What might fix the problem is not substance or safety, but the fact false starts and such can’t be reffed well. Not the right approach to me, but being able to officiate a given rule accurately and consistently is a consideration.