Post a reply

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby RunningSide

Ben not a fan of the cockney. Difficult to judge without being close up,obviously he thought cue ball and red in contact with cue simultaneously, because cue is jacked up causing stun shot looks fair.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Hell no, the ref is an utter imbecile.
That ain't a push shot in a million years.
He's shooting away from the shot and he even banana'd the white, that's anything but a push shot.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby Holden Chinaski

SnookerFan wrote:Be funny if Ben Williams started laughing.

Funny like a clown?

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby SnookerEd25

Haven’t seen the shot, but if JB thinks it wasn’t a push, the ref was probably correct.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby SnookerFan

Holden Chinaski wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Be funny if Ben Williams started laughing.

Funny like a clown?


You're crazy like a fool.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby acesinc

Holden Chinaski wrote:I would like to hear Andre's opinion on this.


Agreed.

Apparently, I am in the minority here. This is the "old school" definition of a push shot and Ben Williams showed proper conviction to call it. Too often it seems the Referees are walking on eggshells with the players and they seem to hope the player will call the foul on himself.

First, I will say (tongue-in-cheek), it IS a push shot because the Referee called it as such and therefore there simply is no debate.

But to the meat and potatoes, most amateurs I have met don't understand the definition of a push. I have given up trying to explain; they either think me a fool or don't want to hear. I watch push strokes occur quite regularly and never say a word. On rare occasion, my opponent may call a push on himself.

So WHY is it a push? First, the actual Rule:

"...
19. Push Stroke
A push stroke is made when the tip of the cue remains in
contact with the cue-ball;
(a) after the cue-ball has commenced its motion, other than
momentarily at the point of initial contact; or
(b) as the cue-ball contacts an object ball except, where the
cue-ball and an object ball are almost touching, it shall
not be deemed a push stroke if the cue-ball hits a very
fine edge of the object ball
.
..."

I have highlighted the words that players simply don't seem to understand. Those words mean that when the balls are so close that the physics require that the tip of the cue WILL remain in contact with the White at the moment of impact with the object ball. Like pressing the accelerator pedal of your car, the White takes some time to "get up to speed" of the tip, so for a number of milliseconds, the tip is actually "pushing" the White ball along. This critical distance is debatable, but myself, I call it about 3/8" inch. Any closer than this and the tip WILL be in contact when contact with object is made. Push strokes can be called from longer distances away, but these are generally of the double hit variety.

So finally, what does "...except...if the cue-ball hits a very fine edge of the object ball..." actually mean then? Here is the way I think of it...

Imagine that we can zoom ourselves down to microscopic levels, all the way to the point that we can SEE the atoms that comprise the balls. The absolute finest POSSIBLE edge of the object ball would mean a single atom of the White would interfere with a single atom of the object (The physics is really much more complicated, but we will simplify here.), but here at the macro level, we could not even detect that the object moves at all. So those words, "very fine edge", mean that there is so little interference between the White and the object that the object ball must NECESSARILY barely even move at all. Very little energy must necessarily be imparted to it from the White. The upshot is that this means that when the balls are at the critical distance apart (and I suspect that each referee probably has his or her own definition of exactly what this critical distance is....Andre?) or closer, it is impossible to legitimately attempt any stroke which will move the object ball any significant distance. So to pot a ball like this is a foul stroke. But very likely, Mark King will never understand this.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby RunningSide

Excellent explanation as usual Ace,thank goodness this doesn't occur often. Has you said the ref called it,end of.Dissapointing commentry team saying if been on TV table they could have looked at it.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby Johnny Bravo

acesinc wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:I would like to hear Andre's opinion on this.


Agreed.

Apparently, I am in the minority here. This is the "old school" definition of a push shot and Ben Williams showed proper conviction to call it. Too often it seems the Referees are walking on eggshells with the players and they seem to hope the player will call the foul on himself.

First, I will say (tongue-in-cheek), it IS a push shot because the Referee called it as such and therefore there simply is no debate.

But to the meat and potatoes, most amateurs I have met don't understand the definition of a push. I have given up trying to explain; they either think me a fool or don't want to hear. I watch push strokes occur quite regularly and never say a word. On rare occasion, my opponent may call a push on himself.

