PDA

View Full Version : Was it a foul?


Zorro
06-02-2011, 05:23 PM
One point came up during the recent Scott/Shane match. Here's a question for you gamblers. In gambling play, not tournament, if the cue ball and the object ball are very close together, and the player strikes steeply down at the cue, and the cue ball goes through the position once occupied by the object ball, but then draws nearly straight backward a good distance, is it a foul as Scott contended, or is it a good shot, as Shane contended? I know in tournament play, the call is whether the cue travels more than halfway through where the object ball once occupied. However, in gambling I have consistently seen the players acknowledge it as a good shot if the cue is drawn backward. Any thoughts? How is it played in your part of the country? I was asked to make the call from the rail and I called it a good shot. I based my decision solely on what I have seen in actual gambling, even though the rulebook used in tournaments says otherwise. Was I right or wrong?

Another odd circumstance was that in the same match two balls were agreed to be so close together that if the cue ball went through it would be considered a foul. Scott shot and the ball did go through more than a foot, then stopped abruptly in the middle of the table due to the effect of draw bottom stroke, but did not travel backwards. There was absolutely no telling sound to convict of a double hit, just the presumption agreed to by the players. The players had previously agreed that this would be considered a foul. However, Shane noted that the ball did not travel backward, which seemed to say that the backward draw was possibly a deciding factor for deciding these matters (if they hadn't agreed beforehand).

These questions come up all the time in gambling. Should there be a definite rule for all to follow? Should the general rules of one-pocket prevail, even though gamblers seldom follow it in actual practice? All I can say is that the players need to decide beforehand which rule they will follow.

This also applies to the ball leaving the table rule, the jump shot rule, the three foul rule, and what constitutes cue ball fouls. On the latter, Shane called a foul when a ball in motion was touched inadvertently by Scott. Scott said it was not a cue ball foul, and I have to agree, so long as the cue ball was not involved. Of course, the other player could put the ball wherever he thought it should be. But the ball was part of the play, actually in motion, so at first I was leaning toward Shane. I'll let you decide.

TASK
06-02-2011, 06:14 PM
Tough call. There always seems to be a lot of gray area on this topic. It's my understanding that if the cue ball moves forward of the tangent line before drawing back it is indeed a double hit which, to me, seems pretty logical and definitive. That being said, however, in my admittedly limited experience I have never seen a shot like the one you described be called a foul in gambling, league or recreational play. Like I said, it's a tough foul to call, so I don't think you did anything wrong.

It makes me think of draw shot miscues that jump the cue ball. Surely this must be a foul, right? But it isn't considered to be one. That's a topic for another thread, though.

12squared
06-02-2011, 06:20 PM
Here's my take on it:

If the two balls were not frozen, I would call foul on both shots, unless other wise agreed upon before hand. But, it appears that Shane is saying if you hit down on the bottom part of the cueball and stroke it firmly, it is an indication of a double hit if the cueball does not retain backspin (which is true), and if it does retain it, no double hit.

If nothing is said before the match and this happens, it's OK to decide what to do moving forward. As long as both parties know the rules, anything is fair game while gambling. Many people play by that 45 degree rule hitting into the ball to avoid arguments.

Dave

Neil
06-02-2011, 07:21 PM
.............

TheNewSharkster
06-03-2011, 10:43 AM
Jacking up the cue doesn't automatically make it a good hit. The cue ball reaction is the best indicator IMO. From how you described the shot they both sound like fouls but I didn't see them.

I think the best thing to do in a situation like this is bring in a unbiased 3rd party to watch the shot and call it a good/bad hit.

stuckart
06-03-2011, 11:02 AM
If you jack up atleast 45 degrees and have a good draw stroke on it then it is a good hit.

If he didn't get over the 45 degree line then in super slow mo you'd see that it was indeed a double hit.

The reason the 45 degree line is established is this is the line that divides shooting forward versus shooting downward.

This is all under the assumption that the 2 balls were less than 1 chalk width apart.

I've seen so many players elevate, but only to the 30 degree line and then do exactly what you just mentioned. The cue ball goes forward and then spins back and they think it's a good hit. The reality is the draw spin is created by the double hit of the stroke forward and is a foul.

TorranceChris
06-03-2011, 11:09 AM
Regarding touching a ball in motion, I think it should be deemed a foul since I can see someone using this to their advantage by intentionally touching a ball inadvertently heading for their opponent's pocket. Or helping a ball into one's pocket with a nudge. Granted those are blatant examples, but they help to see the intent of a rule.

Neil
06-03-2011, 11:45 AM
...............

randyg
06-03-2011, 01:07 PM
If you jack up atleast 45 degrees and have a good draw stroke on it then it is a good hit.

If he didn't get over the 45 degree line then in super slow mo you'd see that it was indeed a double hit.

