3 day rule discussion/moving on!

levartze

Verified Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
93
Just because it is legal to shoot through an object ball that is frozen to the cue ball, does not clear the way for an illegal double hit or push caused by secondary object balls that are in "close proximity". I think that is what you are referring to as a "shovel shot", correct? That would be considered a foul because the push/double hit that is caused by the secondary "close proximity" balls.
Good point Steve.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,533
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M6F4TdEkkPO0WcQOWAKQrH8nfwSwiiVv/view?usp=drivesdk
This is the side view and is how a ref. would position theirself to view the contact point. With draw the cb is not allowed to go past the contact point.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OCegyXQOqm1ELfgLAjYjPIaOO5q-mYOS/view?usp=drivesdk[/URL] looks like the balls are frozen but they are not.
-----------------------------------
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZbNG3z88AJnQSJZVSsKhoFy7hAPX0gem/view?usp=drivesdk This is a follow shot, the cb must hesitate at the contact point before going forward. If the cb takes off at nearly or the same speed as the ob, you know it is a foul. I wish I would of hit this just a little better, but I had a really good slow motion side view, whereas the cb sat there and spins before going forward, but I lost it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3mIFr_7LuGDU2J0dlhaN1dRV3c/view , I found it! enjoy! The cb traveled quite a few feet 14' approx. on a legal hit.
-----------------------------------
Here is a couple of my favorite shots.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DJlQ3g5MOHCzzykZqR3q4zbW16gaHVHa/view? The speed of the stroke really makes the cb comes back straighter.
usp=drivesdkhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1xB3hqnnM9lorN3ZYIFf0yHsJCf-ihbAZ/view?usp=drivesdk This shot I forgot the make the initial ball, lol. But, I am slightly cutting the ob and thus the cb initially goes on the tangent line before the spin takes over. It the cb went forward through the tangent line then it would be a foul.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y76yWAhWfUqqz26sstIY-9ap7jaj74vO/view?usp=drivesdk This gives you a view as I am looking at the shot, and shows where I am hitting the cb. The ball is within a 1/4". I am actually not stroking that low on the cb, but the stroke goes through fast!
----------------------------------
on the internet, if you type in Pool Rule Quiz, and then go to answers, shots like these are on there. Many players think that if they elevate the cue then a foul would not happen, or not called, not so, for the same foul criteria applies providing the cb is not jumped into the ob. The Quiz is done by Bob J. and very well done.

I thought by posting these videos it might complement the rule Steve posted for discussin. Enjoy, Whitey
 
Last edited:

levartze

Verified Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
93
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M6F4TdEkkPO0WcQOWAKQrH8nfwSwiiVv/view?usp=drivesdk
This is the side view and is how a ref. would position theirself to view the contact point. With draw the cb is not allowed to go past the contact point.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OCegyXQOqm1ELfgLAjYjPIaOO5q-mYOS/view?usp=drivesdk[/URL] looks like the balls are frozen but they are not.
-----------------------------------
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZbNG3z88AJnQSJZVSsKhoFy7hAPX0gem/view?usp=drivesdk This is a follow shot, the cb must hesitate at the contact point before going forward. If the cb takes off at nearly or the same speed as the ob, you know it is a foul. I wish I would of hit this just a little better, but I had a really good slow motion side view, whereas the cb sat there and spins before going forward, but I lost it.
-----------------------------------
Here is a couple of my favorite shots.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DJlQ3g5MOHCzzykZqR3q4zbW16gaHVHa/view? The speed of the stroke really makes the cb comes back straighter.
usp=drivesdkhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1xB3hqnnM9lorN3ZYIFf0yHsJCf-ihbAZ/view?usp=drivesdk This shot I forgot the make the initial ball, lol. But, I am slightly cutting the ob and thus the cb initially goes on the tangent line before the spin takes over. It the cb went forward through the tangent line then it would be a foul.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y76yWAhWfUqqz26sstIY-9ap7jaj74vO/view?usp=drivesdk This gives you a view as I am looking at the shot, and shows where I am hitting the cb. The ball is within a 1/4". I am actually not stroking that low on the cb, but the stroke goes through fast!
----------------------------------
on the internet, if you type in Pool Rule Quiz, and then go to answers, shots like these are on there. Many players think that if they elevate the cue then a foul would not happen, or not called, not so, for the same foul criteria applies providing the cb is not jumped into the ob. The Quiz is done by Bob J. and very well done.

I thought by posting these videos it might complement the rule Steve posted for discussin. Enjoy, Whitey
Hi Dennis,

Thanks for sharing these videos - very cool!

If I take a piece of paper and align its edge vertically with the left edge of the object ball in your first example, if the cue ball comes into view (it does), it went past the contact point. Even though the cueball draws back, this should be considered a foul, correct?
8<----8<-----[start from your quote]------8<-------8<--------
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M6F4TdEkkPO0WcQOWAKQrH8nfwSwiiVv/view?usp=drivesdk
This is the side view and is how a ref. would position theirself to view the contact point. With draw the cb is not allowed to go past the contact point.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OCegyXQOqm1ELfgLAjYjPIaOO5q-mYOS/view?usp=drivesdk[/URL] looks like the balls are frozen but they are not.
8<----8<-----[end from your quote]------8<-------8<--------

The same thing happens with the second example, if I hold a paper edge horizontally next to the top edge of the object ball, the cue ball goes past the contact point of the object ball. So, this should be a foul also, correct?

