Mr. Jewett, thanks for your answers. In fact, one of the reasons I started this thread was that after I read about your "interference system" in one of Mr. Robert Byrne's pool instructional books, I was so eager to try them out and found out that it could be applied, although relatively rarely, to actual games; I never tried the shot in any match due to my being uncertained about the rules. Now that things are clarified, I think I'm going to look for chances to apply your systems, thank you.
So What Is The Real Rule For Double Hit/Push Shot?
- Thread starter gcgaryyoyo
- Start date
WPA Rules said:
I'm not sure if I am using the correct terminology here, but if the term "legal push shot" is an oxymoron, perhaps I should say "stroked frozen shot" or something else. For this post, for lack of a better term, I'll use "legal push shot"...
I'm curious about the "time" aspect of a push shot. Has there been any studies on the contact time on a legal push shot vs. a normal shot?
My gut tells me that any push shot would have a longer contact time than a non-push shot.
Is there any data available on this?
I think my confusion comes from the words, "momentary time", but now I believe I understand the rule (a little bit better than before at least).
Please correct any of the following statements that are inaccurate:
- If the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, and the object ball moves when the cue ball is struck, this is called a push shot.
- A normal shot has a shorter contact time than a push shot has.
- Both a normal shot and a legal push shot have only a momentary contact time, but an illegal push shot has a significantly longer contact time.
- A legal push shot is legal because, although the contact time is longer than a normal shot, it is still only momentary, and not long enough to create any "funny business".
Is my understanding correct? Hopefully I'm not totally
steev said:
when i first started playing pool i played apa and none of my hits were ever questioned, i moved to a city that had vnea that doesn't allow double hits, i played with a guy that would always call me for double hits and i would be baffled as to why because i never had any problems in the apa or tournies i played in, it took me awhile to fully understand it, it didn't help matters cause the guy was always a big a$$ about it
________
Last edited:
I watched the video, and it looked like a foul to me..
Everyone keeps saying the cue ball "hopped" but if it was on it's way UP when it made contact it would continue to go up even higher off the object ball. That didn't look like the case to me. Slight hops aren't going to change tangent lines by that much..
DJ
Everyone keeps saying the cue ball "hopped" but if it was on it's way UP when it made contact it would continue to go up even higher off the object ball. That didn't look like the case to me. Slight hops aren't going to change tangent lines by that much..
DJ
Local rules rule
In my experience this shot (Roger's)is determined by where you are playing. In my joints the shot is good. I feel the game is tough enough without having to eliminate ways to make a ball. Every joint has it's own rules and severity as to how they are going to judge the shot. My rule was always, "One continuous stroke." Ronnie Allen called a double hit on me in California for big money. To this day I maintain I made a good hit. Coincidentally, it was the game ball. I was playing him 9 to 7 banks so I was certainly not going to give in on the shot. We wound up quitting.
I like the shot because I happen to know many ways to make a ball or a bank when I am frozen or close to frozen. At Bensinger's or North Shore Billiard Club it was a good hit.
the Beard
In my experience this shot (Roger's)is determined by where you are playing. In my joints the shot is good. I feel the game is tough enough without having to eliminate ways to make a ball. Every joint has it's own rules and severity as to how they are going to judge the shot. My rule was always, "One continuous stroke." Ronnie Allen called a double hit on me in California for big money. To this day I maintain I made a good hit. Coincidentally, it was the game ball. I was playing him 9 to 7 banks so I was certainly not going to give in on the shot. We wound up quitting.
I like the shot because I happen to know many ways to make a ball or a bank when I am frozen or close to frozen. At Bensinger's or North Shore Billiard Club it was a good hit.
the Beard
According to my experience and what I've heard coming from pros and teachers. That's a foul, no doubt.
The cue ball has to follow the tangent a bit. (Not enough room to get spin going on the cue ball). The cue ball was hit twice. Pretty sure about that.
-Sensation
The cue ball has to follow the tangent a bit. (Not enough room to get spin going on the cue ball). The cue ball was hit twice. Pretty sure about that.
-Sensation
jsp said:
If you listen, you will hear the sound of the double hit. Much louder than a normal shot would be. The sound of a good hit would be a click, not the loud clack that is on the video. Roger got away with one here.
