What actually constitutes a "Double hit" foul.

M

mbprod

Registered
I had a situation in a tournament arise recently where the opponent had his cue ball about 1/2 inch away from the object ball. He shot through the balls full stroke which caused the cue ball to go a full 3 cushions. Obviously this could never had occurred unless it was a double hit.

I called a foul and the inevitable huge argument occurred. He said it was not , and I said what I say below. In the end I won any way, but I have looked everywhere on line and on every source the definition is pretty vague.

The best I found was that if they are "very close" together, the cue must be elevated at 45 degrees or more to prevent the double hit. But I have not found a specific definition.

For me. I always semi-masse a potential double hit or a frozen ball shot to avoid contact. If they are frozen, I always shoot at an angle or masse to avoid a push.

Anyone have a source with a specific definition?

Not really looking for opinions but a specific reference.
 
Here's a pretty good general rule, regarding double hits. If the CB and OB travel the same direction at the same speed, you can be pretty certain it was a foul. On the other hand, if they are both frozen, you can shoot straight through both balls in one stroke, with no elevation, and it is legal.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
 
mbprod said:
... Anyone have a source with a specific definition?

Not really looking for opinions but a specific reference.
Click to expand...

Here is the applicable rule from the World Standardized Rules http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play#6.7

6.7 Double Hit / Frozen Balls
If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is close to but not touching an object ball and the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue ball contacts that object ball, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is very close to an object ball, and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball contact is made.
However, if the cue ball is touching an object ball at the start of the shot, it is legal to shoot towards or partly into that ball (provided it is a legal target within the rules of the game) and if the object ball is moved by such a shot, it is considered to have been contacted by the cue ball. (Even though it may be legal to shoot towards such a touching or “frozen” ball, care must be taken not to violate the rules in the first paragraph if there are additional balls close by.)
The cue ball is assumed not to be touching any ball unless it is declared touching by the referee or opponent. It is the shooter’s responsibility to get the declaration before the shot. Playing away from a frozen ball does not constitute having hit that ball unless specified in the rules of the game.​

It is up to the referee to determine whether the cue ball was struck twice. In the situation you describe, it seems pretty clear that it was hit twice. In that situation my question would be whether the cue ball instantly followed the object without hesitation. There is some chance the player knew how to play a legal three-cushion follow shot on the close ball. As a referee, it is your job to know what that would look like. See Dr. Dave's site, mentioned above, for explanations and videos. There is also a link to a video-based referee's quiz there somewhere.
 
Scott - I question the "full stroke" through the balls. Everything I have heard, read, and seen says that you cannot use a full stroke even if they are frozen. Either shoot to the side, or shorten it a bit. That is what I am trying to clarify.
 
Bob, I read that one, and I think it is close to right. The "partly through the ball" is the key. I read somewhere ( cannot find it again ) that you could shot half way through the object ball legally. In a league setting you have mostly amateurs who do not even understand that shooting a full stroke thru when the cue ball is close to the object ball is a double hit.
 
I asked Scott Smith,(the TD at the Derby), if shooting thru a frozen ball was considered a foul in their tournament and he said yes,even though the BCA rules state you can shoot thru a frozen ball. We used to use the distance of a chalk as a guide,but that was only because some players couldnt keep from fouling at that distance and it took away shots from those of us who can. I always tell people if the CB crosses the tangent line between the 2 balls then its a foul,but hell still some of my buddies do it and think its a good hit,and if you call it a foul,they piss and moan and cry to high heaven,so i just let it go to keep peace. I figure if they need to win that bad,then they can have it,i will shoot away from it and not foul. ;)
 
This is a situation I almost never call in league situations because it's a guaranteed big argument whenever you call the foul. Especially when there's a good player involved who somehow doesn't understand how to call a double hit.

The only thing I take issue with that's been mentioned here is the idea you can't take a "full stroke" when the balls are frozen. That doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't see how a "full stroke" would cause a double hit.

I also go by the idea that the cue ball can't cross more than half-way into the previous position of the object ball when hitting in the same direction.
 
Lucky_Lew66 said:
I asked Scott Smith,(the TD at the Derby), if shooting thru a frozen ball was considered a foul in their tournament and he said yes,even though the BCA rules state you can shoot thru a frozen ball. We used to use the distance of a chalk as a guide,but that was only because some players couldnt keep from fouling at that distance and it took away shots from those of us who can. I always tell people if the CB crosses the tangent line between the 2 balls then its a foul,but hell still some of my buddies do it and think its a good hit,and if you call it a foul,they piss and moan and cry to high heaven,so i just let it go to keep peace. I figure if they need to win that bad,then they can have it,i will shoot away from it and not foul. ;)
Click to expand...


When the cue ball is close to the object ball, and the shooter uses an elevated cue, it is quite common for a good hit ("single hit") to send the cue ball past the "tangent line."

The reason is that the "tangent line" is a misnomer. It's actually a "tangent plane." When the cue ball is driven downward, it rebounds off the slate and contacts the object ball above the OB's horizontal plane, thereby driving the cue ball along the "tilted" tangent plane (before gravity curves the cue ball path back down towards the table surface).

Players or referees that use the so-called "tangent line" (or worse, the width of a piece of chalk) as a guide to determine the legality of a stroke usually either don't understand the physics of pool, and/or are adhering to a misguided but strictly defined rule set. (The APA rule set comes to mind.)