Thanks,
Bob
 
Last edited:

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,909
Hi Dennis,

Thanks for sharing these videos - very cool!

If I take a piece of paper and align its edge vertically with the left edge of the object ball in your first example, if the cue ball comes into view (it does), it went past the contact point. Even though the cueball draws back, this should be considered a foul, correct?
8<----8<-----[start from your quote]------8<-------8<--------
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M6F4TdEkkPO0WcQOWAKQrH8nfwSwiiVv/view?usp=drivesdk
This is the side view and is how a ref. would position theirself to view the contact point. With draw the cb is not allowed to go past the contact point.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OCegyXQOqm1ELfgLAjYjPIaOO5q-mYOS/view?usp=drivesdk[/URL] looks like the balls are frozen but they are not.
8<----8<-----[end from your quote]------8<-------8<--------

The same thing happens with the second example, if I hold a paper edge horizontally next to the top edge of the object ball, the cue ball goes past the contact point of the object ball. So, this should be a foul also, correct?

Thanks,
Bob
Now what lol? Back to the same wording, but its a foul if the OB goes half a ball forward?? I tried the paper trick and saw the same thing you did. However it could be that the video was shot at a very slight angle that only makes it appear like that.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,533
6. Fouls
Here is Steve's writing which I believe is very well stated. The question is which BIH rule writing would you prefer to play by; our 6.8 or WPA's 6.10 ?

6.8 Prior to shooting in a B-I-H situation, the opponent has the right to challenge a cue ball placement, or whether an object ball close to the line is playable, and if the two players cannot come to agreement themselves, then a referee or third party must be called over to make a final determination per our rule #12.1.
---------------------------------
vs. this WPA rule.
Below is the WPA writing, they list it under fouls. The problem with this writing is 4 fold. 1st. a foul can be called 'After the Fact' by opponent if they feel the cb is illegally placed and then stroked. WPA has eliminated the 'Warning' prior to the shot. 2. It is up to the 'shooter' to call a ref. This does not make sense for the shooter would not think he placed the cb illegally. 3. it involves a ref. unnecessarily, for the WPA has eliminated the 'Warning' prior to the shot. 4. An argument ensues
---------------------------------
6.10 Bad Cue Ball Placement
When the cue ball is in hand and restricted to the area behind the head string, it is a foul to
play the cue ball from on or below the head string. If the shooter is uncertain whether the cue
ball has been placed behind the head string, he may ask the referee for a determination.
-------------------------------
A reality example of how this would work: The shooter has placed the cb very close to the foul limit in his mind, he is now worried that the opponent will call a foul if he shoots, so now the shooter calls for a ref.
ridiculous ! Or, the shooter shoots and the opponent arbitrarily calls a foul. An argument ensues, and then a ref. is called. ridiculous!
Thank you, Whitey
 
Last edited:

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,533
Exception, a ''shovel shot'' where the shooting player pushes through the shot moving multiple balls while continuing their ''follow thru''

This is easy to show/explain at the players meeting.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d62jdSkR6JsbOpcaYsNP2uZbcXQZNO56/view
I believe this is what you are referring to. I can not get the sound to come in. But, I was going through some of my old videos and stumbled across this. It is in slow motion, otherwise the foul might not be so apparent. Pushing through the ob.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,533
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3mIFr_7LuGDU2J0dlhaN1dRV3c/view
I found the lost video. I am sure glad of that. Side view as if a ref./opponent would judge it based upon the ob contact point. Must pause before going forward. The cb traveled approx. 14' on a legal hit.
It appears the cue is rubbing the top of the cb as it is going through, but it is not. I learned this shot in '69 from Raymond Ceuleman. Whitey
 
Last edited:

