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

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...

Bob, can you clarify this statement please?

Were the CB and 15 frozen there? I couldn't tell but it looked like they weren't. If they weren't frozen, then it looked like a double-hit to me, and therefore, a foul.

If they were frozen, it looked like a push shot to me, and thus, not a foul (assuming it was a "normal" stroke).

I couldn't tell for sure from your statement whether you called it a foul or not.

One thing that is confusing to me is the term "normal" stroke.

Can someone define for me what is a "normal" stroke? Or, if that is too difficult to do, can someone give some examples of what are NOT normal strokes?

Thanks.
 
steev said:
i'll agree to disagree jsp.

-s
Click to expand...

I hope it doesn't come across as rude of me to tell you you're wrong after you've politely agreed to disagree, but physics are on JSP's side of this one. The CB, immediately after contact with the 15, would have gone off along the tangent line, which is 90 degrees from the path of the 15, which is sort of up toward the upper left corner pocket (from the camera's perspective). Somehow, it turned off this path and went straight into the long rail to the camera's left. The turn was immediately after CB-OB contact, and it was far too rapid and apbrupt to be caused by spin, and the english he used was draw anyway. The only explanation available for how the CB made that turn is a second hit from the cue tip. Which I am totally certain is what happened.

-Andrew
 
after watching the slo-mo at the end about twenty times, i'm not willing to bet on whether it was foul or not :) i'm starting to disagree with myself. what makes things a little fuzzy is the hop the CB takes. maybe a second hit with the ferrule, like the commentator says?

i wanna see it in super slo-mo in HD.

-s
 
> Were the CB and 15 frozen there?

No. This was clear in the replay at the end.

> I couldn't tell for sure from your statement whether you called it a foul or not.

It was my intent not to lead people to conclusions. I was just stating what I observed. I think those facts and the rules are all that's needed to make a call.

> One thing that is confusing to me is the term "normal" stroke.

Here are examples:

A stroke with a speed and mechanics that would be used for a lag shot with any combination of follow, draw, center, left, right, etc.

A stroke that would be used for a half-masse swerve shot.

A stroke that would be used for a full-masse five cushion position shot.

A stroke that would be used to break the balls at nine ball.

A stroke that would be used to play a very soft safety such as in the Manalo-Bustamante match in the Orlando IPT event.

Pretty much any other stroke that you would normally use in play.

> can someone give some examples of what are NOT normal strokes?

Freeze the OB to the cushion. Freeze the CB to the OB. Bring the tip slowly up to the CB with side spin and slowly, slowly push on the cue ball. The object ball is forced straight sideways and possibly into a close pocket. This is a standard trick shot.

Freeze the OB and CB in the middle of the table so that the OB blocks a shot to a ball in the jaws of a pocket. Jack up about 30 degrees and bring the tip slowly, slowly to the north pole of the cue ball. Your stick should be pointed straight in the direction of the duck. As you make contact with the cue ball, slowly, slowly accelerate the stick towards the duck. This is a standard push shot.

I suppose the phrase "standard stroke" should be taken out of the rule to avoid questions such as you have. The non-standard strokes above are fouls whether the cue ball is frozen to the OB or not, but they are far more useful (to cheaters and the ignorant) when the CB is frozen to the OB.
 
Cuebacca said:
Bob, can you clarify this statement please?

[...]

I couldn't tell for sure from your statement whether you called it a foul or not.
Click to expand...

Nevermind. I watched it again and it definitely looks like the balls were not frozen. Given the action of the CB after contact, I don't see how this could have been a good hit (it looked like a double hit). If I'm wrong, I would certainly like to understand though.
 
My impression-FWIW

Cue is elevated, CB jumps when hit giving the C extra room to pass as it appears he used exterme left and low. The jump, even at that distance causes the contact point to be higher so the CB keeps going up and off at the tanget. He was cutting the ball to the left and the CB deflects to the right, thats why the CB went right so quickly and directly to the right.

At least thats the way it appears to me. BTW, I have shot the shot the same way before. The balls aren't that close.
 