So WHY is it a push? First, the actual Rule:

"...
19. Push Stroke
A push stroke is made when the tip of the cue remains in
contact with the cue-ball;
(a) after the cue-ball has commenced its motion, other than
momentarily at the point of initial contact; or
(b) as the cue-ball contacts an object ball except, where the
cue-ball and an object ball are almost touching, it shall
not be deemed a push stroke if the cue-ball hits a very
fine edge of the object ball
.
..."

I have highlighted the words that players simply don't seem to understand. Those words mean that when the balls are so close that the physics require that the tip of the cue WILL remain in contact with the White at the moment of impact with the object ball. Like pressing the accelerator pedal of your car, the White takes some time to "get up to speed" of the tip, so for a number of milliseconds, the tip is actually "pushing" the White ball along. This critical distance is debatable, but myself, I call it about 3/8" inch. Any closer than this and the tip WILL be in contact when contact with object is made. Push strokes can be called from longer distances away, but these are generally of the double hit variety.

So finally, what does "...except...if the cue-ball hits a very fine edge of the object ball..." actually mean then? Here is the way I think of it...

Imagine that we can zoom ourselves down to microscopic levels, all the way to the point that we can SEE the atoms that comprise the balls. The absolute finest POSSIBLE edge of the object ball would mean a single atom of the White would interfere with a single atom of the object (The physics is really much more complicated, but we will simplify here.), but here at the macro level, we could not even detect that the object moves at all. So those words, "very fine edge", mean that there is so little interference between the White and the object that the object ball must NECESSARILY barely even move at all. Very little energy must necessarily be imparted to it from the White. The upshot is that this means that when the balls are at the critical distance apart (and I suspect that each referee probably has his or her own definition of exactly what this critical distance is....Andre?) or closer, it is impossible to legitimately attempt any stroke which will move the object ball any significant distance. So to pot a ball like this is a foul stroke. But very likely, Mark King will never understand this.

I disagree completey regarding what your definition of a fine edge is.
Nowhere in the rules does it say that it barely has to move.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby McManusFan

Cheers Aces. I had no idea the rules regarding push shots were so loosely worded. Probably an area to be looked at when/if they update the rules. "Very fine edge" is pretty ambiguous.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby acesinc

Also, nowhere in the Rules does it state that a fluke is a legal scoring stroke. Is that to be disallowed then? Many things are not explicitly stated in the Rules; it is a minimalist document. We infer the meanings based on the words that are written. Sometimes, specific definitions are indeed required so there is a whole section devoted to that.


McManusFan wrote:Cheers Aces. I had no idea the rules regarding push shots were so loosely worded. Probably an area to be looked at when/if they update the rules. "Very fine edge" is pretty ambiguous.


Thanks, McMF, but I disagree that it is "loosely worded". This definition has basically been in place for decades. The oldest official ruleset I have is from 1988 and really the only difference in the definition of Push Stroke is that the phrase "finest possible edge" is used in 1988 instead of the current "very fine edge". I suppose someone in charge wised up and realized there is no one on earth who could snick off that one atom which would be the "finest possible edge". Every referee understands what these words mean. Players generally don't. And if they did decide to change the wording, I suspect it would make no difference whatsoever. As a general rule, Players do NOT read the rule book anyway so a change in wording wouldn't matter. The Referee would still know what it means either way.

What Mark King played was a fine cut shot, NOT the very fine edge as required by the Rules. A fine cut shot has a specific destination in mind for the object ball. A very fine edge usually has a specific destination in mind for the White ball, but little control may be had over the object ball.

Re: My Previous Post
I suspect that Johnny Bravo has much in common with Mark King.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby Iranu

Tbf “in place for decades” and “loosely worded” aren’t mutually exclusive.

I think the wording is ambiguous but it also shouldn’t really matter. A push shot should be called only if the push makes a noticeable difference to the trajectory of the cue ball.

I’d imagine there are far more ‘push’ shots than we realise anyway.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Iranu wrote:Tbf “in place for decades” and “loosely worded” aren’t mutually exclusive.

:hatoff:

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby Johnny Bravo

McManusFan wrote:Cheers Aces. I had no idea the rules regarding push shots were so loosely worded. Probably an area to be looked at when/if they update the rules. "Very fine edge" is pretty ambiguous.

