Rules.....

[RakRunr]

The question was: can I make a direct push shot?? no more and the correct answer should have been, YESS and no more.

When you say that the referee: PROBABLY SHOULD, make that determination, It tells me that you are not qualified to answer this kind of question, no more.

I seem to have struck a nerve here, so let me clarify: When I said they "probably should", what I mean is that a player should get the referee to declare balls frozen rather than doing so themselves. In a non-presided match, most "calls" are made by the players themselves - a referee only makes a call if requested by a player. What I'm saying is it is in the player's best interest to involve a referee. Then and only then can the referee determine whether the balls are frozen or not.

If they are declared frozen, you may shoot directly through the cue ball and that action alone does not constitute a foul under the rules. And yes, that is a rule, so yes the referee should inform you of such. And if you want to get hyper technical, this situation does not define a push shot. A push shot is defined as "A shot in which the cue tip maintains contact with the cue ball longer than the momentary contact allowed for a legal stroke."

 

[RakRunr]

Probably the best explanation you will get on here. I agree that it is the referee's duty to inform a player if the cue ball is frozen or not. I for one, DO NOT LIKE the relatively new rule that you can shoot directly through a frozen ball. That just opens things up to controversy. Who is to really say a player did or did not "push" the balls? Do you really want an amateur ref making this call? In the old rules you could shoot through the cue ball at an angle to the object ball, thus avoiding the push. Of course by now they've "fixed" the rules so well that there are more controversies than ever before.

The rules are based on whether a double hit occurs or not. While seemingly contrary to common sense, if the balls are frozen, there is actually no double hit, because the frozen balls act as a single mass. Not surprisingly, Dr Dave has a good video showing this in slow motion. While shooting at an angle makes a double hit less likely, it is definitely still possible. In the CSI referee program, we take regular classes on the physics of ball contact and subsequent motion so we can make these determinations.

 

[jay helfert]

The rules are based on whether a double hit occurs or not. While seemingly contrary to common sense, if the balls are frozen, there is actually no double hit, because the frozen balls act as a single mass. Not surprisingly, Dr Dave has a good video showing this in slow motion. While shooting at an angle makes a double hit less likely, it is definitely still possible. In the CSI referee program, we take regular classes on the physics of ball contact and subsequent motion so we can make these determinations.

They made a push shot legal, where the cue ball follows on a direct path the object ball it was frozen too. Bad rule in my book!

 

[DynoDan]

Probably the best explanation you will get on here. I agree that it is the referee's duty to inform a player if the cue ball is frozen or not. I for one, DO NOT LIKE the relatively new rule that you can shoot directly through a frozen ball. That just opens things up to controversy. Who is to really say a player did or did not "push" the balls? Do you really want an amateur ref making this call? In the old rules you could shoot through the cue ball at an angle to the object ball, thus avoiding the push. Of course by now they've "fixed" the rules so well that there are more controversies than ever before.

I think the problem with ‘that’ rule lies with situations involving additional/adjacent balls. It’s likely impossible to shoot directly into a frozen ball without fouling if there are other balls close in front. Something the ref is prohibited from disclosing (?).

 

[Bob Jewett]

... In the old rules you could shoot through the cue ball at an angle to the object ball, thus avoiding the push. Of course by now they've "fixed" the rules so well that there are more controversies than ever before.

That may have been the rule in some tournaments -- DCC has very strange rules in this area -- but here is what the BCA rules said in 1962. The wording is not the best.

By 1977, the updated BCA rule was this:

This wording is also poor as it seems not to include the possibility of pocketing the object ball. But, of course, pocketing a ball is always as good as driving a ball to a cushion.

So far as I know, under BCA and World Standardized Rules, shooting directly at a frozen ball has always been legal (or at least since 1948).

Which rule set were you referring to, Jay?

 

[straightline]

Prolly the ref wouldn't or couldn't or was prevented from detailing possible foul scenarios. Scenariae?

 

[ideologist]

Hello, can we ask a referee for a rule during a game or not, what do the rules say about it?
Thanks!