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.
As Bob Jewett says, this IS a problematic shot. For all the years I have been involved with professional pool, this has always been the most difficult shot to call for an official. As far back as the 60's, I can remember players debating this rule at player's meetings prior to the start of a tournament. It has been called differently by different officials for years.
And the written rule covering such a shot has changed several times too. I like the way they do it in Snooker. If the Cue Ball is frozen to an object ball, you must shoot away from that ball. Easy call here. I am aware of the latest rulings by the WPA and the BCA. I just don't happen to think they are a good interpretation of the shot and its execution. To allow a player to shoot directly through the ball when the Cue Ball is frozen to it, is preposterous to me. That is and always will be a PUSH!
In the old days (up to the 90's) a player was expected to do what's necessary to avoid pushing the object ball (and Cue Ball) or making a double hit. That could mean elevating his cue or shooting at an angle to the object ball. As far as I'm concerned, if I see a push or double hit, I'm calling a foul. I've always called it this way and will continue to do so in tournaments that I direct. A good pool player can execute this shot properly without fouling. Last I heard, that's what playing tournaments is all about. Finding out who the best players are.
Last edited:
acedotcom said:
Nice shot Corey. You a Player!
jsp said:
It was not a foul because the referee was able to positively determine that it was a legal shot - that is, not a push or double-hit. Therefor, the guidance that may apply if the ref is not positive is irrelevant.
The ref controls the call. The guidance does not control the ref. Guidance is not a WPA rule, nor is it a law of nature.
In this particular shot, the CB approached and rebounded off the OB at precisely the angles that I would expect based upon the balls' original positions, the direction in which the CB was shot, and the low-inside English applied. The cue tip went left, the cue ball went right. They never met a second time. There was no foul, as one commentator correctly corrected the other.
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
Note the low-inside English that Roger used. Upon impact, the tip went left and the CB went right. They never met a second time.
A double hit makes two sounds, not one "clack" that is twice as loud as the "click" that you presume is the sound of a "normal" shot. The unusually loud collision sound is that of CB meeting OB with unusually strong force, nothing more.
Every legal shot makes two relevant sounds: the sound of tip striking cue ball and the sound of cue ball striking object ball. When the CB and OB are separated significantly, one has no difficulty discerning which pair of objects made which sound. But when the balls are very close, the two sounds of a perfectly legal shot come very close together. It is a mistake to attribute those two sounds to two contacts of tip and CB. A double-hit would make three sounds: tip-to-CB, tip-to-CB, CB-to-OB.
I thought this as well up until the moment I viewed this video. Guess I was wrong, never too old to learn new tricks.jay helfert said:
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
Sorry, Jay, but shooting directly through a ball frozen to the CB is not the definition of a "push," according to the WPA. Instead, it is, "contact being maintained for more than the momentary time commensurate with a stroked shot."
If one strikes with a normal stroke a cue ball of twice the standard mass, has one pushed it? No, even though the tip will remain in contact with such a heavy ball longer than it will remain in contact with a normal ball. The amount of time the tip remains in contact is commensurate - "corresponding in size, extent, amount, or degree" - with the mass of the ball being struck.
Two frozen balls resist the force of a normal stroke to exactly the same degree that one twice-heavy ball does. The amounts of time that a tip remains in contact with two frozen balls and one twice-heavy ball are exactly the same, and both times are commensurate with a (normally) stroked shot.
A player was expected to do what's necessary to avoid arguments over whether he pushed or double-hit, even if it required elevating or shooting at an angle. Now, the ref bears responsibility and authority to settle such arguments. In the absence of a ref, the desire to get on with one's match instead of arguing makes elevation/angling advisable. But it doesn't change physics.
And you'll continue to use your own opinion of what constitutes a push or double-hit. So will every other TD or ref. What's new?
A tournament can also be about finding out who the observant refs are, and whose mind is closed by dogma. But that's just incidental.
"It ain't what we don't know that gets us in trouble, it's what we think we know that ain't so." ~ Mark Twain, of course.
Just found this video of frozen balls being hit straight on and now I realize I was wrong about the push/double hit thing. Apologies all around.
Last edited:
Great minds meet!
