Rules Question - Push Shot - Very Fine Edge

[HemiRR]

We have had some debate in our senior league on two situations

1) When you are very close to an on ball and you hit a 'very fine edge' (say 88 to 90 degree contact) whether it is permissible to pot an on ball?
Some argue that it is unfair in that you are in effect being given a let from a push shot foul and therefore should not be allowed to gain an advantage by potting an on ball.
Others (including myself) believe that you are not being given anything - under the rule hitting a 'very fine edge' when close to an on ball is by definition not a push shot, but a legal stoke. As this is a legal stroke you are permitted to pot an on ball.
2) How far can the striker make the on ball travel?
One group belive that the object ball so stuck should barely move regardless of how hard the stroke.
The other group belive that if the stroke is very hard (cue ball up, down & back after stroke) the on ball can legally be made to move atleast 1 to 2 feet.

[The Statman]

Yes it can be a tricky one to judge.

My advice to a referee would be this: Imagine that the cue-ball was a few inches from the red and the player was aiming towards the same spot - you would have a good idea which direction the cue-ball will take when it rebounds off the red.

So when the cue-ball is very close to the red, and a push shot is a potential, you can have a look at what path the cue-ball does take. If it takes roughly the same natural path that you initally expected, then it's pretty likely that no push shot occurred.

However, if a push shot occurs it should have the effect of sending the cue-ball off at significantly less of an angle. If this happens, a call of foul would be in order.

Despite what some people may say, it is possible to hit a ball a fair distance, at a very thin angle, even if the cue-ball is feet away from the red at the start of the stroke. It therefore stands to reason that it is still possible from close range. As a player who is fairly proficient at this type of shot, I always bear this in mind when refereeing these scenarios.

And the general principle must apply that, if there is any doubt, the benefit of the doubt goes to the striker.

[Krypton]

The rule says the cue ball and the object ball have to be almost touching. Which, (my interpretation) means the gap can only be a millimetre wide, or lets say 2mm.
Hitting a VERY (it says so) thin edge of the object ball when playing from so close, will make the object ball move 5mm. or a few cm. But certainly not a foot or two.

I'd call that a push shot

[The Statman]

Hitting a VERY (it says so) thin edge of the object ball when playing from so close, will make the object ball move 5mm. or a few cm. But certainly not a foot or two.

But why not?

It is possible to put the cue-ball on the green spot, and cut the black off its spot into the left hand top pocket. This is a VERY thin edge but the black makes it the 3 feet to the pocket. Why would the closeness of the cue-ball mean that suddenly movement of a couple of feet at the same angle is no longer possible?

[Krypton]

Of course the cut would still be possible if you move the cue ball closer to the black (on the direct line from the green spot to the contact point).

But then, shooting from 2mm away, you could aim even THINNER, or not? Or isn't it reasonable to argue you should try to AVOID a push shot as much as you can by aiming as thin as necessary (or possible?), and, if you indeed aim as thin as possible, THEN you're not deemed to have played a push stroke?


Back to the example:
shooting from the green spot, you can follow through and stay in contact with the white for 2, 3, 15 cm if you like. no push shot, even if played that powerfully, as the black is 3m away.

playing from 1 cm away:
by cutting the black in I
- need to hammer the shot
- I know I will play a push shot to achieve the power necessary for the black to drop
- I accept the push stroke as a player
- and, foremost: I could aim in a way the black would - judging by direction - MISS the pocket on the long rail, so I could overcut the black. And try to avoid the push shot.


Two very different approaches, of course, which one is correct?

a) try to avoid a push shot by all means, or
b) only judge depending on the angle/thin edge argument. WHEN is a cut "thin", ref?

[The Statman]

Back to the example:
shooting from the green spot, you can follow through and stay in contact with the white for 2, 3, 15 cm if you like. no push shot, even if played that powerfully, as the black is 3m away.

