Rule question....

[darmoose]

So, I know this has been discussed before, but I can't find anything on it (my bad), and I want to attempt to clearly describe to a beginner how to determine whether a foul has been committed or not.

Your opponent's CB is between 1/8" and 1/4" away from the OB, and he wants to shoot the OB to his hole about 6 feet away and straight ahead. He jacks up to almost vertical (he really wants to draw that CB back after contact) and strikes the "back" side of the CB.

The OB takes off and the CB follows it forward about 6-8 inches before the backspin catches and draws the CB back.

Did he foul? If you think so, how do you know?

 

[catkins]

fairly sure if the cue ball enters the place where the object ball was it is a foul as if they are equal mass and you hit back spin no skid in the world should be able to push it through without hitting it for a second time or maintaining contact with the cue ball through the hit.

 

[jtompilot]

It’s a foul.

 

[LSJohn]

fairly sure if the cue ball enters the place where the object ball was it is a foul as if they are equal mass and you hit back spin no skid in the world should be able to push it through without hitting it for a second time or maintaining contact with the cue ball through the hit.

Correct. The CB went forward. It cannot go forward unless propelled forward by the tip, and forward unavoidably fouls.

 

[cincy_kid]

IMO, this is one of those issues that will always be a problem when gambling. If in a tourney, I guess you can call a ref over and have whatever they say go, but in action, if the opponent says it was a foul and the shooter argues it wasn't, then what?

You either end up in a fight or you keep arguing until one person gives in. For me personally, I will stand up and watch if it's going to be close and usually my opponent calls it on themselves if it was blatantly a foul but when they don't, I rarely argue and just continue. I know it's to my disadvantage but as I am getting older I like confrontation less and less.

Plus, if I find myself in the same situation as a shooter, there will be some "leeway" in my questionable hit too if I don't say anything about theirs.

Just another reason I prefer playing with good guys who play fair, life's too damn short ~

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Darmoose, there is no specific rule covering this in either WPA, or BCAPL/CSI, except for their general rule writings of double hit and push shot which leaves room for interpretations, judgment, tangent line, and so forth.

In DCC the rule is when the cb is either frozen to or close to an object ball then the cue must be elevated at a 45 degree angle when executing these shots or it will be considered a foul, and not a foul if the cue is elevated. Conclusion; not a foul under DCC rules. This is the lowest standard of play possible. But it does effect OP, for when the cb is close to the stack or anywhere then the cue most be elevated 45 degrees or more, otherwise it is an automatic foul!
* I should add, this also allows a player to push or double hit the cb and bury it within the stack as long as you elevate the cue, wow, this really lowers the standard of play!!!!

In '08 I tried to get bcapl to adopt this, plus my explanatory diagram: Just imagine that if they would of adopted my foul criteria, we would not be having this discussion!
CLOSE PROXIMITY BALL / FOUL CRITERIA;
When an intended or an otherwise to be contacted object ball is in close proximity of the cue ball then one must be aware that a push shot foul or a double hit foul may occur.
1. When stroking the cue ball with draw directly towards a very close proximity object ball then the cue ball can not go forwards past the contact point, or it will be a foul. (foul criteria)
2. When stoking the cue ball with follow directly towards a very close proximity object ball then the cue ball must pause at the contact point before proceeding to follow, or it will be a foul. (foul criteria).
3. Regarding foul criteria line 1 and 2, if these shots are attempted with an elevated cue ( such as a masse draw or a force follow) then the same foul criteria applies.
4. The above criteria are based upon the cue ball remaining upon the bed of the table when stroked. The cue ball is not elevated into the object ball.

This is the basics, there is more concerning a close proximity shot that is angled. Then the tangent line comes into play, at least when stroked upon less than a 45 degree angle.
An object ball stroked at 45 or greater angle can not be double hit or pushed for the balls go separate ways at 90 degrees or more upon contact. Under 45 degrees then yes based upon how close the object ball is to the cue ball.
Simply put; the cb must initially follow the tangent until the english takes over, but if it initially goes forward of the tangent line it is a foul. There is more, but this gets us there.

The close proximity shot is the most beguiled, misunderstood billiard discipline in all of pool, and it has been that way forever! I learned this foul criteria from Ceuleman back in '69.
Without this foul criteria clearly depicted then players are truly lost as to the proper ruling, and are truly playing by a low standard of play, really ugly play, actually!!!!

I wish OP.org would develop and adopt their own general rules so this continuing bewilderment about rules cease to come up all the time, and has somewhat of an end in site! Whitey

 

[darmoose]

I agree with all of you that the scenario I described is a foul. I feel the DCC rule allowing a shooter to jack up 45 degrees and do as you damn well please is a total cop out and very harmful to the game.

It is a rule of physics that when the shooter is attempting to draw the CB on a close proximity shot the CB simply cannot move forward past the point of contact with the OB and then draw back without the CB being fouled by way of a double hit. This is true at any distance and particularly on close proximity shots.

OP has numerous situations that develop that require observance of close calls such as did you hit the rail or did you hit the OB, and this is no different. Obviously when the CB goes forward 6 inches it is not a close call. Not playing by this rule provides an advantage to those who either don't understand or pretend not to understand.

I agree with Whitey that we should incorporate a rule to stop this practice in OP.

 

[Bmoretallpaul]

The DCC rule is in place for two reasons, first it eliminates the need for the referee, since they have so many tables going at the same time. Second, it eliminates good hit bad hit on those close shots. Yes, it is not a perfect solution but it does serve the purpose at dcc when you have so many matches to get through

 

[jtompilot]

The DCC rule is in place for two reasons, first it eliminates the need for the referee, since they have so many tables going at the same time. Second, it eliminates good hit bad hit on those close shots. Yes, it is not a perfect solution but it does serve the purpose at dcc when you have so many matches to get through

I agree it’s BS but I played by the rules

 

[darmoose]

The DCC rule is in place for two reasons, first it eliminates the need for the referee, since they have so many tables going at the same time. Second, it eliminates good hit bad hit on those close shots. Yes, it is not a perfect solution but it does serve the purpose at dcc when you have so many matches to get through

Paul,

I understand what you have said and why the DCC did what it did.

However, as I said earlier there are several other situations where a call has to be made that can be a close call, what do you do if the players disagree on such things as did the ball touch a rail, or did the CB hit the OB?

As we all know on this type of call if the CB passes the point of contact and then draws back, it is a foul. That's 99% of the time an easy call.

I can't see how the answer to making close calls is to eliminate the rule, but the DCC can do as it wishes, so long as people don't confuse that rule made for convenience in that tournament for the actual rule when playing and gambling.

P.S Come around, I only need a ball.