Last edited:
Deadon said:
... The jump, even at that distance causes the contact point to be higher so the CB keeps going up and off at the tanget. He was cutting the ball to the left and the CB deflects to the right, thats why the CB went right so quickly and directly to the right....
Click to expand...
The thing is that when the balls are that close, the cue ball doesn't have time to get any elevation (and he was barely elevated). This means that the cue ball will be very, very near the cloth when it contacts the object ball, and it will go very nearly along the perpendicular to the object ball's path and only very slightly ahead of that perpendicular (tangent line).

Here's something to try. Play the same shot, but start with the cue ball back six inches. Gradually bring it forward. At some point the action will drastically change. That change is not from jump, I'm betting.
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
> Were the CB and 15 frozen there?

No. This was clear in the replay at the end.
Click to expand...

Oops. Thanks. I didn't watch it to the end. :o

Thank you for the examples. This is very helpful.

Regarding the examples of abnormal strokes, the first example is very clear to me and makes sense.

The second example is still a little bit confusing to me because I cannot tell what precisely makes it an abnormal stroke. Is it the speed of the stroke? Is it the fact that the cue is elevated? Or is it the combination of the two?

Sorry if I sound like I'm being picky; I just want to completely understand.

To me, when I compare this,

A stroke that would be used to play a very soft safety such as in the Manalo-Bustamante match in the Orlando IPT event.
Click to expand...
(normal),

and this,

Freeze the OB and CB in the middle of the table so that the OB blocks a shot to a ball in the jaws of a pocket. Jack up about 30 degrees and bring the tip slowly, slowly to the north pole of the cue ball. Your stick should be pointed straight in the direction of the duck. As you make contact with the cue ball, slowly, slowly accelerate the stick towards the duck. This is a standard push shot.
Click to expand...
(not normal),

the only difference between the two that I am noticing is the elevation and the contact point on the cue ball (high). Is that correct? In the example of the abnormal stroke, would keeping the cue level make it a normal stroke?
 
Bob:

If you look closely at the tape, you can see the CB leave the table as its struck by the cue and then continues going up. Otherwise what caused the cue ball to go up in the air so far and continue to do so after contact? Its hard to tell how much he elevated because of the camera, but look at the angle of the cue tip going into the CB. You only need to change the contact point a hair to avoid the double hit, because it changes the angle the CB leaves the OB. The CB going up also creates room underneath the OB as the tip goes down through the shot. Hence the earlier discussion about elevating the cue, even though it may not be understood why, most people recognize the shot.

I'll bet the Beard could give us some insight into the shot. Hope he chimes in.
 
Deadon said:
Bob:

If you look closely at the tape, you can see the CB leave the table as its struck by the cue and then continues going up. Otherwise what caused the cue ball to go up in the air so far and continue to do so after contact? Its hard to tell how much he elevated because of the camera, but look at the angle of the cue tip going into the CB. You only need to change the contact point a hair to avoid the double hit, because it changes the angle the CB leaves the OB. The CB going up also creates room underneath the OB as the tip goes down through the shot. Hence the earlier discussion about elevating the cue, even though it may not be understood why, most people recognize the shot.

I'll bet the Beard could give us some insight into the shot. Hope he chimes in.
Click to expand...

You can tell what the tangent line should be by looking at where the 15 went. In order for the cue ball's hop to allow it to totally ignore this tangent line and go straight toward the rail, the CB would have had to just barely brush the TOP of the OB. It's obvious that it did not do this; you can tell because it would have gone flying off the table if it had that much loft. The simple fact that the path of the 15 and the path of the CB were so mismatched, and were already off before any spin could have had time to take effect, means that some force besides the momentum of the CB and OB decided the CB's path. And that force had to either be an unprecedented gravitational anomaly, or a second impact from the cue tip.

-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...


You are partially right. It IS possible to double hit the cueball if it is frozen to the object ball, as it is possible to double hit the cueball with no neighboring balls. However, you ARE allowed to shoot through the cueball full if it is frozen to an object ball. The rule is plain and simple... as long as there is no double hit.
 
Andrew Manning said:
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
Click to expand...

yea, what he said...
 
