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.