Double Hit Nip Draw Debate

[MattPoland]

So I let myself get into a debate on whether this is a good hit and am seeking additional opinions.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

I also edited a slower clip

And I was comparing this to Dr Dave’s examples at 39 seconds vs. 1:10. I also reached out to a well known 700+ player that thought it was good and thought Dave’s example at 39 seconds was good too (not a foul). He thought the cueball traveling beyond the tangent line was speed dependent and the fact it zips back so aggressively indicates it was a clean contact and not dulled out by secondary ferrule contact.

 

[maha]

play for money. get into an argument or and lose a customer over it.

the old way of if you raise butt to 45 degrees then its legal. that works. no arguments as he agrees before the hit even happens.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I also reached out to a well known 700+ player that thought it was good ....

Does that player know the actual rule?

Can he get the same action with the balls an inch apart shooting at the same speed?

 

[iusedtoberich]

Foul. I wrote the same on the FB comment a few hrs ago. The number of people who wrote legal was maybe 50, and the number of people who wrote foul maybe 5.

 

[iusedtoberich]

One guy replied to me that it went forward because the cb needed time for the spin to take.

 

[MitchAlsup]

Even though CB is hit from very significant elevation,
if you look at the geometry of the shaft and CB,
you will see the shaft intersects the table behind the center of CB on the table,
and thus CB would have backspin.
Yet, the CB is rolling forward instantly after CB touches OB;
the only way this happens is double hit.

Bad hit.

 

[VarmintKong]

That slower hit is what, quarter speed? Yet the contact is still so instantaneous you are just looking at a cue ball spinning round itself.

 

[Scratch85]

I agree with what has already been stated. The forward movement of the CB, after contacting the OB, is a dead giveaway of a foul.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattPoland]

One guy replied to me that it went forward because the cb needed time for the spin to take.

A guy replied to me that it wasn’t a draw shot, it was a masse shot and that’s why it went forward.

 

[straightline]

Technically it's a piquet. You don't even need an object ball. Which leads me to wonder, is the foul on all three objects or just the tip and rock?

 

[freds]

It is a double hit, but whether or not a foul is called is situation dependent.
Is there a referee? Then it's a foul iff the ref says it is.
With no ref, if you're going to call that a foul you'd better have a discussion before the shot is attempted. Along the lines of "that's going to be a double-hit foul if the cue ball moves forward of the contact point." Some players will say "right, I know", most will argue. But probably better to argue before than after.

In real life - in my experience it's almost always accepted as a good hit, as long as it doesn't go "too far" forward. Maybe that's changing. (Will wonders never cease?)

 

[The_JV]

In this particular case it looks like a foul to me. HOWEVER, you can generate the same type of "forward then back" action when you jump the CB into the OB.

If a 'jumping' CB hits the OB on the rise then the forward motion is actually a carom angle. The draw obviously can't effect the CB until it has an opportunity to grab the cloth.

 

[MattPoland]

In this particular case it looks like a foul to me. HOWEVER, you can generate the same type of "forward then back" action when you jump the CB into the OB.

If a 'jumping' CB hits the OB on the rise then the forward motion is actually a carom angle. The draw obviously can't effect the CB until it has an opportunity to grab the cloth.

I agree some forward motion can occur from a jumping CB. As you mentioned, the forward motion is actually a carom angle. Would you agree that specifically that "carom angle" would be the equivalent of a "vertical tangent line" drawn from the point of contact on the object ball extended vertically in the air. Also meaning that the cueball and object ball are to each other, the more vertical that carom angle is.

More space = more opportunity for a more forward carom angle

Less space = carom angle is constrained to nearly vertical

Which would imply "the cueball jumping" in the shot in question couldn't be the cause of the cueball going forward a full balls width because the balls were just too close together for the vertical carom angle to allow that. Barring some serious air time (which did not happen) the forward motion could only be explained with a glancing secondary contact?

 

[Biloxi Boy]

Does it matter whether the CB's forward motion is rolling or skidding?

 

[ChrisinNC]

So I let myself get into a debate on whether this is a good hit and am seeking additional opinions.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

I also edited a slower clip

And I was comparing this to Dr Dave’s examples at 39 seconds vs. 1:10. I also reached out to a well known 700+ player that thought it was good and thought Dave’s example at 39 seconds was good too (not a foul). He thought the cueball traveling beyond the tangent line was speed dependent and the fact it zips back so aggressively indicates it was a clean contact and not dulled out by secondary ferrule contact.

I’d say it’s a foul, based on the written rule, with the luxury of looking at your close-up slow motion video, but many judging this shot might rule it as a good hit, as the cue ball did not go very far forward before it came back.

 

[fastone371]

So I let myself get into a debate on whether this is a good hit and am seeking additional opinions.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

I also edited a slower clip

And I was comparing this to Dr Dave’s examples at 39 seconds vs. 1:10. I also reached out to a well known 700+ player that thought it was good and thought Dave’s example at 39 seconds was good too (not a foul). He thought the cueball traveling beyond the tangent line was speed dependent and the fact it zips back so aggressively indicates it was a clean contact and not dulled out by secondary ferrule contact.

It would seem to me that if the 700 player thought that Dr. Dave's hit

was good that he would be incapable of making an accurate call in your example.

 

[DeadStick]

Does it matter whether the CB's forward motion is rolling or skidding?

Sure. But it’s impossible for the CB to be rolling forwards from such a close distance from the OB.

 

[straightline]

Texas Express had a practical fix for those calls. Either you had to shoot away or down or both. I forget. Neither was a foul.

 

[maha]

rules only matter on what is practical and provable. you have to decide what is acceptable. you can argue forever on what is a good hit or not by slow motion. but that is wasted time. use a simple rule that makes the decision to shoot or not easy.
only two that seems to work is the 45 degree rule, and the distance between the two balls at least a chalk width.
it is fair for both and that is what counts.

the earth travels about 70,000 mph around the sun and spins like around 1,000 miles and hour. try to prove that to someone in a pool room.

 

[The_JV]

I agree some forward motion can occur from a jumping CB. As you mentioned, the forward motion is actually a carom angle. Would you agree that specifically that "carom angle" would be the equivalent of a "vertical tangent line" drawn from the point of contact on the object ball extended vertically in the air. Also meaning that the cueball and object ball are to each other, the more vertical that carom angle is.

More space = more opportunity for a more forward carom angleView attachment 747351

Less space = carom angle is constrained to nearly vertical
View attachment 747353

Which would imply "the cueball jumping" in the shot in question couldn't be the cause of the cueball going forward a full balls width because the balls were just too close together for the vertical carom angle to allow that. Barring some serious air time (which did not happen) the forward motion could only be explained with a glancing secondary contact?

I completely agree with everything you said. ...and I'll repeat that I believe the shot in question is indeed a foul.