Rules question

[one pocket guy]

Was conversing with a friend today and he brought up a slight disagreement with another friend he was playing. Question is.....
Is the shot legal when a player lays his cue/tip under the cue ball and lifts upward to avoid a double hit? I’ve heard it’s ok,but he’s adamant that the cue should move forward not upward to be a legal shot. Anybody know?
~T

 

[J.R.]

My belief is that the legal hit requirement is "only the tip can strike the cue ball." In furtherance, it would seem that if you can shoot down on the cue ball (as in jumping the cue ball) then you can shoot up on the cue ball but only as long as the cue ball does not ascend off the table in jumping over an obstructing ball.

I googled your question and under Double Hit / Frozen Balls it states, "If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is close to but not touching an object ball and the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue ball contacts that object ball, the shot is a foul." *source: billiards.colostate edu > sept09 Unfortunately, Double Hit / Frozen Balls does not provide any further technical information.

Here's my answer to your question: I am not certain. I also have a question, does "shooting up on the cue ball" constitute a legal stroke? Perhaps this is a question that can best be answered by a "Billy" as in Billy Smith or Billy Incardona.

 

[12squared]

I believe it is now a foul (at least it was the last few tournaments I played). I think the tip must strike the ball with a forward motion. I'll look it up for confirmation.

Dave

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Tournaments that are under the domain of BCAPL /CSI it is a foul, such as DCC. If you pull up the Official Rules of BCAPL under Definitions pg. 18; "Legal Stroke", it will offer up some guidance. Then go to pg. 30 under general rule 1-18 Legal Stroke, it will explain plus diagram the illegal stroke, and yes it is an illegal stroke to lift the cue up and swipe the cue ball whereas the contact upon the cue ball is not derived from a forward stroke. Of course BCAPL/CSI does not apply to our rules, and I have no clue what WPA states about this stroke, but it is worth researching!

But to swipe up on the cue ball without a substantial forward stroke is a way to get out of fouling due to a double hit. Now you can gain the same effect of barely moving the cue ball by using a legal forward motion that just nicks the edge of the cue ball with the tip as it goes by. Whitey

 

[lll]

this comes from the world pool association rules (parts bolded by me )
http://wpapool.com/rules-of-play/
so my interpretation would be an upward sroke would be a foul

8.2 Shot

A shot begins when the tip contacts the cue ball due to a forward stroke motion of the cue
stick. A shot ends when all balls in play have stopped moving and spinning. A shot is said to
be legal if the shooter did not foul during the shot.

 

[one pocket guy]

Sounds like it is a foul due to those rules.
Thanks Fellas I’ll pass it on~T

 

[unoperro]

It is now considered illegal. I dont like that as a full masse is legal and the cue does not go forward.

It can be a nifty little move

 

[12squared]

It is now considered illegal. I dont like that as a full masse is legal and the cue does not go forward.

It can be a nifty little move

The cue does go forward, just using a different plane (downwards).

Thanks for finding and posting the rulings fellas, I was not as successful looking it up on the WPA.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

It is now considered illegal. I dont like that as a full masse is legal and the cue does not go forward.

It can be a nifty little move��

If I follow your thought, I am with you!. For just like any other shot that the cue is impeded and not allowed to follow through then it would be a foul because the cue tip is upon the cue ball for an inordinate prolong cue tip contact time. Otherwise known as a push shot foul.

So if I am doing a full masse' and hit it poorly and the cue stops its forward motion, "and is not allowed to follow through", and eventually the cue ball squirts from underneath it, I would say this should be a foul. But no official rule directly states this.

Now if I am doing the Paul Newman Hustler Shot and hit it poorly whereas the cue is unable to follow through and eventually the cue ball squirts sideways then of course it is a obvious foul. So why not for a poorly hit full masse' shot. The only difference is one is impeded by the table bed and the other is impeded by the rail.

Something to think about! Whitey

 

[LSJohn]

The cue does go forward, just using a different plane (downwards).

I think on some of the masse shots the cue gets true vertical, or sometimes even angled slightly back toward the player. Both would constitute a technical violation (but I don't think we would want it to be) according to the way most of us are interpreting the rule.