Completely agree.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby Empire State Human

'Very fine edge' is probably as precise as the rule can be written.

They could change it to '1/64th or 1/128th of a full ball contact', but I don't see how that helps the referee or the players.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby McManusFan

I don't think they should specify the thinness of the contract, but they could make the intention (that the object ball's movement is minimal) explicit.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby gninnur karona

Empire State Human wrote:'Very fine edge' is probably as precise as the rule can be written.

They could change it to '1/64th or 1/128th of a full ball contact', but I don't see how that helps the referee or the players.


In terms of club snooker it would help no-one.

In professional snooker theoretically it could work via some use of technology. Whether this would be desirable or cost effective is another matter.

In any case the Mark King incident indicates a flaw in current rule 19b which is shared by many others across many sports. Any rule which includes the unwritten addition of "if in the opinion of the referee" has the potential to produce controversy.

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby acesinc

gninnur karona wrote:
Empire State Human wrote:'Very fine edge' is probably as precise as the rule can be written.

They could change it to '1/64th or 1/128th of a full ball contact', but I don't see how that helps the referee or the players.


In terms of club snooker it would help no-one.

In professional snooker theoretically it could work via some use of technology. Whether this would be desirable or cost effective is another matter.

In any case the Mark King incident indicates a flaw in current rule 19b which is shared by many others across many sports. Any rule which includes the unwritten addition of "if in the opinion of the referee" has the potential to produce controversy.


Exactly! Very well stated. This is why the Foul and a Miss rule is the absolute worst rule in Snooker. Very few people actually understand it. At the club level, players seem to want to apply the PROFESSIONAL Foul and a Miss rule that they witness on the telly all the time. And that is the WRONG way to apply the rule. FAAM at the club level is NOT the same as FAAM at the professional level. Technically, the Rule is written correctly, but very few players bother to actually read the rule, let alone properly interpret the technical writing of the Rule.

And again, what else do they see on the Snooker on telly? For some reason, these "thin cut" shots are flashy for the viewing audience. Maybe to the uninitiated, these seem to be difficult shots. They are not.

Johnny Bravo wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io2VQbVTtG0&t=415s


Yes, Ronnie's shot here is indeed a foul. I believe I saw this one live and prior to the stroke, I thought to myself, "If he plays to pot, this will be a foul stroke." Caesar Muroya does a very good job in general, but he made an error in his interpretation here when he posted the graphic, "The rule exception (thin cut) does not apply here..." Poor choice of words, poor interpretation of the written rule.

Rob Spencer WAS correct. Ben Williams WAS correct. I get a kick out of Tom Ford inserting his two pence on the subject. Players are notoriously inept at actually understanding the rules of the games they play, and Snooker is not alone in that. Anyone who will take the word of Tom Ford in commentary over the word of any qualified, regularly and routinely competency tested Professional Snooker Referee as to what is the correct call, well...good luck to you. Nothing I can say will help.
____________

Here is a DIFFERENT way to view the wording of the rule in question ("...except...if the cue-ball hits a very fine edge of the object ball...", i.e., what Caesar incorrectly termed the "thin cut exception"):

This is strictly my own view, I have zero evidence to back this up, I just like to ponder, "Why and how did this particular rule evolve to be what it is today?" So I believe the Push Stroke Definition, particularly with its "fine edge" exception evolved from the Touching Ball rule. Think about it.....what can you NOT do with a Touching Ball? Answer, play directly at it to pot. When the two balls are very close but NOT touching, the Rules are sort of saying to the player to kind of treat it like a Touching Ball in that you cannot pot. You are required to strike "a very fine edge" (or in the old days, "the finest possible edge"). The Rules understand that when you make that strike with two balls very close, your cue tip WILL remain in contact with White when White touches object (that's just Physics) and that would normally be a push stroke, but in this case, that is okay as long as you follow the guideline just stated.

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ben Williams decided this was not a push: :chin:

https://twitter.com/OOCSnooker/status/1 ... 0722373633


I tried to understand the meaning of this post, but I think I just don't get Twitter...

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby Empire State Human

gninnur karona wrote:
In professional snooker theoretically it could work via some use of technology. Whether this would be desirable or cost effective is another matter.