Clear as mud

I guess I was naive to think this thread would lead to a definitive answer. In pool rooms down here, when it comes to an object ball frozen to the cb, we shoot away at an angle approaching 180 degrees and avoid anything that might be construed as a push. Spinning the object ball in or throwing it in with english are taboo, apparently because continuous contact is interpreted here as a double-hit. At a tournament in Spring Hill last year, I saw Corey Deuel in a similar fix with cb and ob frozen. He elevated his cue so that it was straight up and down and applied masse draw. The cue ball spun backwards after the hit like it was jet propelled and he continued playing.

In our local bar tournaments, there's no such concern and players just fire straight thru the object ball, throwing and spinning to their heart's content.
 
Speaking of Corey Deuel, this is an example of a good hit (with the 2 ball at about 1min into the video)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miPYUcZyKTU

You can see that the CB immediately departed on the tangent line off the 2 ball before drawing backwards to pocket the 5 ball.

The behavior of the CB in this example is completely different than Griffis situation.
 
Andrew Manning said:
You can tell what the tangent line should be by looking at where the 15 went. In order for the cue ball's hop to allow it to totally ignore this tangent line and go straight toward the rail, the CB would have had to just barely brush the TOP of the OB. It's obvious that it did not do this; you can tell because it would have gone flying off the table if it had that much loft. The simple fact that the path of the 15 and the path of the CB were so mismatched, and were already off before any spin could have had time to take effect, means that some force besides the momentum of the CB and OB decided the CB's path. And that force had to either be an unprecedented gravitational anomaly, or a second impact from the cue tip.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Tangent lines are out the door when the CB enters the 3 dimension (off the table). Well, not completely out, but you have to rotate the axis of the table to match the plane of the CBs travel, then compare it to the orignial plane (the table). With the CB going up (even a little) and in an arc, tangent lines are not the last word.
 
Andrew;

As an example, do a short jump shot into the OB, maybe a foot away and cut the ball about 45 degrees. Don't jump real high. Watch where the CB goes, it will travel closer to the line of aim than it would if you shot the same shot on the table. Might also remember that there are various thows involved especially at such a short distance.
 
Last edited:
Deadon said:
Andrew;

As an example, do a short jump shot into the OB, maybe a foot away and cut the ball about 45 degrees. Don't jump real high. Watch where the CB goes, it will travel closer to the line of aim than it would if you shot the same shot on the table. Might also remember that there are various thows involved especially at such a short distance.
Click to expand...

Tangent lines are not "out the door" at all; they're just no longer on a horizontal plane. You're right that in the cut/jump at 45 degrees, you'll get a pretty different tangent. The reason for this is that the CB has still given away the component of its momentum parallel to the center-center line of the balls at the time of contact; but when the CB is in the air at contact, the center-center line goes down into the table, meaning less of its horizontal momentum has been lost.

In the case of the Griffis shot, if we assume a clean hit, then almost none of the CB's horizontal forward momentum was lost; it continued forward almost as if it hadn't hit the 15 at all. For the CB's loft to cause this kind of tangent line, the center-center line between the balls at the time of contact would have had to have been nearly vertical; i.e. CB directly on top of OB. You can see in the video that the CB didn't have even close to this kind of elevation.

Furthermore, let's go one step further and assume the CB DID jump that high. If it retained most of its forward momentum, but yet it hit the 15 roughly forward (the 15 went off in the same direction as Griffis' stroke, more or less), then that means it gave only a small fraction of its momentum to the 15. Yet the 15 goes off at considerable speed, in roughly the same direction as the stroke. So if the stroke hit the CB, and the CB hit the 15 off in the same direction at close to the same speed, then the CB gave away most of its momentum to the 15 at contact. Where did the CB get the momentum to follow the 15 at speed? From a second hit from the cue tip.

I understand the geometry changes when the balls aren't at the same elevation, but it doesn't even come close to explaining the CB's path in the video. For the CB and 15 to both do what they did, the CB had to be hit twice.

-Andrew
 
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...
I think the first thing you and a few other posters have to get straight first is that a push shot foul and a double-hit foul are two different virtually unrelated shots. Answers are easier when definitions are understood.

Push shot: when you push the cueball, like you are pushing dirt with a broom. That's why it's called "push."

Double hit: when you hit the cueball more than one time during a single stroke. That's why it's called "double-hit."

A push shot is not a double-hit. Two different shots. Two different rules.

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