| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| trhxke |
Posted - 12/10/2007 : 1:11:00 PM
Last week we had players on both teams execute a safety shot where they placed the cue on the table surface, slide the tip upto and under the edge of the cue ball then lifted the cue causing the tip to push the cue ball forward into the object ball (the object ball was very close to the cue ball).
I have seen this done before and have never questioned it as being OK under the rules ....but....
Just this morning I read on the BCA Forum that this very shot would be now be considered a foul under the new rules.
Quoting Bob Jewett's post on another board:
"According to the just-adopted World Standardized Rules, you have to shoot with a forward motion of the cue stick that strikes the cue ball. Setting the balls in play in motion any other way is not just a foul but is unsportsmanlike conduct.
Bob Jewett
http://www.sfbilliards.com "
Has the APA considered this shot specifically and is it in fact even legal now?
Tom Hardinger
www.BigRigToys.com
Your Internet Source for pool cues, cases, table accessories, darts and various collectibles.
www.myspace.com/bigrigtom
http://hardingersystems.com/bat-forum/
http://bigrigtom.blogspot.com/ |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| movistar |
Posted - 12/29/2007 : 10:15:06 AM
wow.. I just finished reading the entire thread on this subject....
WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL QUESTION ?????? |
| D-RACK |
Posted - 12/18/2007 : 11:52:58 AM
Is there a VIDEO of this shot? |
| Phil |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 7:35:26 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by poolguy[/i]
[br]Phil,
I read your answer and that's why I asked my question about consistency. You did, in fact, cover every scenario I can think of.
Your answer in this thread is what I was referring to. That answer didn't seem to preclude droping your stick as a shot. But the scenarios you gave definitely did preclude that. I just think your answer in this thread was "imprecise", in that it left out information. Or, am I missing something?
As an engineer (retired) I like to have as much information as possible. That's just the way I am. The APA rules leave out a lot of information, which, to me, makes it even more difficult to figure out what is allowed and what is not. I couldn't find anything in the rules saying that a shot required cue tip to cue ball contact, but that's clearly what is required as I read your answers. (It would be interesting to see how much english you could get if you shot with the cue backwards and used a rubber butt piece to apply the english ... it would grab much more than chalk.)
Oh, and another scenario came to mind. Would it be legal if I could take the cue tip, put it under the cue ball, and quickly raise it so that the cue ball was raised and "jumped" over a ball or over a partially impeding ball? That's not a miscue type of jump. I'm not sure it's even possible, but your answer to this thread got me to thinking of other applications where a non-forward stroke might be useful.
John
It only hurts if you miss.
1) Yes, you are missing something. I don't know what, but keep re-reading until you figure it out.
2) Except in the case of a "swerve" stroke, you cannot produce more spin with a "stickier" device than you can with just enough chalk to prevent the tip from sliding on the cue ball. In fact, you may produce LESS spin and more throw (the cue ball will slide on the cloth instead of rotating about its vertical axis).
3) For someone who requires precise definitions, I am surprised that you even ask about a jump like that. The definition of a jump shot on page 95 of the Team Manual clearly precludes that type of jump. Note that the definition doesn't use the word "miscue" when describing an illegal jump shot. Miscue or not, if you scoop to jump, you have fouled. Interestingly enough, if you look at the definition of a miscue on page 94, you will find that the only time an intentional miscue is a foul is in the "jump shot" scenario.
4) This thread has gone on long enough. Give it a rest.
Phil
|
| poolguy |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 5:12:06 PM
Phil,
I read your answer and that's why I asked my question about consistency. You did, in fact, cover every scenario I can think of.
Your answer in this thread is what I was referring to. That answer didn't seem to preclude droping your stick as a shot. But the scenarios you gave definitely did preclude that. I just think your answer in this thread was "imprecise", in that it left out information. Or, am I missing something?
As an engineer (retired) I like to have as much information as possible. That's just the way I am. The APA rules leave out a lot of information, which, to me, makes it even more difficult to figure out what is allowed and what is not. I couldn't find anything in the rules saying that a shot required cue tip to cue ball contact, but that's clearly what is required as I read your answers. (It would be interesting to see how much english you could get if you shot with the cue backwards and used a rubber butt piece to apply the english ... it would grab much more than chalk.)