levartze

Verified Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
93
Now what lol? Back to the same wording, but its a foul if the OB goes half a ball forward?? I tried the paper trick and saw the same thing you did. However it could be that the video was shot at a very slight angle that only makes it appear like that.
I think that was the point of incorporating the 45 degree rule at Derby City. It’s too difficult to see exactly in real time and some decisions will be inaccurate. I’ve asked someone to watch a shot and to me the shot was inaccurately called and you just have to live with the decision.
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,458
the whole idea isnt to figure out how to find out if it was a foul or not but to have a rule that makes for a way to shoot the shot so there isnt an argument.
the two ways to do that is the 45 degree way or force you to shoot away or off to the side of the ball.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,533
I think that was the point of incorporating the 45 degree rule at Derby City. It’s too difficult to see exactly in real time and some decisions will be inaccurate. I’ve asked someone to watch a shot and to me the shot was inaccurately called and you just have to live with the decision.
No not at all, I believe the DCC - TD made this rule so he would not have to go back and forth to the tables. That is all I'll say about it, but I know him personally.
These shots are very easy to judge. My small town, 20,000 or so, of a couple hundred players have been playing by this rule for I believe 8 yrs, and we do not have any problems, for all the players know the foul criteria. It actually eliminated problems with players pushing through the shots, for now the knowledge is there. Whitey
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,909
No not at all, I believe the DCC - TD made this rule so he would not have to go back and forth to the tables. That is all I'll say about it, but I know him personally.
These shots are very easy to judge. My small town, 20,000 or so, of a couple hundred players have been playing by this rule for I believe 8 yrs, and we do not have any problems, for all the players know the foul criteria. It actually eliminated problems with players pushing through the shots, for now the knowledge is there. Whitey
There is merit to it if it means players are agreeable and can carry on their game in an amicable competitive manner.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,745
No one defending the 45 degree rule used at DCC claims that by following this rule a legal shot is guaranteed. No one knows how often, using this rule, a CB is double hit or fouled. The rule simply bans calling a foul if the shooter jacks up 45 degrees. This ridiculous rule ought to be scorned by all experienced OP players. I would never allow this to be done in a gambling match.

Requiring the shooter to shoot away from an OB in a close proximity situation accomplishes the same result, which is to eliminate disagreements, is fair to both players, and does not allow players to foul the CB with impunity.
 

catkins

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
775
clearly double hit fouls require a ref and as long as the rule says that the cue ball can only follow blank amount for it to be a legal hit that is good guidelines for the ref to use . If the ref makes a bad call than you deal with it that is what all other sports do
 

levartze

Verified Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
93
clearly double hit fouls require a ref and as long as the rule says that the cue ball can only follow blank amount for it to be a legal hit that is good guidelines for the ref to use . If the ref makes a bad call than you deal with it that is what all other sports do
Hehe, like football, maybe we can have decisions made by video reviews? :)
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,846
No one defending the 45 degree rule used at DCC claims that by following this rule a legal shot is guaranteed. No one knows how often, using this rule, a CB is double hit or fouled. The rule simply bans calling a foul if the shooter jacks up 45 degrees. This ridiculous rule ought to be scorned by all experienced OP players. I would never allow this to be done in a gambling match.

Requiring the shooter to shoot away from an OB in a close proximity situation accomplishes the same result, which is to eliminate disagreements, is fair to both players, and does not allow players to foul the CB with impunity.
Heh.

I tried to "like" this in your first iteration, but by the time I got around to it, you had already deleted. I liked it the mean way. :D
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,745
Dennis, Bob and I have been having a lot of discussion about "close proximity" shots. One thought is to include something like this in the alternate/common practices/house rules font that we use here and there below the numbered rules. This comment -- or something like it -- could be placed below the 6.1 Cue ball fouls only section.

Close proximity shots often come up in One Pocket with no referee available. When shooting towards an object ball(s) in close proximity to the cue ball, it is a double hit foul if the cue ball goes immediately forward past the contact point or forward through the tangent line, without sufficient cue ball reaction time for english to take effect. With advanced skill, it is possible to play these shots without committing a foul. Alternatively, players may agree that shooting away at a sufficiently thin angle reasonably avoids a double hit. A ball declared frozen to the cue ball may be legally stroked through.
Steve,

Would you agree that a sufficiently thin angle can be predetermined by sighting the cue stick prior to the shot and looking for the follow thru to clear the OB? Would you agree that a player who does not choose to shoot away from the OB is subject to having a foul called on the shot if the opponent or a referee so deems?

I believe the rule should be to shoot away from the OB, and if the shooter chooses otherwise it is incumbent on him to call a referee or 3rd party to call the hit, and if he does neither he is subject to the call of his opponent. This allows highly skilled players to shoot the shot as they please as long as someone else calls the hit good or bad.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,909
Steve,

Would you agree that a sufficiently thin angle can be predetermined by sighting the cue stick prior to the shot and looking for the follow thru to clear the OB? Would you agree that a player who does not choose to shoot away from the OB is subject to having a foul called on the shot if the opponent or a referee so deems?

I believe the rule should be to shoot away from the OB, and if the shooter chooses otherwise it is incumbent on him to call a referee or 3rd party to call the hit, and if he does neither he is subject to the call of his opponent. This allows highly skilled players to shoot the shot as they please as long as someone else calls the hit good or bad.
Honestly, I think if the players agree that a shot is an angle safe enough to avoid the double hit, then that's all that matters in that case, that the players agree :)
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,846
Honestly, I think if the players agree that a shot is an angle safe enough to avoid the double hit, then that's all that matters in that case, that the players agree :)
Right, but Darrell wasn't suggesting that the players confer and agree; he was suggesting that there's a way to define what the acceptable angle is and that people will be able to see that it's a reasonable definition.

How about: When the cue is lined up for the intended shot, if it is aimed to entirely miss the object ball if the CB were removed, the angle of aim is acceptable. ? (I think this results in slightly less than a half-ball hit; less only because of the thickness of the shaft/ferrule/tip.)
 
Top