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

[jay helfert]

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.

Once again David, the cue ball did not "rebound". It squirted off to the side, from the pressure of being squeezed between the cue tip and the object ball.

 

[jay helfert]

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.

The WPA or the BCA can make up a rule that says a "push" is not a "push" also. Call me a purist or whatever, I will always disagree. I think they have made rules like this to make it is easier for their less experienced referees.

This is not about dogma or someones opinion. This is about playing a beautiful game in a proper manner. And part of that is striking the cue ball correctly. Not allowing players to shoot thru balls with disregard for how they are contacted should be part of the game.

Greenleaf would be turning over in his grave if he saw what was allowed today to pass as a good shot. One last comment. When the BCA, in their infinite wisdom, determined that making the Eight on the break was no longer a win, they lost me. From the inception of the game of Eight Ball, making the Eight on the break was a win. And rightfully so. It is not easy to do, and is rarely done.

I guess you consider this another "good" new rule. To me this rule is right there with allowing players to shoot thru frozen balls. It's a joke!

 

[fred_in_hoboken]

The WPA or the BCA can make up a rule that says a "push" is not a "push" also. Call me a purist or whatever, I will always disagree. I think they have made rules like this to make it is easier for their less experienced referees.

This is not about dogma or someones opinion. This is about playing a beautiful game in a proper manner. And part of that is striking the cue ball correctly. Not allowing players to shoot thru balls with disregard for how they are contacted should be part of the game.

Greenleaf would be turning over in his grave if he saw what was allowed today to pass as a good shot. One last comment. When the BCA, in their infinite wisdom, determined that making the Eight on the break was no longer a win, they lost me. From the inception of the game of Eight Ball, making the Eight on the break was a win. And rightfully so. It is not easy to do, and is rarely done.

I guess you consider this another "good" new rule. To me this rule is right there with allowing players to shoot thru frozen balls. It's a joke!

The eight on the break complaint is a strawman. New rules, and new understanding of physics are different arguments.

If you watch the video Dhakala posted, it seems pretty clear that a straight shot "through" a frozen object ball is not a foul. The cue's contact with the cue ball lasts at most several thousandths of a second, just as with any other legal stroke.

 

[billiardshot]

While searching for Korean 4 ball, I ran across this website on Push Stroke with illustrations: http://vetsbilliardleague.tripod.com/id93.html

 

[freddy the beard]

Game called off

Originally Posted by freddy the beard
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.
the Beard

Out of curiosity how did you settle the bet?

We just called the game off. Nobody won. Incidentally, the stroke I used was extreme elevation, hard. The cue ball went 8 inches straight up in the air and fell back to the table near the same spot it went up. It was 20 years before we gambled again.

the Beard

 

[Andrew Manning]

Incidentally, the stroke I used was extreme elevation, hard. The cue ball went 8 inches straight up in the air and fell back to the table near the same spot it went up.

That had to be a good hit. If the cue tip had hit the cue ball a second time, it would have either trape the ball back down on the table, or deflected it to one side significantly.

And Dhakala, I think you're looking at things the wrong way when you say "the cue tip went left and the ball went right and they never met again." The video is not slow enough or high-res. enough to show that definitively. The cue tip must have hit the CB a second time to make it go where it went. It just must have been to fast to show on that video, and judging by some of the super-slo-mo pool videos I've seen, these things can happen EXTREMELY fast indeed.

-Andrew

 

[Snapshot9]

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.

Jay ... I agree with yiou, but I think the side of his ferrule touched the cue ball after making contact, which would throw his tip to the left more, and if you will notice the cue ball takes a slight jump to the right from its pathline which indicates also that the ferrule 'pushed' it to the right more.

Funny thing is, he could have jacked up some on that shot, shot a little more away from the object ball with some more inside english, and still have made the bank sliding in off the end rail, and it would have been a good shot, IMO.

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

One last comment. When the BCA, in their infinite wisdom, determined that making the Eight on the break was no longer a win, they lost me. From the inception of the game of Eight Ball, making the Eight on the break was a win. And rightfully so. It is not easy to do, and is rarely done.

Jay, 8-ball is considered to be a called-shot game to minimize the possibility of luck being a factor. So while I agree that making the 8 on the break is not easy to do and is rarely done, it's still luck when you make the 8 on the break. Regardless of whether making the 8 on the break is considered to be a lucky shot, it certainly wasn't a called shot, which is the essence of how the game of 8-ball is played.

 

[Dhakala]

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.

I believe that you have heard that sound many times, but have misinterpreted it. An object "squeezed" between two other objects cannot vibrate freely, so the sound it makes is dampened, not amplified. The relatively loud sound of Roger's is explained by the relatively strong force of a perfectly legal collision.