Oh, and another scenario came to mind. Would it be legal if I could take the cue tip, put it under the cue ball, and quickly raise it so that the cue ball was raised and "jumped" over a ball or over a partially impeding ball? That's not a miscue type of jump. I'm not sure it's even possible, but your answer to this thread got me to thinking of other applications where a non-forward stroke might be useful.
John
It only hurts if you miss. |
| poolguy |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 5:08:44 PM
Phil,
I read your answer and that's why I asked my question about consistency. You did, in fact, cover every scenario I can think of.
Your answer in this thread is what I was referring to. That answer didn't seem to preclude droping your stick as a shot. But the scenarios you gave definitely did preclude that. I just think your answer in this thread was "imprecise", in that it left out information. Or, am I missing something?
As an engineer (retired) I like to have as much information as possible. That's just the way I am. The APA rules leave out a lot of information, which, to me, makes it even more difficult to figure out what is allowed and what is not. I couldn't find anything in the rules saying that a shot required cue tip to cue ball contact, but that's clearly what is required as I read your answers. (It would be interesting to see how much english you could get if you shot with the cue backwards and used a rubber butt piece to apply the english ... it would grab much more than chalk.)
Oh, and another scenario came to mind. Would it be legal if I could take the cue tip, put it under the cue ball, and quickly raise it so that the cue ball was raised and "jumped" over a ball or over a partially impeding ball? That's not a miscue type of jump. I'm not sure it's even possible, but your answer to this thread got me to thinking of other applications where a non-forward stroke might be useful.
John
It only hurts if you miss. |
| Phil |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 4:39:15 PM
I thought I answered that. Please re-read my previous reply. It covered every scenario of dropping the stick, and is completely consistent with our reply in the previous thread. I'm not sure where imprecision would come in.
Phil
|
| poolguy |
Posted - 12/16/2007 : 09:01:55 AM
Phil,
When I asked how your answers related to the other topic (Scratch ... or not), I was referring to this quote from your earlier append:
If you contact the cue ball with your cue, it makes contact with a legal object ball, and something hits a rail or goes into a pocket, it's good - no need to concern yourself with how the initial contact was made.
"Contact with the cue ball" does not preclude a dropped cue. I suspect your answer will be that you were imprecise, which is OK. I was just asking how your words could be consistent with the answer to the other subject. Should I also assume that "contact" means only tip to ball? Or, is it legal in the APA to use another part of the cue to contact the cue ball?
John
It only hurts if you miss. |
| Phil |
Posted - 12/15/2007 : 1:43:57 PM
Matt gets an 'A'. But he doesn't get an 'A+'. He forgot to mention that you should first wipe the chalk from your tip, thereby reducing the coefficient of friction between the tip and the cue ball. Shoot with an open bridge, aim at the right or left edge of the cue ball, and hit it hard. The result is a miscue, but since your bridge is open the cue bounces one direction and the cue ball bounces the other way, thus avoiding a double hit.
If you don't miscue (too much friction) or you shoot with a closed bridge (so the cue can't bounce to the side), you will probably double-hit the cue ball.
There was a variation of this shot published in Inside Pool a while back, except the stroke wasn't parallel to anything (low outside, butt elevated at about 30 degrees) and the miscue was only partial. The cool thing about this shot is that you can actually draw the cue ball back a couple of feet.
Phil
|
| Matt |
Posted - 12/15/2007 : 09:11:15 AM
Why not just hit the left side of the ball then? Keeping the cue parallel to the table and parallel to the line connecting the object ball and the cue ball, and assuming the cue ball and the object ball are very close together, you can move your entire stick about an inch to the left and shoot a hard, forward shot. The cue ball will spin off harmlessly to the right.
I tried it on my table and it works every time, though I had a hard time telling if there might be a micro-double-hit somewhere in there, it happens so fast. |
| lyrad |
Posted - 12/15/2007 : 01:21:45 AM
The only way I can imagine Phils shot working is if you glance off the top of the cue ball as if you miscued, giving forward momentum at the same time getting the cue out of the way. It would be best if the shot was done hard because the cue leaves the danger zone faster, not hanging around to contact the cue ball again. |
| trhxke |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 5:10:04 PM
Wow!
Phil, I was more than happy with your original answer on the original question.
I had no idea this subject would spur such a long winded discussion and I still agree with and am still happy with your original answer.
