Push shot foul?

iusedtoberich said:
Do you boys think we will ever hear from the player, the ref at the table, or Marcel, from their own mouths?
Click to expand...

I thought Karl was suggesting (in response to my post in the MR discussion forum) that we would hear from Marcel, but I wasn’t watching earlier today to see it (I assume someone would have posted about though).

In the past when Dr Dave has made and posted videos about what he thinks are bad calls Marcel has responded to some on Facebook. Maybe we need [mention]Dr Dave [/mention] to do a video to get a response?

By the way, I think it’s Marcel who should be addressing this, not the local ref who made the call. Marcel is the head referee and this is part of his job IMO.
 
Last edited:
IDK if this is really from Ponger's mouth or not, because its not his account.

1773352142254.png
 
Badpenguin said:
... Either that or just make them shoot away from it like APA, lol.
Click to expand...
The official APA rules don't actually require shooting at an angle, but they do suggest that or jacking up to 30 degrees elevation to reduce the chance of a double hit on a close ball. The APA seems to be the same as the WPA for a frozen ball.
 
when you are going to shoot a controversial shot you really need to tell your opponent or the ref what you are going to do.

and settle it before you shoot, not after.
 
maha said:
when you are going to shoot a controversial shot you really need to tell your opponent or the ref what you are going to do.

and settle it before you shoot, not after.
Click to expand...
I think discussing the shot with your opponent may be helpful if there is confusion about the rules, but I think that usually the player should not be discussing his intent with the ref. If there is a question about the rules in play, that should be cleared up, but notice this clause of the WPA regulations about the ref explaining the rules (Reg. 9):

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.​
 
They should change the rules to treat the balls being frozen the same way you would treat them if they were just a hair apart. And require the shooter to shoot at an angle away from the object ball. I get that you are technically not double hitting it because they are frozen, but let's say you had the same scenario with the balls being closer to the rail, are you saying you can just softly glide your cue tip through the cue ball and freeze up both balls to the rail and then lift up your cue tip after you freeze them up to the rail?
 
Ok. If two balls frozen become a singularity, consider driving one or the other to a rail as the entire shot or driving the object ball into other balls with or without rail contact and the cueball with or without rail contact; aren't those fouls?

IOW if the cueball doesn't subsequently make an additional and legal contact - FOUL. (?)

Somebody say no. lol. Anyway, if the stated is the case, the Pongers shot was LEGALLY legal. (?)
 
In a tournament situation neither the ref or your opponent is going to help you legally shoot a shot.

Call your ball, call your pocket (if needed) and shoot.
 
dr_dave said:
Sorry I haven't been active in this conversation. I've been busy working on a myth busting video. I just posted it in a new thread:

Here's the video:

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Thanks for this.

The call was bad.

The WNT not allowing replay is bad (and weird, because WST snooker allows it and WNT is often influenced by WST policies).

Your conversation with Marcel is interesting. As I read the WNT rules (which I have quoted in earlier posts), if this was a Table Ref and not an Area Ref, the rules say the table ref’s decision is final (so Marcel COULDN’T fix it even if he thought the call was wrong).

But by far the worst of it all was the commentary. Michael is a presenter who is influenced by his snooker exposure but Karl should know the rules. But far, far worse than the ignorance was the utter disrespect they showed to a young professional player (who was right in fact!).
 
GideonF said:
Thanks for this.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

GideonF said:
The call was bad.

The WNT not allowing replay is bad (and weird, because WST snooker allows it and WNT is often influenced by WST policies).

Your conversation with Marcel is interesting. As I read the WNT rules (which I have quoted in earlier posts), if this was a Table Ref and not an Area Ref, the rules say the table ref’s decision is final (so Marcel COULDN’T fix it even if he thought the call was wrong).

But by far the worst of it all was the commentary. Michael is a presenter who is influenced by his snooker exposure but Karl should know the rules. But far, far worse than the ignorance was the utter disrespect they showed to a young professional player (who was right in fact!).
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
GideonF said:
... The WNT not allowing replay is bad (and weird, because WST snooker allows it and WNT is often influenced by WST policies). ...
Click to expand...
I was told that it is an expense issue. I think that if they used a 4k webcam and some kind of cheap computer as a storage/display device, it could be really cheap. Other tournaments stream every match, somehow.

They should be able to bring up any streamed table almost for free -- even on their cell phone. You can scroll back easily to the incident. Of course, the view may not be ideal, but it is something, and in the case at hand, I think it would have been enough.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I was told that it is an expense issue. I think that if they used a 4k webcam and some kind of cheap computer as a storage/display device, it could be really cheap. Other tournaments stream every match, somehow.

They should be able to bring up any streamed table almost for free -- even on their cell phone. You can scroll back easily to the incident. Of course, the view may not be ideal, but it is something, and in the case at hand, I think it would have been enough.
Click to expand...

pretty sure i have seen ref go to video replay in earlier events. on the main tv table.
 
Badpenguin said:
This is why the rule should be benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter. No replay would have been required and Marcel could have overruled.

Either that or just make them shoot away from it like APA, lol.
Click to expand...
Bob Jewett said:
The official APA rules don't actually require shooting at an angle, but they do suggest that or jacking up to 30 degrees elevation to reduce the chance of a double hit on a close ball. The APA seems to be the same as the WPA for a frozen ball.
Click to expand...

As Bob stated, the APA rule for a double hit mirrors the WPA rule for a double hit. Here's the APA definition of a double hit:
Double-Hit: An illegal shot involving the tip of the cue stick coming into contact with the cue ball twice during the execution of a single shot. This foul may occur through double clutching the cue ball, or in situations where the cue ball is nearly frozen to the object ball or rail. In the latter case, the double-hit often occurs due to the difficulty in moving the stick away from the shot quickly enough to avoid the cue ball rebounding back into the stick. In general, the shooter can lessen the likelihood of committing this type of foul by hitting the cue ball into the object ball or rail at an angle, or by elevating the butt of the cue about 30 degrees. This does not guarantee that a foul will be avoided; however, it cuts down the length of the follow through, which is the principal cause of a double-hit.


The APA takes a bit of a different stance on push shots. Here's their definition of a push shot:
Push Shot: A shot in which the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, and the shooter keeps the tip of the cue on the cue ball while pushing through the shot. Push shots are not fouls, but players who repeatedly guide the cue ball with force through object balls that are frozen to the cue ball, using a level cue and long follow through, may be subject to a sportsmanship penalty. In general, you can lessen the chance of being accused of shooting a push shot by hitting the cue ball into the object ball at an angle, or by elevating the butt of your cue about 30 degrees.

The APA has a few situations where you'd think rules apply, but they are not technically "fouls" in APA, just a sportsmanship violation. Most often those are done unknowingly, by less experienced shooters, and it affords an opportunity to explain that after the shot, but that doesn't always happen.
 
freds said:
I remember watching a bank pool match a couple years ago where this came up, I think w/Billy Thorpe. Or maybe Sky. He asked for rule clarification before shooting, and was amused to be told he could hit right through it..."really? I can shoot like this?"....and proceeded to make a cross-side. Probably US Open Banks. (It would have been YouTube, so it's likely out there somewhere.)
Click to expand...
Found it! Couple years, 7 years, close enough. (Time flies!)
(41:09)

In this case there was no controversy; the players, ref (some peoples' favorite), and announcers (some peoples' favorite) all got it right.
 
straightline said:
Ok. If two balls frozen become a singularity, consider driving one or the other to a rail as the entire shot or driving the object ball into other balls with or without rail contact and the cueball with or without rail contact; aren't those fouls?

IOW if the cueball doesn't subsequently make an additional and legal contact - FOUL. (?)

Somebody say no. lol. Anyway, if the stated is the case, the Pongers shot was LEGALLY legal. (?)
Click to expand...

Case in point:
freds said:
Found it! Couple years, 7 years, close enough. (Time flies!)
(41:09)

In this case there was no controversy; the players, ref (some peoples' favorite), and announcers (some peoples' favorite) all got it right.
Click to expand...

Ignore the fact the ball went. Pretend he missed the pocket. The cue ball made no ball contact. Why isn't this a foul?
 
Last edited:
straightline said:
Ignore the fact the ball went. Pretend he missed the pocket. The cue ball made no ball contact. Why isn't this a foul?
Click to expand...
Because the rules say it isn't? From WPA 6.7:

"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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top