 

[lll]

one difference between the legal shot including a masse and the upward movement of the cue stick
the legal shot and the masse the action of your arm (ie elbow hinge and wrist )
move in a manner we associate with a stroke
when you place the cue stick under the ball and lift it up
the action of your arm is not what I consider a stroke
this is not a rules definition but the way i would rationalize the rule

 

[jtompilot]

If I follow your thought, I am with you!. For just like any other shot that the cue is impeded and not allowed to follow through then it would be a foul because the cue tip is upon the cue ball for an inordinate prolong cue tip contact time. Otherwise known as a push shot foul.

So if I am doing a full masse' and hit it poorly and the cue stops its forward motion, "and is not allowed to follow through", and eventually the cue ball squirts from underneath it, I would say this should be a foul. But no official rule directly states this.

Now if I am doing the Paul Newman Hustler Shot and hit it poorly whereas the cue is unable to follow through and eventually the cue ball squirts sideways then of course it is a obvious foul. So why not for a poorly hit full masse' shot. The only difference is one is impeded by the table bed and the other is impeded by the rail.

Something to think about! Whitey

You must be a funny guy from another planet:heh if there’s no follow thru then the cue ball would never move

 

[NH Steve]

this comes from the world pool association rules (parts bolded by me )
http://wpapool.com/rules-of-play/
so my interpretation would be an upward sroke would be a foul

8.2 Shot

A shot begins when the tip contacts the cue ball due to a forward stroke motion of the cue
stick. A shot ends when all balls in play have stopped moving and spinning. A shot is said to
be legal if the shooter did not foul during the shot.

As I read the "forward stroke motion of the cue" that rule is talking about relative to the cue stick for the forward motion -- I interpret as meaning a motion from the butt towards the tip sort of motion as forward. When you "shoot" by twitching the cue tip end of the cue sideways or up or down instead of the general direction of the way the the tip is facing relative to the butt of the cue, I would say that is not a forward motion. Whereas a masse even if straight down or even a little backwards, would still be a "forward motion" thinking in terms of the direction the cue stick is pointing.

 

[LSJohn]

As I read the "forward stroke motion of the cue" that rule is talking about relative to the cue stick for the forward motion -- I interpret as meaning a motion from the butt towards the tip sort of motion as forward. When you "shoot" by twitching the cue tip end of the cue sideways or up or down instead of the general direction of the way the the tip is facing relative to the butt of the cue, I would say that is not a forward motion. Whereas a masse even if straight down or even a little backwards, would still be a "forward motion" thinking in terms of the direction the cue stick is pointing.

Good thinking.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

It is now considered illegal. I dont like that as a full masse is legal and the cue does not go forward.

It can be a nifty little move��

Is unoperro possibly referring to stack play when the cue ball is in or nearly in the stack, and the shooter does not want to move the cue ball, and thusly the shooter plays a touch upon the cue ball by using a full masse'?
Whitey

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think it's pretty obvious that "forward motion" must mean parallel with the cue stick (regardless of where it's pointed).

pj
chgo

 

[LSJohn]

I think it's pretty obvious that "forward motion" must mean parallel with the cue stick (regardless of where it's pointed).

pj
chgo

I think that's the most practical interpretation, but I think it's far from obvious. Trying to think of as many examples as I can, I'm coming up with no other sports reference of "forward" that does not suggest either in relation to the player, or toward the player's objective.

Wait, I just thought of one: "backward pass" in football.

 

[LSJohn]

Is unoperro possibly referring to stack play when the cue ball is in or nearly in the stack, and the shooter does not want to move the cue ball, and thusly the shooter plays a touch upon the cue ball by using a full masse'?
Whitey

No.

"cue/tip under the cue ball and lifts upward"

 

[tucson9ball]

By the rule book and in tournaments, it would be a foul.
You have to use a forward movement, meaning stroking front to back to be a legal shot.
In a gambling format, I could care less if the guy does this "lifting of the cue"...basically he is taking a foul because nothing is hitting a rail. This is mostly used when you stick him in the rack and he has nowhere to play safe.

So...just depends on what players agree on before setting up a game, unless you are in a tournament.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think it's pretty obvious that "forward motion" must mean parallel with the cue stick (regardless of where it's pointed).

pj
chgo

I think that's the most practical interpretation, but I think it's far from obvious.

How would any other interpretation allow for masse?

pj
chgo