Like someone once said, "Why don't we just play pool.!" he he
Tom Hardinger
www.BigRigToys.com
Your Internet Source for pool cues, cases, table accessories, darts and various collectibles.
www.myspace.com/bigrigtom
http://hardingersystems.com/bat-forum/
http://bigrigtom.blogspot.com/ |
| Phil |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 5:02:09 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by poolguy[/i]
[br]Phil,
Here is the definition of "Legal Stroke" from the other rules:
Legal Stroke
Forward motion of the cue stick resulting in the cue tip striking the cue ball for only the momentary time customarily associated with a normal shot. "Forward" means relative to the cue stick itself, along the long axis of the cue and away from the butt, and has no relevance to any part of the table or any relationship to the player or any part of their body. (See Diagrams 4 and 5).
And here are the words which make the "brush stroke" specifically illegal in those rules:
1.18 Legal Stroke
You must use a legal stroke. Any lifting, sideways, or other brushing motion of the cue stick, such that the force that propels the cue ball does not primarily result from a forward motion of the cue stick as defined under “Legal Stroke”, is a foul. (See Diagrams 4 and 5).
1.19 Legal Shot
Unless otherwise stated in specific game rules, a shot is legal if:
a. a legal stroke is used;
b. the first ball contacted by the cue ball is a legal object ball;
c. after that contact, any object ball is pocketed, or the cue ball or any object ball contacts a cushion.
If any of the above requirements are not met, it is a foul.
I really don't think, given those words, it is unclear at all. If the APA chooses to allow this stroke, that is a leval playing field. However, this allows the player to play the game in a way that it was not intended. If a player wants to avoid a double hit, they should do so with a legal stroke, not an artificial method contrived by players to circumvent what players need to do to make a legal shot. My opinion only.
I couldn't find anywhere in the APA documentation what constitutes a "legal stroke". Therefore, by extrapolation, your explanation makes perfect sense. Now I'd like to ask how your answer pertains to the question I asked in this forum about whether what a player did was a shot or not, and whether the result was a scratch and loss of game. See "Scratch or Not". The answer I got was that this was a foul only, not loss of game. Your answer here is that if the cue strikes the cue ball, and the cue ball hits a legal object ball, and something hits a rail, it is a legal shot. Those words sound an awful lot like the other situation would be a scratch and loss of game. Can you explain the difference?
I'm not trying to be a Philadelphia lawyer here, When rules are not specific, it leaves lots of room for interpretation, and those interpretations will not necessarily be the same or consistent.
John
It only hurts if you miss.
When rules are not specific??? How specific is "customarily associated with a normal shot"? Sounds to me like those who tried to specifically define a legal stroke had to resort to hand-waving to pull it off.
I always laugh when someone uses the phrase "play the game the way it was intended". All games evolve - name one game that is played today the way its creators "intended". If you want to play the game the way it was intended, remove the tip from your cue and bend it a little, and go back to clay balls (or whatever the balls were made of back in the day). I'm sure the first person who put a tip on the end of his cue and started moving the cue ball around with it met with much resistance from those who wanted the game played "the way it was intended". Cloth on the table, rubber cushions, the list goes on. None of it was intended by the game's creators.
Just because someone got creative and came up with a new way of doing something doesn't mean the new method is "contrived to circumvent what players need to do to make a legal shot". This method of shooting the shot IS legal, and WAS legal under all rules in existence when it was first used. Only THEN did some group (whose authority I do not recognize in this forum) decide to create new rules defining a "legal stroke" in an attempt to legislate away something they did not like. It's a classic case of innovation being stifled by traditionalists.
As for your other question, you are confusing the terms "scratch" and "foul". A scratch can only occur as the result of an attempted shot. A foul can occur any time. A foul has not occurred if the conditions required of a legal shot are met. And before you ask, if you accidentally drop your cue, which in turn hits the cue ball, which in turn sinks the 8-Ball, following which the cue ball goes into the pocket, you have just lost the game. You didn't scratch, but you did sink the 8-Ball and foul. And before you ask, if you accidentally drop your cue, which in turn hits the cue ball, which in turn strikes the 8-Ball but doesn't sink it and falls into a pocket, you have not lost the game, but you have fouled and your opponent gets ball in hand. And before you ask, if you scratch on the 8-Ball, then subsequently claim that the whole sequence was an accident, you will be subject to penalty for a sportsmanship violation. I don't know if I've covered everything, but I'm sure you'll let me know if I haven't.