Edit, 09/28/06: My esteemed colleague, Mr. Klopek, has seen the light in the video camera. We now agree that a) this is not the video that he meant to post (this is) and b) it certainly is possible to hit frozen balls head-on without fouling. Kudos to a man who has the wisdom to change his mind when he finds new evidence!
The rest of this post remains to discuss off-center hits of frozen balls and the question of judging fouls in general.
The (first, unintended) video shows an example of frozen cue ball throw using an off-center stroke. The stroke was not intended to avoid a double-hit, but to exaggerate throw for illustrative purposes. The shooter could have avoided the double hit easily, by allowing the tip to follow its natural deflection away from the CB to his left, instead of forcing the cue to follow a straight line.
Times have changed.
But a foul does not necessarily occur just because a window is provided but is too small for the eyes of distant tournament audiences, television viewers, the "high definition" of YouTube.com, or the drunken bully who is trying to cheat you.
Klopek said:
Edit, 09/28/06: My esteemed colleague, Mr. Klopek, has seen the light in the video camera. We now agree that a) this is not the video that he meant to post (this is) and b) it certainly is possible to hit frozen balls head-on without fouling. Kudos to a man who has the wisdom to change his mind when he finds new evidence!
The rest of this post remains to discuss off-center hits of frozen balls and the question of judging fouls in general.
The (first, unintended) video shows an example of frozen cue ball throw using an off-center stroke. The stroke was not intended to avoid a double-hit, but to exaggerate throw for illustrative purposes. The shooter could have avoided the double hit easily, by allowing the tip to follow its natural deflection away from the CB to his left, instead of forcing the cue to follow a straight line.
Times have changed.
But a foul does not necessarily occur just because a window is provided but is too small for the eyes of distant tournament audiences, television viewers, the "high definition" of YouTube.com, or the drunken bully who is trying to cheat you.
Last edited:
Dhakala said:The video shows an example of frozen cue ball throw. The stroke was not intended to avoid a double-hit, but to exaggerate throw for illustrative purposes. The shooter could have avoided the double hit easily, by allowing the tip to follow its natural deflection away from the CB to his left, instead of forcing the cue to follow a straight line.
Times have changed.
But a foul does not necessarily occur just because a window is provided but is too small for the eyes of distant tournament audiences, television viewers, the "high definition" of YouTube.com, or the drunken bully who is trying to cheat you.
I realized my mistake and corrected my posts while you were typinf your response. I hope you'll consider doing the same. Thanks.
> Here is the rule under the PBTA several years ago. If the cue ball can be determined to be within the width of a normal chalk cube or about 7/8 of an inch,and the cue ball moved forward more than 1/2 a balls width before stopping or coming back,it was a foul,unless proper elevation and a clean stroke could be seen or heard. On frozen balls,you were allowed to make a single,"continuous" stroke through the ball with a level cue. Grady shows a push stroke in one of his tapes,and also a technique for getting downtable slowly and beating the foul on a straight in frozen ball,as well as what was taught to me as the Jewett Interference System,a measuring system used to calculate the actual carom angle when shooting thru or away from a frozen ball. This is worth the buying the tape for,showing you all kinds of offensive and defensive options when dealing with frozen balls. I flatly refuse to even try and call them against local players except in the most blatant cases,I've always been accused of just calling a foul to cause a problem or misusing the rules,even shark my way into winning in a particular game. The vast majority don't pay attention to such "high-falutin'" rules as one old-timer put it on one occasion,don't care enough to even read the rule books for their leagues or whatever,or play by bar rules where things like that or scooping to jump a ball are rarely enforced. Of all the people I play with any kind of regularity,I'd only try and call a foul in a situation like this with 3-4 people,the ones that have comprehended the rule and what it covers,as well as knowing how to deal with it. Another exception would be in the case of a local player that isn't in my regular crowd and we're in a place where things like this can be overseen by a TD,like a serious tournament. Tommy D.
Dhakala said:
I respectfully disagree. The sound I heard was the sound of the cue tip making a bad hit. I've heard this sound a few times before. The cue tip remains in contact with the cue ball as it hits the object ball. At this moment the cue ball is squeezed between the cue tip and the object ball (thus the loud noise you hear) and then squirts off to the right.
Call it what you want. I call it a foul.