There are better, more accurate, and more reliable ways to determine if a double-hit has occurred.

For example, consider the shot at 2:15 in this video (the shot on the 3-ball):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdWnR1wFsc0

This is just one example (among several others in the video) of a legal hit that results in the cue ball progressing forward past the "tangent line."

-Blake

(PS, Scott Smith is faced with a dilemma with the frozen OB shot (although sticking to BCA rules would offer the easiest solution). Shooting through a frozen OB is practically guaranteed to be a push shot to some extent (but not a double hit), even if the shooter attempts to make a very "thin" cut on the frozen OB. However, such a shot is much more difficult to judge, so I agree with either extreme - it should either always be a foul, or never be a foul. BCA rules, of course, specifically state that any shot through a frozen OB, no matter how thick or thin, is not a foul.)
 
JohnnyP said:
Am I correct in calling a foul at 6:45 here?

http://vimeo.com/90768790
Click to expand...
Based on how the CB came in from the previous shot, the player's look at the balls, and the cue elevation, I would guess the balls were not frozen. (The shot sound also seems suspicious). If there were a ref or opponent present, the gap (or lack thereof) between the balls would be verified before the shot. If the balls were not frozen, this was a foul.

For more info, see:
double-hit foul resource page
frozen-cue-ball shot resource page

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
mbprod said:
I had a situation in a tournament arise recently where the opponent had his cue ball about 1/2 inch away from the object ball. He shot through the balls full stroke which caused the cue ball to go a full 3 cushions. Obviously this could never had occurred unless it was a double hit.

I called a foul and the inevitable huge argument occurred. He said it was not , and I said what I say below. In the end I won any way, but I have looked everywhere on line and on every source the definition is pretty vague.

The best I found was that if they are "very close" together, the cue must be elevated at 45 degrees or more to prevent the double hit. But I have not found a specific definition.

For me. I always semi-masse a potential double hit or a frozen ball shot to avoid contact. If they are frozen, I always shoot at an angle or masse to avoid a push.

Anyone have a source with a specific definition?

Not really looking for opinions but a specific reference.
Click to expand...

The rule is not vague. You cannot hit the cue ball twice. What you found, about elevating your cue, is a way to possibly avoid the double hit.

Is this an APA issue in disguise? I seem to only hear about chalk widths and elevating cues in a discussion about the APA.

I hate that unofficial rule. All it does is allows players to actually double hit, and hide behind the fact that they were either further than a chalk width away, or they elevated their cue. I can shoot straight on 1cm away and not double hit as often as some of these players on a routine shot.
 
The very worst thing about the double hit foul is that the shooter can "feel" right away whether it is a good or bad hit. When your opponent declares a legal hit on a blatant double hit, like the cue ball passing the object ball, he is a flat out lying cheat, no 2 ways about it.:mad:
 
Actually my post came because in the APA rulebook they do not list a double hit as a foul, and that became the issue when my opponent made a clear double hit. They said that because it was not listed it was not a foul.

In all my years of playing pool ( more than 30 ) a double hit is a foul in any venue - period.
 
Third thing to go?

fastone371 said:
The very worst thing about the double hit foul is that the shooter can "feel" right away whether it is a good or bad hit. When your opponent declares a legal hit on a blatant double hit, like the cue ball passing the object ball, he is a flat out lying cheat, no 2 ways about it.:mad:
Click to expand...


At my local senior center...apparently there is no 'feeling'.

As a new-b at the center, I was amazed at the frequency of spearing through close proximity cb-ob shots. I set up some close shots, and asked for guys to listen for the click-click of two(or more) collision contacts.

Say what? sonny. Hearing may be the first to go??

I gave up. When in Rome...don't need no fancy smanshy rules. 'Nobody is a pro here'..don't worry about it.

I ain't gonna press the issue...these guys still got attitude.:eek:
 
mcesarsey...There is no issue...and you're half right. When the OB and CB are frozen, the shooter may take a full stroke and shoot through both balls, with a level cue in one smooth stroke. When the OB and CB have ANY gap you may not employ this stroke without fouling. The idea of the CB traveling forward, after contact with the OB, past where the OB sat, by an inch, is outdated and not used anymore (however, at one time that was the rule).

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

mcesarey said:
The only thing I take issue with that's been mentioned here is the idea you can't take a "full stroke" when the balls are frozen. That doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't see how a "full stroke" would cause a double hit.

I also go by the idea that the cue ball can't cross more than half-way into the previous position of the object ball when hitting in the same direction.
Click to expand...
 
Careyp74 said:
The rule is not vague. You cannot hit the cue ball twice. What you found, about elevating your cue, is a way to possibly avoid the double hit.

Is this an APA issue in disguise? I seem to only hear about chalk widths and elevating cues in a discussion about the APA.

I hate that unofficial rule. All it does is allows players to actually double hit, and hide behind the fact that they were either further than a chalk width away, or they elevated their cue. I can shoot straight on 1cm away and not double hit as often as some of these players on a routine shot.
Click to expand...

Chalk widths are discussed in the BCA rules, not APA rules. Unfortunately, the official APA rules are ambiguous about how to detect or avoid double hits.

Elevating cue is the typical (and often ineffective) guidance that APA LOps offer to avoid a double hit. A double hit (or "double clutch" as it's referred to in the APA docs) is a foul in APA. A push shot is not a foul in APA, and that is why it is permissible to shoot through a CB frozen to the OB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top