Phil
|
| Taz |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 4:03:04 PM
While other rules have their place, the APA is the governing body of amateur pool and as such has its own set of rules. Continuously pointing out other rules from whatever organization you chose to quote is pointless and doing so can cause confusion for our novice players. Rather than doing that, I would once again encourage you to read and become familiar with the Official APA Team Manual, and as you participate in South Coast APA, you should make a point to become versed in our own set of Local Bylaws.
Official APA Team Manual, Page 2...
... Relax, enjoy yourself and play within the Spirit of the Rules as well as the written rules. It is impossible to cover every situation 100% with rules. Common sense must prevail. Teams that try to gain advantage by creating their own interpretation are subject to sportsmanship violations. Win at the table and not from the chair is a generality that promotes harmony, camaraderie and good times. THAT'S WHAT THIS LEAGUE IS ALL ABOUT. |
| poolguy |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 1:01:22 PM
Phil,
Here is the definition of "Legal Stroke" from the other rules:
Legal Stroke
Forward motion of the cue stick resulting in the cue tip striking the cue ball for only the momentary time customarily associated with a normal shot. "Forward" means relative to the cue stick itself, along the long axis of the cue and away from the butt, and has no relevance to any part of the table or any relationship to the player or any part of their body. (See Diagrams 4 and 5).
And here are the words which make the "brush stroke" specifically illegal in those rules:
1.18 Legal Stroke
You must use a legal stroke. Any lifting, sideways, or other brushing motion of the cue stick, such that the force that propels the cue ball does not primarily result from a forward motion of the cue stick as defined under “Legal Stroke”, is a foul. (See Diagrams 4 and 5).
1.19 Legal Shot
Unless otherwise stated in specific game rules, a shot is legal if:
a. a legal stroke is used;
b. the first ball contacted by the cue ball is a legal object ball;
c. after that contact, any object ball is pocketed, or the cue ball or any object ball contacts a cushion.
If any of the above requirements are not met, it is a foul.
I really don't think, given those words, it is unclear at all. If the APA chooses to allow this stroke, that is a leval playing field. However, this allows the player to play the game in a way that it was not intended. If a player wants to avoid a double hit, they should do so with a legal stroke, not an artificial method contrived by players to circumvent what players need to do to make a legal shot. My opinion only.
I couldn't find anywhere in the APA documentation what constitutes a "legal stroke". Therefore, by extrapolation, your explanation makes perfect sense. Now I'd like to ask how your answer pertains to the question I asked in this forum about whether what a player did was a shot or not, and whether the result was a scratch and loss of game. See "Scratch or Not". The answer I got was that this was a foul only, not loss of game. Your answer here is that if the cue strikes the cue ball, and the cue ball hits a legal object ball, and something hits a rail, it is a legal shot. Those words sound an awful lot like the other situation would be a scratch and loss of game. Can you explain the difference?
I'm not trying to be a Philadelphia lawyer here, When rules are not specific, it leaves lots of room for interpretation, and those interpretations will not necessarily be the same or consistent.
John
It only hurts if you miss. |
| Phil |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 11:01:52 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by poolguy[/i]
[br]Phil, forward motion is easy to define. It is motion that is along the axis of the cue stick, moving from butt to tip. It doesn't matter how you're shooting. A forward stroke is always just that ... forward in relation to the butt and tip.
I'd be interested in seeing you shoot a ball from the center of the table (side to side), one diamond from the foot rail, with the cue ball one half inch from the object ball, shooting straight ahead, and have the cue ball hit the head rail. Legally, with no double hit. You clearly are much higher skilled tham I am, as I can make a legal shot from this distance without double hitting, but I can't make the cue ball go that distance. You make the shot, I'll buy you a drink in appreciation of seeing it ... :)
John
It only hurts if you miss.
I wasn't really looking for a definition, John. I was illustrating that even when you think something is clear and obvious, there will be someone who questions it. To play devil's advocate here, the next thing I would ask is "which axis?" There are three of them. When you answer that question, I will then ask what happens if I shoot with a cue that's curved like the letter "U" and has a tip on each end? Where are the axes on this cue? Do you see how complicated a "simple" rule can become?
As for the shot, I never said anything about the cue ball traveling. However, half an inch is a lot of room, and I can shoot the shot you describe. Not every time, but it can be done (trust me, I tried it before composing this reply). This illustrates my point even more - legislating the stroke does nothing beyond complicating the rules. Even with a "legal" stroke, you still have to watch for and detect a double hit. You have to do all the things you had to do before, plus more to ensure the stroke was "legal".
Phil
|
|
|