I hope it's not the technology they use at the China open which says you can cut back balls 138 degrees. Very fine edge indeed!
Image

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby SnookerEd25

HappyCamper wrote:.


+1

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby acesinc

First, the joke answer:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Ben Williams decided this was not a push: :chin:

https://twitter.com/OOCSnooker/status/1 ... 0722373633


acesinc wrote:I tried to understand the meaning of this post, but I think I just don't get Twitter...

Holden Chinaski wrote:What's there to understand? It's a video of Tom Ford playing a shot. The ref didn't call a foul, but Robert Milkins thinks it's a push:

https://twitter.com/DrMattJakeman/statu ... 7817030656


So from your first quote, I click the Twitter link expecting to see/hear something about Ben Williams clarifying that he incorrectly applied the Push Stroke Rule. Instead, in your second quote, you imply that I must be ignorant because I don't understand that Robert Milkins, despite having absolutely no sway in the decision whatsoever, has the opinion that Tom Ford played a Push Stroke in a completely unrelated incident. I can only repeat my statement: I think I just don't get Twitter...

And now for the real response:

Upon further reflection, NOW I think I understand that what you are saying is that you believe that Ben Williams is being inconsistent. If he called a Push foul for one incident, he should have done so for the other. I can understand that viewpoint. Let me explain why I respectfully disagree.

The first incident in the OP is a straightforward, "White and object ball very close" and attempting to pot. This is always nearly certainly going to be a Push Stroke, but occasionally, the acting referee may let it pass for whatever reason (think things like a century break in progress and frame is already secure and the crowd enjoys this kind of shot so let it go...I disagree; it should always be called because not making the call allows comprehension of the Rule to deteriorate as evidenced by this thread.) But Mark King playing to pot was always going to be a Push...I could see it coming like a slow train in the distance. If he assessed the risk that the attempt would be called a Push, then he would have played a defensive stroke but there was not a clear, good, obvious defensive stroke to be played. So he took the risk.

The second incident, Tom Ford playing a stroke that apparently you believe should have been called foul, was apples and oranges. Tom Ford was playing a swerve around the first Red to pot second Red into the middle with helping side. He succeeding in swerving around first Red (,but I believe that you may believe that he contacted the first Red, thereby causing the Push Stroke,) but missed the pot attempt. In rebounding off second Red, the White then struck the first Red driving it all the way to the cushion. Now, it is possible that it was a double-strike situation; follow through with the cue tip could have touched White again since it slowed due to the multiple collisions, but if that is the case, then that is the orange to the OP's apple. If in fact you do believe that first contact was made with the first Red, then you must also believe in unicorns and the Tooth Fairy because the trajectory of that Red dictates the Physics of what actually occurred. Nobody, not even Ronnie, can cut any ball ever beyond the 90 degree line perpendicular to the line of the stroke. So clearly, the White struck the second Red first, then struck the first Red upon its deflection. If a Push Stroke occurred, it is at the Referee's discretion, and clearly Tom Ford agreed with the Referee's opinion even if Robert Milkins did not. I don't think Milkins had a particularly good vantage point. IF Tom Ford has high integrity, then he is in the best position to call Push or not, and the Referee's vantage point is next best. Myself personally, I don't feel like I can make an authoritative call on this one way or the other even replaying the video multiple times. So I defer to the people better positioned to make the call. Even if it was indeed a Push Stroke (and the Referee and Tom Ford are both wrong,) then it is a completely different variety of Push than the stroke played by Mark King. Apples and oranges.


I know that very few people have bothered to read all the words I wrote in my numerous posts here. So I will conclude with just a few words in case anyone "skips to the end": I see no contradiction in your two examples. I agree with the Referee in both cases (as I do 99.99% of the time; Referees are far more accurate than even smart players who on occasion either do not know or even incorrectly believe they do know the ruling for a particular situation).

Re: Push shot or not?

Postby Iranu

acesinc wrote:I know that very few people have bothered to read all the words I wrote in my numerous posts here. So I will conclude with just a few words in case anyone "skips to the end": I see no contradiction in your two examples. I agree with the Referee in both cases (as I do 99.99% of the time; Referees are far more accurate than even smart players who on occasion either do not know or even incorrectly believe they do know the ruling for a particular situation).

Thanks for thinking of me.


   

cron