"Is this ball frozen?"

If they refuse to answer, all ties go to the shooter

 

[Bob Jewett]

"Is this ball frozen?"

If they refuse to answer, all ties go to the shooter

I think the ref can't refuse to answer, but a ball that is not called frozen is assumed to not be frozen. That's true whether frozen to another ball or to the cushion.

 

[AtLarge]

They made a push shot legal, where the cue ball follows on a direct path the object ball it was frozen too. Bad rule in my book!

I think you are not making an important distinction when the cue ball is frozen to an object ball. Yes, it is possible to commit a push shot in such a situation, just as it is possible when the cue ball is not frozen to the object ball. A push shot means the cue tip "remains in contact with the CB longer than is appropriate for a normal stroke and legal shot" (Dr. Dave's glossary). But when the two balls are frozen, they sort of become a 12 oz. cue ball instead of a 6 oz. cue ball. And it is still quite possible to make a normal stroke on the cue ball, one that is not a push shot, that moves both balls (that 12 oz. unit) away together. The problem might be when the ref cannot or does not distinguish between the two situations with frozen balls.

 

[jay helfert]

That may have been the rule in some tournaments -- DCC has very strange rules in this area -- but here is what the BCA rules said in 1962. The wording is not the best.
View attachment 676575
View attachment 676576
By 1977, the updated BCA rule was this:

View attachment 676577
This wording is also poor as it seems not to include the possibility of pocketing the object ball. But, of course, pocketing a ball is always as good as driving a ball to a cushion.

So far as I know, under BCA and World Standardized Rules, shooting directly at a frozen ball has always been legal (or at least since 1948).

Which rule set were you referring to, Jay?

Thank you Bob. The reality is that almost all major 9-Ball tournaments during the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's did not use BCA rules and did not allow push shots directly through the object ball. This is similar to when we started the Bigfoot Ten Ball tournaments at DCC. We created the rules we wanted to play by. The BCA was basically the governing body of amateur pool in those days and was not recognized as the final authority on pro tournaments at that time. The independent promoters made the rules that were used in these events. If I were to produce a major tournament today I would not allow this shot either. Those of you on the BCA rules committee should know better as well. It is the same group who nullified a win in Eight Ball when the eight was made on the break, breaking a tradition that had stood the test of time for eons.

By the same token, the major promoters of todays major events are under no obligation to play by BCA rules. They may play under the WPA rules though, although some do not. Matchroom and Predator can make their own rules and often do.

You of all people should realize that allowing a player to shoot directly through the object when the cue ball is frozen to it should not be allowed. It allows chaos to happen on the pool table. In essence you have now created a 12 oz. cue ball to plow through the table. Not good imo. This is a BCA rule that needs to be changed!

 

[jay helfert]

I think you are not making an important distinction when the cue ball is frozen to an object ball. Yes, it is possible to commit a push shot in such a situation, just as it is possible when the cue ball is not frozen to the object ball. A push shot means the cue tip "remains in contact with the CB longer than is appropriate for a normal stroke and legal shot" (Dr. Dave's glossary). But when the two balls are frozen, they sort of become a 12 oz. cue ball instead of a 6 oz. cue ball. And it is still quite possible to make a normal stroke on the cue ball, one that is not a push shot, that moves both balls (that 12 oz. unit) away together. The problem might be when the ref cannot or does not distinguish between the two situations with frozen balls.

It's pretty hard not to commit a push shot in this situation unless you jack up on the cue ball and stroke down into it, and even that may be a push. Better to not allow the shot at all.

 

[RakRunr]

It's pretty hard not to commit a push shot in this situation unless you jack up on the cue ball and stroke down into it, and even that may be a push. Better to not allow the shot at all.

Jay, I have nothing but respect for your long history of involvement with and support of the pool community. I also get that you disagree with and dislike the changes made in the rules. It is also apparent that nothing said will change your opinion on this issue. Nonetheless, your statement is just factually incorrect. Using a normal stroke (which is not a push according to the definition), based on the scientific evidence as shared and explained previously in this thread, a double hit does not occur and therefore it is not a foul.

