Confused about touching ball rules

[DeanH]

The answers to most queries can be found by simply reading the WPBSA Rules.
The problem then is interpriting the rules as they were meant.

always down to interpreting them, often across sections

[taipafan]

Originally Posted by taipafan
Case I: The cue ball is NOT touching the blue, so a fine cut to the blue and move the blue a little....NO foul.

Correct. Just to be clear, with Blue as ball on, no foul*; if Blue not ball on, Foul.
*As long as you do not commit a push shot, as you describe the finest cut should be ok.

Please forgive my English writing and reading. I would like to make more clear...
Red is the ball on, and a touching red.
Blue is not touching ball but close to the cue ball. A fine cut to the blue should not be a push shot, so why it is a foul?

21. 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

[DeanH]

Please forgive my English writing and reading. I would like to make more clear...
Red is the ball on, and a touching red.
Blue is not touching ball but close to the cue ball. A fine cut to the blue should not be a push shot, so why it is a foul?

No problem

ah ha Red ball on and touching (touching red I missed that bit in my reply above soz ) - NO foul as it is deemed to have already hit the Red Ball on at time of strike - as long as a Push Shot is not played on either Red or Blue as you quote (as I stated with the side note *)

[taipafan]

...

How about this:

Red is the ball on, and a touching red.
The cue ball is also touching the blue. The referee did not tell anything about touching blue, since it is not the ball on. The striker goes to have a look and thinks it is not a touching blue. A fine cut to the blue and move the blue a little...And foul!

+++
In this case, only the referee knows it is a touching blue.
To avoid this, the striker has to ask the referee to tell if the blue is touching or not.
I think the rules are not good enough about this.

+++
BTW, what do you think about the Mark King case? Many people think it was a push because it was a half ball cut.

[DeanH]

How about this:

Red is the ball on, and a touching red.
The cue ball is also touching the blue. The referee did not tell anything about touching blue, since it is not the ball on. The striker goes to have a look and thinks it is not a touching blue. A fine cut to the blue and move the blue a little...And foul!

+++
In this case, only the referee knows it is a touching blue.
To avoid this, the striker has to ask the referee to tell if the blue is touching or not.
I think the rules are not good enough about this.

I think the rules do cover this enough...
Sec 3.8(d) If the cue ball comes to rest touching or nearly touching a ball that is not on, the referee, if asked whether it is touching, will clarify the situation.

It is up to the player to check for themselves, and if in any doubt ask the referee - if they don't check, their own fault; if they don't ask the referee, their won fault.
The referee does not "proactively" indicate to any player that they may about to play a foul.

+++
BTW, what do you think about the Mark King case? Many people think it was a push because it was a half ball cut.

I have commented on the other thread abut this and all I can say is it was very difficult to call from the poor TV angle, also the TV sound is not the best to discern a push shot sound.

Not sure what you mean by "half ball cut" [please feel free to not explain ]
To me Mark King played a very fine cut (as per all your previous questions above ) and Ben Williams was of the opinion that a push stroke was committed.

[taipafan]

I think the rules do cover this enough...
Sec 3.8(d) If the cue ball comes to rest touching or nearly touching a ball that is not on, the referee, if asked whether it is touching, will clarify the situation.

It is up to the player to check for themselves, and if in any doubt ask the referee - if they don't check, their own fault; if they don't ask the referee, their won fault.
The referee does not "proactively" indicate to any player that they may about to play a foul.





I have commented on the other thread abut this and all I can say is it was very difficult to call from the poor TV angle, also the TV sound is not the best to discern a push shot sound.

Not sure what you mean by "half ball cut" [please feel free to not explain ]
To me Mark King played a very fine cut (as per all your previous questions above ) and Ben Williams was of the opinion that a push stroke was committed.

Thanks for the reply and teaching.
+++
In youtube, people commented about King's shot, many of them said King shot the cue ball to the red by half ball, therefor it was so thick that it must be a push shot.
(my opinion is it was a thin cut, but King used a back spin shot to slow down the cue ball, that made the shot looked like a thick cut...If King used a top spin or no spin, the cue ball would run fast and far away, then the shot would look like thin cut.)

I will take a look on that thread you mentioned.

[DeanH]

Thanks for the reply and teaching.
+++
In youtube, people commented about King's shot, many of them said King shot the cue ball to the red by half ball, therefor it was so thick that it must be a push shot.
(my opinion is it was a thin cut, but King used a back spin shot to slow down the cue ball, that made the shot looked like a thick cut...If King used a top spin or no spin, the cue ball would run fast and far away, then the shot would look like thin cut.)

I will take a look on that thread you mentioned.

? half ball, not even quarter ball, the reaction of the Red from the line of the cue ball, it was a fine cut

[kehall]

Occasionally due to wear over time, spotted colours sometimes have their own divot they lie in... A couple of decades ago a local league match was being played, cueball came to rest against the black, pushing it slightly off its spot. Upon playing AWAY from the black the black rolled back into its spot and the ref called a foul saying the black moved (it did, but not a push shot or hit from the cueball). Rather unfair!

[DeanH]

Occasionally due to wear over time, spotted colours sometimes have their own divot they lie in... A couple of decades ago a local league match was being played, cueball came to rest against the black, pushing it slightly off its spot. Upon playing AWAY from the black the black rolled back into its spot and the ref called a foul saying the black moved (it did, but not a push shot or hit from the cueball). Rather unfair!

yep, this is an old scenario and is clearly covered in the rules.
This scenario shows that the referee does not know the rules -
Local league matches are usually just the home team players doing the duty - leading to many arguments and discussions!


Sec 3.8 Touching Balls
(f) It is not a foul if the referee is satisfied that any movement of a touching ball at the moment of striking was not caused by the striker.

The old SRA explanation for this clause is great:
"The most common example is when a spot, through wear, has become a dent in the baize and the two touching balls are each stopping the other from rolling into it. However the cue ball is played, the other ball will inevitably settle into the dent and it would obviously be unfair to Foul the Striker for it."

The obvious sign of this being the case (and therefore not a foul) is when the touching ball moves in the same(ish) direction as the cue-ball being played away.

FYI, this rule appeared in the rulebook in 1995.