Well it would still be a push shot if the cue remained in contact with the ball for 2 or more centimetres.

playing from 1 cm away:
by cutting the black in I
- need to hammer the shot
- I know I will play a push shot to achieve the power necessary for the black to drop
- I accept the push stroke as a player
- and, foremost: I could aim in a way the black would - judging by direction - MISS the pocket on the long rail, so I could overcut the black. And try to avoid the push shot.


Two very different approaches, of course, which one is correct?

a) try to avoid a push shot by all means, or
b) only judge depending on the angle/thin edge argument. WHEN is a cut "thin", ref?

Well, the VERY THIN edge is all that is required by Rule to nullify the push shot.

As I said earlier, as a referee I would look at an unexpectedly straight response from the cue-ball after contact with the object ball. This might be very minuscule for such a thin angle but, unless I was certain that a push shot had occurred, or that a thinner contact might reasonably have been attempted, then I would not call a foul.

[The Statman]

isn't it reasonable to argue you should try to AVOID a push shot as much as you can by aiming as thin as necessary (or possible?), and, if you indeed aim as thin as possible, THEN you're not deemed to have played a push stroke?

Paradoxically, if you aim for literally the 'thinnest contact possible' and make the slightest misjudgement, you would either:
- hit the ball too thickly, which you are advocating would be a foul (push) for failing to hit it thin enough, or
- misjudge it the other way and fail to hit the ball at all, will be called a foul and Miss for not making an adequate attempt to hit the ball.

You are making the window between unacceptably thick (push stroke) and unacceptably thin (missed altogether) a very narrow one!

[Souwester]

I think it is fair to say that a lot of times when playing from an almost touching ball situation that, if examined with an overhead slow motion camera, they are in fact push strokes.

It's a very subjective call as to when one of these 'quite thin contacts' is ok and when it should be called a push shot.

As Statman has already said, in general the benefit of the doubt is given to the striker, but it really is a fine line.

[Krypton]

It's a very subjective call as to when one of these 'quite thin contacts' is ok and when it should be called a push shot.

I'm with you (and Statman, somehow, just wanting to find/push the limits).

Even though the rule does not explicitely state that you have to try to AVOID a push stroke by all means, it's certainly (?), common sense, you should not be allowed to BENEFIT from a close object ball and the rules in a way that you

"are allowed one free push shot" on an otherwise impossible shot. For larger (rofl) distances of a few mm to cm Statman's way of looking - predict the natural cue ball angle - is very good and accurate. But then, the thinner the cut, the more difficult, of course, it is to judge correctly.

[The Statman]

I read somewhere very recently - I think perhaps in Snooker Scene January or February but not sure - a comment from Alan Chamberlain saying that he is sure that a lot of 'push shots' in this very situation go unpunished, and he included himself in that.

In cases of doubt, you might like to ask yourself two questions: Has the striker benefited from a possible infringement of the rule that is not called? And has the non-striker benefited from a call of foul which might actually not have been? Whichever outweighs the other tells you whether to call it or not, and it will usually be the first which has greater weight.

[HemiRR]

Very informative discussion Thank you. One element of the question was not addressed in the threads. Can you legally pot the on ball when you almost touching it eg red 10 cm (4 ") from pocket; the cue ball is 2 mm from the red. You strike the ball at 89 degrees (approximately 0.3 or 3/10th of a mm contact) and make the red - legally potted or is is a foul (In order to impart the necessary energy to the red, the cue ball will have to travel a long distance maybe a table length).

[Souwester]

The question has been addressed. The only foul would be if the referee considered the stroke to be a push shot. If the referee is satisfied that it was not a push shot then what happens to either ball is then subject to normal rules: ie if the ball on is potted then it counts as part of the break.

[DawRef]

The only foul would be if the referee considered the stroke to be a push shot.

I suspect that referees would be split over whether it was a foul or not. As a referee, I find the push shot difficult to injudicate on (IMHO, the foul and miss is easier). On a similar point, isn't a deep screw shot a 'push stroke'? Yet it is allowed.

[Acrowot]

Pros do get away with push strokes!!!!

I remember Dennis Taylor arguing with a ref about it and he then got away with it, and from then on, they all started to get away with making push strokes.
:snooker: