So What Is The Real Rule For Double Hit/Push Shot?

G

gcgaryyoyo

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've always been confused since in local pool halls everyone seems to believe that when the cueball is frozen to object ball, you CANNOT shot toward it because it creates a double hit, which is a foul; nevertheless, a fair number of instrutional books have illustrated shots when the above situation comes up; they teach you how to throw the object ball, how to play "push shots," and so forth. Incidentally I also saw some real pool matches where players shot directly toward the object ball when the cueball's touching it, and after the stroke the cueball went about a few inches or so and no foul was called. I messaged the WPA but have not got the reply(well, I don't really anticipate any from them----just look at their forum and you'll find no maintenance kept there at all). So anyway, can someone tell me the actual rule for those shots? Thanks in advance.:)
 
Not in my experience

gcgaryyoyo said:
I've always been confused since in local pool halls everyone seems to believe that when the cueball is frozen to object ball, you CANNOT shot toward it because it creates a double hit, which is a foul; nevertheless, a fair number of instrutional books have illustrated shots when the above situation comes up; they teach you how to throw the object ball, how to play "push shots," and so forth. Incidentally I also saw some real pool matches where players shot directly toward the object ball when the cueball's touching it, and after the stroke the cueball went about a few inches or so and no foul was called. I messaged the WPA but have not got the reply(well, I don't really anticipate any from them----just look at their forum and you'll find no maintenance kept there at all). So anyway, can someone tell me the actual rule for those shots? Thanks in advance.:)
Click to expand...

Don't know what pool halls you play in but that is "not" a foul. And if you research this forum you will find everyone on this forum will agree to that so I have no idea why anyone would claim it is a foul.
I am sure you will get tons of answers that will explain why not.
 
When it comes to push shots, it's one of those grey areas where the referee has complete judgement over the shot. If a ref feels the cue tip was in contact for an extra amount of time, they call a push shot. So many people have a hard time recognizing a push or are afraid to make the wrong call that it often just gets a pass. Double hits are easier to judge because of the sound it makes.


2.20 JUDGING DOUBLE HITS
When the distance between the cue ball and the object ball is less than the width of a chalk cube, special attention from the referee is required. In such a situation, unless the referee can positively determine a legal shot has been performed, the following guidance may apply: if the cue ball follows through the object ball more than 1/2 ball, it is a foul.

nfty9er said:
Don't know what pool halls you play in but that is "not" a foul. And if you research this forum you will find everyone on this forum will agree to that so I have no idea why anyone would claim it is a foul.
I am sure you will get tons of answers that will explain why not.
Click to expand...
Actually he's completely correct in his statements. A push shot and double hit is a foul, that's why there are rules for it.

3.23 FOULS BY DOUBLE HITS
If the cue ball is touching the required object ball prior to the shot, the player may shoot toward it, providing that any normal stroke is employed. If the cue stick strikes the cue ball more than once on a shot, or if the cue stick is in contact with the cue ball when or after the cue ball contacts an object ball, the shot is foul. (See Rule 2.20. for judging this
kind of shot.) If a third ball is close by, care should be taken not to foul that ball under the first part of this rule.

3.24 PUSH SHOT FOULS
It is a foul if the cue ball is pushed by the cue tip, with contact being maintained for more than the momentary time commensurate with a stroked shot. (Such shots are usually referred to as push shots.)
 
Last edited:
Push shot ...

You have it backwards. When the cue ball is NOT frozen to the object ball, and less than a chalk's width, then if you shoot straight at the object ball, it is watched for a double strike on the cueball, and the cue ball can NOT go past where the object ball was. OTHERWISE, you have to shoot at an ANGLE to the object ball.

When the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, you can shoot it any way you want as long as you do not have a 2nd strike on another object ball, or strike a rail while stroking through the object ball causing the object ball to change course from a second strike.
 
Snapshot9 said:
You have it backwards. When the cue ball is NOT frozen to the object ball, and less than a chalk's width, then if you shoot straight at the object ball, it is watched for a double strike on the cueball, and the cue ball can NOT go past where the object ball was. OTHERWISE, you have to shoot at an ANGLE to the object ball.

When the cue ball is frozen to an object ball, you can shoot it any way you want as long as you do not have a 2nd strike on another object ball, or strike a rail while stroking through the object ball causing the object ball to change course from a second strike.
Click to expand...
Beg to differ. If you shoot straight on with the CB and OB frozen, it's a push shot AND a double hit. You can shoot at a forty five degree angle without elevating your cue, but if you must shoot straight, you have to elevate.
 
Thanks for the repies everyone, and the World Standardised Rules you quoted regarding the question, Klopek. So another question would be, when cb is frozen to ob, if you shoot(without elevating) toward it or at a angle(as long as it's not a cut shot), do you always get a double hit? If so, then not every double hit will give you a foul?

p.s. I try to be as clear as I can with my question, given the insufficient language ability I have.
 
I'm glad this thread came up so now I have an excuse to bring this up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ztVj_466rE

...but how can that shot on the 15 ball NOT be a foul? It is so blatantly a foul? I'm so surprised Griffis shot it the way he did, and even more surprised that S. Smith didn't call the foul.
 
Klopek said:
Beg to differ. If you shoot straight on with the CB and OB frozen, it's a push shot AND a double hit. You can shoot at a forty five degree angle without elevating your cue, but if you must shoot straight, you have to elevate.
Click to expand...

