Legal or not 2.0

[sappo]

someone called a foul on me the other day for a push or double hit, I don't know which, but the situation was that the CB and OB were very close to each other (not frozen) and after my hit, the CB raced after the OB almost as fast on the same path. I did not push or double hit, yet my opponent claimed that there was no way the CB could have travelled that fast without it being a foul.

I dont believe I miscued, pushed or double hit and I have a big problem with a person claiming the foul based on his opinion of the resulting cue ball path instead of from seeing the stroke, our hearing the hit, (there was no sound of a double hit, nor did I feel one). By the way, I used top and my stroke rose off the top of the CB

if it wasn't a double hit then it was a triple hit!!

 

[darmoose]

All that typing and that's the first intelligent thing you've said In a month.

...that made me laugh:lol:lol:lol

I was just checking to see if you are awake over there..

 

[beatle]

for cash we always played the 45 degree rule. other wise your opponent just said it wasnt a double hit and would not concede the foul.

so you either quit him or fight for the payment of the last game.

so which is better.

 

[darmoose]

for cash we always played the 45 degree rule. other wise your opponent just said it wasnt a double hit and would not concede the foul.

so you either quit him or fight for the payment of the last game.

so which is better.

..so for your money you would let your opponent commit a foul as long as he jacked up 45degrees? no way for my money!

..so which is better you say

I say it's better to have a rule that applies to both players equally, that allows you to review the angle he is aiming at, and see that his cue stick will not contact the object ball even if he follows through. follow this rule and there will be fewer or no arguments and no one will gain an advantage by committing a foul.

how could this be simpler. unless you just believe you're entitled to shoot in any direction you want to no matter what...

 

[beatle]

if you are playing the 45 deg rule then you are not committing a foul.

no different than if a person touches an object ball. if you are not playing fouls on that it isnt a foul.

and rules work both ways so they are fair.

 

[LSJohn]

The problem I have with your rule is that would mean all you have to do is get the CB close to an OB and now your opponent is forced to shoot away from the ball. Its a new way for you to play safeties, just get the balls close to each other.

I don't take "shoot away" to mean "Don't hit the OB with the CB." I take it to mean the cue stick must be aimed outside the edge of the OB, or even farther outside if there is another OB or rail that will prevent your OB from getting out of the way with a continuous stroke. This is different from the meaning of "Shoot away" according to European rules where if CB is frozen to OB, you can shoot so that the OB is not moved at all and it's a good hit because the OB has already been contacted for you before you approach the table.

 

[Jimmy B]

[QUOTE=LSJohn;. This is different from the meaning of "Shoot away" according to European rules where if CB is frozen to OB, you can shoot so that the OB is not moved at all and it's a good hit because the OB has already been contacted for you before you approach the table.

I didn't know that?? Are you serious??

 

[LSJohn]

Er... ... I've read that, but now that you asked I went looking and the first thing I found on the subject in European rules says the opposite "unless specified in the rules of the game."

So what I read -- and repeated -- was either bullshit, was an old rule now changed, or is peculiar only to some version(s) of pool/snooker, etc.

What I think now, odds are I was just fullashit.

 

[Jimmy B]

Er... ... I've read that, but now that you asked I went looking and the first thing I found on the subject in European rules says the opposite "unless specified in the rules of the game."

So what I read -- and repeated -- was either bullshit, was an old rule now changed, or is peculiar only to some version(s) of pool/snooker, etc.

What I think now, odds are I was just fullashit.

No, I concentrated hard and am now remembering that I read or heard about this somewhere sometime in my past, but cannot get it up when or what country, game etc. so don't worry about it. ty...

 

[LSJohn]

No, I concentrated hard and am now remembering that I read or heard about this somewhere sometime in my past, but cannot get it up when or what country, game etc. so don't worry about it. ty...

Hey, if I worried very long when I screwed up I'd be a basket case (but I always appreciate forgiveness. )

 

[darmoose]

if you are playing the 45 deg rule then you are not committing a foul.

no different than if a person touches an object ball. if you are not playing fouls on that it isnt a foul.

and rules work both ways so they are fair.

Beatle

Sorry, we just disagree. Several posters have already acknowledged that shooting this type of shot at 45 degrees jacked up results in actually committing a foul that is simply "overlooked" by this rule.

The difference between the 45 degree rule and the "cue ball only fouls" is intent. If one can just jack up and plow through the stack without regard for making a "good hit", the game has changed. Touching a object ball while shooting is almost always an "accident" and of little consequence.

Rules need to be made so that subjective argument is minimized or eliminated. There is no downside to my suggested rule, other than for those who wrongfully think that somehow they are entitled to shoot in any direction in this type of situation.

One pocket is too beautiful, too nuanced, too demanding of both offensive and defensive skills, not apparent in any other game, to allow a rule like the 45 degree rule for sake of appeasement.

The 45 degree rule is an abomination and needs to be eliminated, especially when an alternative rule is so readily available and easy to apply, and as you say, works both ways so is fair.

P S.. LS John seems to get it.

 

[darmoose]

I don't take "shoot away" to mean "Don't hit the OB with the CB." I take it to mean the cue stick must be aimed outside the edge of the OB, or even farther outside if there is another OB or rail that will prevent your OB from getting out of the way with a continuous stroke. This is different from the meaning of "Shoot away" according to European rules where if CB is frozen to OB, you can shoot so that the OB is not moved at all and it's a good hit because the OB has already been contacted for you before you approach the table.

LSJ

EXACTAMUNDO.. good "get"

 

[jtompilot]

Beatle

Sorry, we just disagree. Several posters have already acknowledged that shooting this type of shot at 45 degrees jacked up results in actually committing a foul that is simply "overlooked" by this rule.

The difference between the 45 degree rule and the "cue ball only fouls" is intent. If one can just jack up and plow through the stack without regard for making a "good hit", the game has changed. Touching a object ball while shooting is almost always an "accident" and of little consequence.

Rules need to be made so that subjective argument is minimized or eliminated. There is no downside to my suggested rule, other than for those who wrongfully think that somehow they are entitled to shoot in any direction in this type of situation.

One pocket is too beautiful, too nuanced, too demanding of both offensive and defensive skills, not apparent in any other game, to allow a rule like the 45 degree rule for sake of appeasement.

The 45 degree rule is an abomination and needs to be eliminated, especially when an alternative rule is so readily available and easy to apply, and as you say, works both ways so is fair.

P S.. LS John seems to get it.

I totally agree with your post. After all, what's the point of a good safety when some chump is just going to push thru and not get a foul.

However when I'm at Derby I have to play by the rules so I'm jacking up 45 and firing thru