 

[jay helfert]

Jay, I have nothing but respect for your long history of involvement with and support of the pool community. I also get that you disagree with and dislike the changes made in the rules. It is also apparent that nothing said will change your opinion on this issue. Nonetheless, your statement is just factually incorrect. Using a normal stroke (which is not a push according to the definition), based on the scientific evidence as shared and explained previously in this thread, a double hit does not occur and therefore it is not a foul.

I will agree to disagree. I do agree it may not be a double hit, but it is a push shot! I contend it's impossible to shoot directly through the object ball without the cue ball pushing through it. That is why you see the cue ball following on a direct path behind the object ball. Calling it a "normal" stroke changes nothing. Totally bogus shot imo.

 

[DynoDan]

Mike Massey’s sidearm technique notwithstanding, I think if you are going to change a long standing rule to avoid contention, why not go all the way and prohibit all shots closer that a chalk width? An easy thing to measure/judge, and would certainly eliminate a lot of argument (double hit/push/jack-up angle/etc.).

 

[dr_dave]

I do agree it may not be a double hit, but it is a push shot! I contend it's impossible to shoot directly through the object ball without the cue ball pushing through it. That is why you see the cue ball following on a direct path behind the object ball. Calling it a "normal" stroke changes nothing. Totally bogus shot imo.

Jay, super-slow-motion video proves that hitting into a frozen CB is not a "push shot." It might "feel" like a push, due to the extra effective weight of the CB, but the shot does not violate anything in standard pool rules. For convincing proof, see the videos and info here:

hitting into a frozen CB is not a foul​

It sounds like you might like the rule used by VNEA. This video covers all the reasons why it is a bad rule:

 

[Bob Jewett]

... By the same token, the major promoters of todays major events are under no obligation to play by BCA rules. They may play under the WPA rules though, although some do not. Matchroom and Predator can make their own rules and often do.
...

The BCA is required by being a member of the WPA to use the (WPA) World Standardized Rules.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The reality is that almost all major 9-Ball tournaments during the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's did not use BCA rules and did not allow push shots directly through the object ball. ...

I think the first set of complete, written rules for pro 9-ball were the PBA rules of 1988:

I think before those rules were published, TDs just kind of made things up along the way.

 

[KissedOut]

It's pretty hard not to commit a push shot in this situation unless you jack up on the cue ball and stroke down into it, and even that may be a push. Better to not allow the shot at all.

In 3C, if the cue ball is frozen to an object ball your options are to shoot completely away from the frozen object ball or have the 2 balls spotted in a specified way. Any shot towards the frozen ball is deemed a foul and the players inning ends.

It's interesting how pool, billiards, and snooker all treat frozen balls differently.

 

[straightline]

They made a push shot legal, where the cue ball follows on a direct path the object ball it was frozen too. Bad rule in my book!

If player A has the 8 ball hanging and you lock him up on your ball froze, he can shoot right through at what is now a duck; essentially off your ball. Similar situations occur in rotation games albeit less annoying.
Otherwise, frozen caroms are interesting shots.

 

[jay helfert]

Jay, super-slow-motion video proves that hitting into a frozen CB is not a "push shot." It might "feel" like a push, due to the extra effective weight of the CB, but the shot does not violate anything in standard pool rules. For convincing proof, see the videos and info here:

hitting into a frozen CB is not a foul​

It sounds like you like the rule used by VNEA. This video covers all the reasons why it is a bad rule:

Thank you Dave. Some interesting shots here. I used one of them (bisecting the angle) to defeat Jimmy Fusco in a One Pocket match at the last Stardust tournament. You clearly illustrate that shooting straight through a frozen ball creates the same effect as shooting directly through an object ball that is a millimeter apart. In both cases the cue ball follows on a direct path behind the object ball. IMO this shot should never be allowed in pool. You might want to try timing how long the cue tip is in contact with the cue ball on such a shot. I suspect it is slightly longer than on a regular shot where there is distance between the balls. In essence you are now shooting through a 12 oz. cue ball.