Call it what you want. I call it a foul.

I call it a legal shot based upon use of my vision as well as my hearing, and my amateur knowledge of physics.

Perhaps I will find demand for my services as a tournament ref.

 

[Dhakala]

Originally Posted by freddy the beard
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.
the Beard

We just called the game off. Nobody won.

An eminently sensible, mature, and gentlemanly solution when a neutral referee is unavailable. Beats the heck out of jail and hospital. My compliments to both of you.

 

[Dhakala]

Once again David, the cue ball did not "rebound". It squirted off to the side, from the pressure of being squeezed between the cue tip and the object ball.

Jay, what is the difference between "rebound" and "squirt," and how does one detect it in a video shot from over a dozen feet away and displayed in YouTube's low resolution?

The shot was a shallow cut shot. All balls traveled precisely as physics predicts based upon their original relative positions and the English applied. They would have followed the same paths no matter how far the CB was from the OB. The cue tip went left, the CB right. They never met twice.

 

[Dhakala]

That had to be a good hit. If the cue tip had hit the cue ball a second time, it would have either trape the ball back down on the table, or deflected it to one side significantly.

'Zactly.

And Dhakala, I think you're looking at things the wrong way when you say "the cue tip went left and the ball went right and they never met again." The video is not slow enough or high-res. enough to show that definitively. [/quote]

My conclusion is not based upon YouTube's video of the shot's action, but upon

- the original positions of the balls, which are shown close-up from multiple angles, and Roger's setup of the tip, which is clearly low-left English. The shot was a shallow cut shot to Roger's left, and the balls were separated by approximately 1/4 to 1/2 inch. (The actual distance is irrelevant; the point is that they were not frozen. )

- my knowledge of physics, which tells me that two objects whose motion is not impeded will move away from each other after collision. The CB's motion was unimpeded because it was not frozen. The tip's motion was unimpeded because Roger did not attempt to impede it; he did not try to force the tip to follow a straight line. Indeed, he facilitated the tip's natural deflection away from the cue ball by lifting his bridge hand up, back, and away in the same direction that the tip was inclined to move. The CB, striking the OB at an angle, moved in the opposite direction, to Roger's right. Tip and CB did not meet twice. Both followed the same paths that they would have followed if the CB started from 1/4 inch or a 1/4 table away from the OB.

The cue tip must have hit the CB a second time to make it go where it went. It just must have been to fast to show on that video

I'm sorry, Andrew, but nature does not always conform to our incompletely-informed conjectures. What you choose to believe "must" have happened is not in evidence, and it did not happen.

"It ain't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so." ~ Mark Twain.

BTW, how did you go from "good hit" to "tip must have hit the CB a second time" so quickly? Did Jay show up with a gun?

 

[Dhakala]

The WPA or the BCA can make up a rule that says a "push" is not a "push" also. Call me a purist or whatever, I will always disagree. I think they have made rules like this to make it is easier for their less experienced referees.

This is not about dogma or someones opinion.

He says immediately after repeating his dogmatic opinion in arrogant defiance of pool's two leading rule-making committees and several generations of physicists.

When the BCA, in their infinite wisdom, determined that making the Eight on the break was no longer a win, they lost me.

Has the BCA conveyed its regrets to you?

From the inception of the game of Eight Ball, making the Eight on the break was a win. And rightfully so. It is not easy to do, and is rarely done.

A verifiable copy of Eight Ball's original rules would be quite valuable, Jay. May I make an offer on yours?

I guess you consider this another "good" new rule. To me this rule is right there with allowing players to shoot thru frozen balls. It's a joke!

Game rules of any kind are neither good nor bad, funny nor solemn. They are arbitrary. One either abides by them or cheats, whether one is a player or a referee.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

It is called a Fouetté shot in Billiards

Fouetté is French for 'whipped' and the second sound you hear in Griffith's shot is the crack of the whip.

NO Foul.

Last month issue of Billiards Digest explained this shot very well. Mike Shamos' article went into depth about this shot and how it is used in billiards and pocket billiards

His example was easy to set up.
OB on 'spot', cue ball 1/16" in straight line behind the OB. Use extreme bottom right and aim the cue ball the upper left corner pocket (just a ball's width right of the pocket).
Use a very level stroke and follow through.
If you've stroked well, the cue ball will reverse off the OB and head directly into the left pocket just under your left shoulder. NO FOUL.

If the cue ball is froze to the OB and it is a foul to hit the cue ball directly into the OB, because of a 'push' (cue tip maintaining longer than normal contact with cue ball) then why isn't a Masse shot illegal also for the same reason?

 

[jsp]

I cannot believe people still think that Griffis' shot was a good hit. Let's just back the CB up a bit...

CueTable Help

The blue path is the direction the CB traveled after the hit(s). I don't care how much side spin you put on the CB, there is absolutely no way the CB will travel the direction of the blue arrow if you hit the CB with any amount of bottom.

With low spin, the CB path should have resembled the yellow arrow. It did not. Foul. You can argue with me, but does anyone really want to argue with Bob Jewett and Jay Helfert on this?

 

[Cuebacca]

[...]There was no foul, as one commentator correctly corrected the other.

This is what I heard... Billy Incardona corrected Tony Annigoni. Then Billy corrected himself. That is, a few seconds after Billy corrected Tony, Billy said, "it's got to be clearly a foul because he hit it with a low ball and the cue ball slowed up."

With draw, the cue ball could not have gone so far forward off the tangent line without a double hit.

The shot was a shallow cut shot. All balls traveled precisely as physics predicts based upon their original relative positions and the English applied. They would have followed the same paths no matter how far the CB was from the OB.

Are you saying that if the cue ball was two feet from the object ball (with the same angle), they would follow the same paths? The cue ball path was about 30 degrees forward from the tangent line and there was back spin on the cue ball. Back spin should bring the cue ball back from the tangent line not forward arcross it. It looked like a cut and dry double hit to me. What am I missing?

 

[RSB-Refugee]

Fouetté is French for 'whipped' and the second sound you hear in Griffith's shot is the crack of the whip.

When you say, "the second sound you hear in Griffith's shot is the crack of the whip", what does that mean? Where is the sound coming from?

At first, I thought the shot looked good, now I'm not sure. What some said about the tangent line, seemed to make good sense. Then the possibility of air bourne collision was brought up. Now you mention one more possibility.

What has me a little confused is, how long can a tip stay in contact with a cue ball? Don't tell me in milliseconds, but rather in inches. I think knowing the distance would be more usefull than time. At least it would be easier for me to relate to.

I want to be in the good hit camp, but if I'm wrong, as it appears I may well be. I want to understand why the cue ball did what it did.

Tracy

 

[Tom In Cincy]

When you say, "the second sound you hear in Griffith's shot is the crack of the whip", what does that mean? Where is the sound coming from?it is not the natural sound you would expect to hear in a double hit, more like a 'crack'

At first, I thought the shot looked good, now I'm not sure. What some said about the tangent line, seemed to make good sense. Then the possibility of air bourne collision was brought up. Now you mention one more possibility.good points all, but you have to remember, it is a jugement call by the ref. There isn't an exact science to these situations and all are different. It is easy to call the obvious, but when they are this close and not so obvious, it is left up to the jugment of the ref.

What has me a little confused is, how long can a tip stay in contact with a cue ball? Don't tell me in milliseconds, but rather in inches. I think knowing the distance would be more usefull than time. At least it would be easier for me to relate to. a mili-inch

I want to be in the good hit camp, but if I'm wrong, as it appears I may well be. I want to understand why the cue ball did what it did.

try the 'fouette' shot as soon as possible.. I think your first hand experience will be enlightening
Tracy

What about my question with the masse shot not being called a push because of the extended time the tip is on the cue ball?

 

[Cuebacca]

Fouetté is French for 'whipped' and the second sound you hear in Griffith's shot is the crack of the whip.

NO Foul.

Last month issue of Billiards Digest explained this shot very well. Mike Shamos' article went into depth about this shot and how it is used in billiards and pocket billiards

His example was easy to set up.
OB on 'spot', cue ball 1/16" in straight line behind the OB. Use extreme bottom right and aim the cue ball the upper left corner pocket (just a ball's width right of the pocket).
Use a very level stroke and follow through.
If you've stroked well, the cue ball will reverse off the OB and head directly into the left pocket just under your left shoulder. NO FOUL.

If the cue ball is froze to the OB and it is a foul to hit the cue ball directly into the OB, because of a 'push' (cue tip maintaining longer than normal contact with cue ball) then why isn't a Masse shot illegal also for the same reason?

Are you sure that the shot in the video was a fouetté? I haven't studied the fouetté shot yet, so I cannot say that it wasn't one. However, your description of a fouetté says that the cue ball should come back off the tangent. The shot in the video doesn't draw back.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Hi Tom. Are you sure that the shot in the video was a fouetté? I haven't studied the fouetté shot yet, so I cannot say that it wasn't one. However, your description of a fouetté says that the cue ball should come back off the tangent. The shot in the video doesn't draw back.

The example is for the purpose of explanation.

There are forward fouetté shots that billiard players use that are legal as well.