As a follow-up on the August 16 posting “The Rarely Needed Pyramid”, Rick Kochanski provided isometric illustrations. Rick also provided a 2-D side view to make it easier to see the height of the ball as it travels to a point on the front wall just above the tin.

This posting explores direct shots to the front wall. The 2-D front wall triangle is a view from directly overhead. The image is simple, the triangle defines a no go area. Opponents are to be outside the triangle. Opponents in the triangle are interfering with potential shots to the front wall. Opponents to the left or right of the triangle are clear of front wall shots. But there is another option. Be underneath the triangle. That is where the isometric view comes into play.

The June 29 posting The Triangle and the August 31 posting Front Wall Shots: No Where to Go discuss the front wall triangle.

Remember that the striker is entitled to any shot that would travel directly to the front wall. The extreme shots would be to either front corner. The striker is entitled to every shot between the extremes that would reach the front wall fairly.

Glance ahead to Example 1. You can see the pyramid defined by the fair surface of the front wall and the strike point at the apex. Notice the lower face of the pyramid. If an opponent can dive, squat, or duck below that triangular plane, they are clear.

Imagine the triangular plane is hinged on the front wall just clear of the tin. Fair shots can be at the level of the triangular plane and above. If the strike point is quite low the triangular plane will be almost parallel to the floor. When the strike point is quite high, there may be plenty of room to be underneath the triangular plane. Obviously for a shot directed downward from the strike point, the space beneath the plane shrinks as the ball approaches the front wall.

Rick investigates various heights for the strike point as well as distance from the front wall.

It is easy to get focused on the no-go triangles and the no-go pyramid, but none of that matters if the striker choses to just hit the ball. These visual aides come into play when the striker requests a let for ball flight interference. Oh, or when the striker opts to play the ball and a player is struck by the ball.

Pyramid Example 1.

The ball is 8.5 feet high, at the short line, and 8 feet from the left side wall. This would be a typical overhead shot.

The coloured triangular plane shows the lower limit of fair shots just above the tin.

The green pillar represents a 6 foot 1 inch opponent positioned 6 feet from the side wall and 9 feet in front of the short line. So well out from the side wall and about mid court.

The triangular plane is about 3 inches above the player.

Very close to interference. Could a referee be expected to tell the difference? Like some other decisions referees must make, some are close calls. Even calls like not up or out can be difficult to judge. What should be important here is that it is not an automatic stoke.

At 3 feet in front of the striker, the opponent would be clear of the stroke motion and also clear of the ball flight.

Let’s try moving the striking point back.

Pyramid Example 2.

Rick has kept the ball at 8.5 feet high. The striking position is 10 feet behind the short line.

The triangular plane now cuts through the opponent. To be clear, the opponent would have to duck below about 5’2”.

The image shows the opponent’s head is in the way (red lines & curves).

Okay, let’s go back to the earlier location and lower the ball height by a foot.

Pyramid Example 3.

Nothing has changed from example 1 except the ball is a foot lower at 7.5 feet.

Lowering the strike point will lower the triangular plane. In example 1 interference was borderline, now the ball is at 5’8” at the position of the opponent and his head is in the way.

How about squatting?

Nothing has changed except the opponent is ducking. This should be enough to not be interference.

Pyramid Example 4.

Nothing has changed except the ball height is dramatically lower. The only way to be clear would be flat on the floor.

It is important to recognize that being in the 2-D front wall triangle, does not necessarily mean there is ball flight interference. If the opponent is below the triangular plane, there is no front wall interference. Is this difficult to judge? Yes, but it must be part of the decision making process.

One thing that is clear is that if an opponent is flat on the floor, they are not interfering with any front wall shot.

Particular attention should be given to high overhead shots. The referee should take into account if the triangular plane is above the opponent or cutting through them.

Bit of a Footnote: Pyramid Simplified to Triangular Plane

The simple front wall triangle is easy to illustrate and adequately shows most situations. When the height of the shot is important the 3-D pyramid is valuable. But a triangular plane serves the same purpose and is a simpler visualization.

The triangular plane is defined by the top edge of the tin and a line from each front corner to the ball.

It is important to acknowledge that a player that is in the no go zone defined by the front wall triangle, may avoid interference by ducking. If the triangular plane cuts through the body of an opponent, then they are interfering. If they are below the triangular plane, they are not interfering.

The situation of ducking below the triangular plane is not a frequent occurrence. It should now be clear that an opponent flat on the floor is never interfering with a shot to the front wall. A shot taken below shoulder height may be difficult to avoid by ducking. A full stretch overhead is far easier to duck under.

It is worthwhile to check 2-D side view situations to get the feel of when ducking is adequate to be clear of fair shots, particularly overhead shots.

What About Boasts You Say

The focus of this post has been with shots directly to the front wall. The triangular plane replaces the 2-D front wall triangle to take into account a player ducking. Similarly the side wall triangle discussed in previous articles could be replaced by a triangular plane. But the geometry is complex. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that a player ducking well below a viable boast trajectory should not be penalized for interference.