No...What I propose to consider here is the situation where the striker hits his ball and in following through, he hits his ball again and, as a result, makes his hoop. If the referee is able to detect such a double hit, then the stroke is a Fault (Law 28(a)(8)). I decided to investigate further the effect of such "follow through", and constructed some apparatus. I suspended a mallet between ball bearing pivots from the top of its handle, and carried out two types of test. In the first of these, the mallet after hitting the ball, was allowed to continue its follow through motion; and in the second, the mallet was prevented from so doing by a restraint . In each pair of tests, the other parameters were kept constant, hence the initial position of the ball and the amplitude of the swing of the mallet, were constant. A video camera mounted on a tripod was used to record the tests and in the series shown here, the exposure time for each frame was set to the "normal" setting, so that the effects of any rapid motion could be observed by the consequent blurring. (In other tests, a "Sports" setting of 1/2000 second was used so that the moving objects in each frame remain clearly focussed ). The exposure time is not to be confused with the time between each frame (i.e between each picture). This latter time is 1/25 second. Hence the images given here show what happens at 1/25 second intervals.
A referee viewing the above would be hard put to be able to state, on the basis of his senses alone, that a fault has occurred. It is all over in less than a second. Hence, it would seem that if one is determined to score when the ball is close to the hoop and angled to it, then two principles should be followed. 1. Make sure you follow through, and 2. Aim carefully so that the ball hits the far hoop leg so that it is momentarily brought to rest, and such that there is a turning moment applied to rotate the ball into the jaws of the hoop (if the ball encounters the hoop leg, either dead on, or such that it hits on the near hemisphere, the hoop will not be scored. In the latter case the ball will swivel away from the hoop. You will find it is surprisingly easy with a bit of practice. Now finally the question must be asked: Do I advocate this and the answer must be NO. Unfortunately the law, as written , does not appreciate how easy it is to defeat the double tap law. Graeme Roberts in his book "Practical Umpiring" (pg 22), understood the difficulties that the referee faces and made some suggestions. The skillful player ( and also one who is conscious of the laws) will not follow the above mentioned procedure. He is more likely to play a JUMP SHOT which has the effect of restraining the forward motion of the mallet and thus avoiding the double tap (and possibly also a "crush"). For the stroke illustrated above, the referee should stand so that he can see how much "follow through" is applied to the stroke. He has precious little else, to judge its legality. Most referees would be uncomfortable in attempting to judge this stroke, a situation which unfortunately also exists with "push" strokes. Some further additions to the laws could assist and the reader is invited to suggest same.
Suggested Solution: Either instruct referees to apply the principles espoused above or specifically modify Law 28(a)(8). If the latter, then add the following sentence: "The striker is expected to exercise special care in situations where follow through of the stroke could result in a double tap e.g when a hoop is attempted with the striker's ball close to the hoop, and strongly angled to the hoop, or where the striker, in the final stroke of his turn, attempts to separate his ball from another, which he has previously used, and which is in close proximity to his own." My preference is to modify the law. It then becomes quite clear that care must be exercised, and if it is not then a penalty may be incurred.