Read rule 3.23 that you posted. If they are close but not frozen, then you can't shoot toward the object ball without a big risk of double hit, but if they ARE frozen, you can stroke through normally, toward the OB or at an angle. The idea is that since the balls are frozen, the cue tip will still be in contact with the cue ball when the object ball is contacted (since the OB is contacted even before the shot), and so the hit is not "double", nor is it "push", since the tip is in contact for the normal duration.

So if they aren't frozen, you need to elevate and/or shoot at an angle or be very careful with your stroke to avoid the double-hit, but if they are frozen, then it's actually not possible to double-hit with a normal stroke, unless other balls or rails are involved.

-Andrew
 
jsp said:
I'm glad this thread came up so now I have an excuse to bring this up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ztVj_466rE

...but how can that shot on the 15 ball NOT be a foul? It is so blatantly a foul? I'm so surprised Griffis shot it the way he did, and even more surprised that S. Smith didn't call the foul.
Click to expand...

It's a foul. You can tell because the CB follows, without pause, through the spot where the 15 was and into the rail. There's no way to do that without a double hit. Scott Smith dropped the ball.

-Andrew
 
Klopek said:
Beg to differ. If you shoot straight on with the CB and OB frozen, it's a push shot AND a double hit. You can shoot at a forty five degree angle without elevating your cue, but if you must shoot straight, you have to elevate.
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, shooting at a 45 degree angle or elevating your cue is no different than shooting straight through them. If u say that shooting straight through is a push shot and a double hit, then elevating your cue or shooting at 45 degrees is also a double hit.

I say, shooting straight through is not a foul, unless it's really obvious the shooter is "pushing" the shot.

EDIT: Beat by Andrew.
 
jsp said:
I'm glad this thread came up so now I have an excuse to bring this up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ztVj_466rE

...but how can that shot on the 15 ball NOT be a foul? It is so blatantly a foul? I'm so surprised Griffis shot it the way he did, and even more surprised that S. Smith didn't call the foul.
Click to expand...

after watching the clip, i'd say he hit away maybe 20 degrees, with low-inside spin, and a lot of it. with that much spin, there's a lot of deflection on the CB, which made the hit be (barely!) clean. there are no set rules to how to avoid the foul, but that was definitely good.

-s
 
Where in the rules does it say you have to "elevate your cue"???? It says if the cue ball follows the OB more than 1/2 a ball it is a foul...And elevating your cue and going 1/2 a ball is still a foul...So what does elevating your cue have to do with it???? I can't find this anywhere......It says "you can stroke thru normally", not elevated.....
 
i think the APA rules specifically state that frozen balls can be driven through. a lot of places don't allow this.

(i'm off to hunt down the rule)

edit: well, it's not in the rules, but my old APA league played this way.

-s
 
Last edited:
Klopek said:
... If you shoot straight on with the CB and OB frozen, it's a push shot AND a double hit. You can shoot at a forty five degree angle without elevating your cue, but if you must shoot straight, you have to elevate.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for the readers here, this is false. This is a problematic shot, and it does not help the situation for you to spread bad info.

Of course if you are talking about the rules at snooker or bumper pool or croquet, that's another matter. If you are talking about the WPA World Standardized Rules, you are wrong.

At pool it is explicitly permitted by the rules to shoot towards an object ball that the cue ball is frozen to. Any normal stroke may be used. A follow stroke at break speed straight at the frozen ball is perfectly fine.

Further, high-speed video done in the Jacksonville Project shows that there is no double hit on such a shot.

Elevation to avoid "fouling" on such a shot is pure idiocy introduced by people who have no understanding of the shot. Maybe they felt they had to make some rule about the shot, but they got it horribly wrong.
 
steev said:
after watching the clip, i'd say he hit away maybe 20 degrees, with low-inside spin, and a lot of it. with that much spin, there's a lot of deflection on the CB, which made the hit be (barely!) clean. there are no set rules to how to avoid the foul, but that was definitely good.

-s
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no way the CB can go forward like that if he put any bottom spin on the ball, without it being a double hit.
 
Snapshot9 said:
... When the cue ball is NOT frozen to the object ball, and less than a chalk's width, then if you shoot straight at the object ball, it is watched for a double strike on the cueball, and the cue ball can NOT go past where the object ball was. ...
Click to expand...
While this is sort of what the guideline -- not the rule -- is talking about, it is possible to play a close shot with follow and get a legal hit. The real criterion for a referee who knows what he is doing is whether the action of the cue ball immediately after ball-ball contact is consistent with not being struck twice.

I think it was a mistake to put the "chalk's width" guideline into the rulebook, but for inexperienced referees and players, maybe it was better than nothing. Again, please note that the guideline is not a rule.
 
RSB-Refugee said:
I would not have called a foul, the shot looked good to me.
Click to expand...
It looked like he was playing with draw. It also looked like the cue ball went forward of the tangent line by a lot. If both of those are true, I think it is clear whether the shot was a foul or not. One problem is that some major tournaments in the US still play "one continuous stroke is OK" in which case the correct call might change.
 
Bob Jewett said:
It looked like he was playing with draw. It also looked like the cue ball went forward of the tangent line by a lot. If both of those are true, I think it is clear whether the shot was a foul or not. One problem is that some major tournaments in the US still play "one continuous stroke is OK" in which case the correct call might change.
Click to expand...

if it was just draw i'd agree Bob. but it looks like a lot of inside english, and from experience i've seen that shot deflect a LOT. which would move the tangent line considerably.

jusy my $.02

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