The reason the 45 degree line is established is this is the line that divides shooting forward versus shooting downward.

This is all under the assumption that the 2 balls were less than 1 chalk width apart.

I've seen so many players elevate, but only to the 30 degree line and then do exactly what you just mentioned. The cue ball goes forward and then spins back and they think it's a good hit. The reality is the draw spin is created by the double hit of the stroke forward and is a foul.



HUH???
Where does this come from.....randyg

stuckart
06-03-2011, 02:52 PM
Look at this video: http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-111.htm

It shows 3 shots in a row, at Slow, Medium and Fast speeds. If the shot we are speaking of by Shane is the Faster type (the Draw back Shot), he had fouled. (This is with only a slightly elevated cue)

In these elevated shots you can see that you can avoid the double hit with the highly elevated cue.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-112.htm
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-115.htm (This one shows it better)

In this video, starting at 1:06 in the video you have a elevated cue shot that is legal and again at 1:34 you can see how it may not be a foul.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-6.htm

The BCA and I believe a few other organizations determined that if you go at a shot closer than 1 chalk length and either hit away or elevate at 45 degrees the shot will be legal. If you do not, then it would be a foul. Seeing that every shot can't be watched in slow motion, the general rule was put in place.

There are tons of more video's you can view to learn what really happens: http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/

I discussed many of these options with the physics professors at my college about 10+ years ago. They described the angle at which your cue tip would actually cross the path of the contact point the 2nd time. (The spot you originally hit after it moved to the frozen point of the object ball.) If you hit down (45 degrees or more) your tip contact point on the round cueball would avoid the double hit, whereas less than 45 degrees (or forward) would possibly double hit the ball. The farther away the 2 balls the easier chance to avoid the double hit as the contact point would be farther away from the follow through of the cue tip.

But I've heard many talk of the 45 degree rule in close to frozen balls as the rule of thumb to avoid things you just can't prove at the table in a match.

TheNewSharkster
06-03-2011, 03:01 PM
Look at this video: http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-111.htm

It shows 3 shots in a row, at Slow, Medium and Fast speeds. If the shot we are speaking of by Shane is the Faster type (the Draw back Shot), he had fouled. (This is with only a slightly elevated cue)

In these elevated shots you can see that you can avoid the double hit with the highly elevated cue.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-112.htm
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-115.htm (This one shows it better)

In this video, starting at 1:06 in the video you have a elevated cue shot that is legal and again at 1:34 you can see how it may not be a foul.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-6.htm

The BCA and I believe a few other organizations determined that if you go at a shot closer than 1 chalk length and either hit away or elevate at 45 degrees the shot will be legal. If you do not, then it would be a foul. Seeing that every shot can't be watched in slow motion, the general rule was put in place.

There are tons of more video's you can view to learn what really happens: http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/

I discussed many of these options with the physics professors at my college about 10+ years ago. They described the angle at which your cue tip would actually cross the path of the contact point the 2nd time. (The spot you originally hit after it moved to the frozen point of the object ball.) If you hit down (45 degrees or more) your tip contact point on the round cueball would avoid the double hit, whereas less than 45 degrees (or forward) would possibly double hit the ball. The farther away the 2 balls the easier chance to avoid the double hit as the contact point would be farther away from the follow through of the cue tip.

But I've heard many talk of the 45 degree rule in close to frozen balls as the rule of thumb to avoid things you just can't prove at the table in a match.



Thats fine until somebody jacks up 45 degrees and commits a obvious foul and then says it was a good hit because he was jacked up 45 degrees.

I don't think the angle of the cue should absolve somebody of making a bad hit.

stuckart
06-03-2011, 03:10 PM
Thats fine until somebody jacks up 45 degrees and commits a obvious foul and then says it was a good hit because he was jacked up 45 degrees.

I don't think the angle of the cue should absolve somebody of making a bad hit.

Yes, but then you are in the range to determine if there was a foul or not. If someone jacks up 45 and hits the top of the cueball then they are going to foul. It is still advisable to have a 3rd party (ref) watch the shot to determine how horrible they strike the ball.

In the instance we are talking here, and with the result of the cue ball going forward a balls length and drawing back, it most likely was a good hit. (Hard to say from the computer here).


the player strikes steeply down at the cue, and the cue ball goes through the position once occupied by the object ball, but then draws nearly straight backward a good distance

Tom In Cincy
06-03-2011, 03:23 PM
In all the places it mentions the Chalk's width between the Cue ball and Object ball, it always referred to the wording as a GUIDELINE, not a RULE. Referees were schooled on how to judge whether the hit was good or not.

I've seen cue balls hit with an elevated cue and actually jump up on the Object ball and come back and hit the cue stick. FOUL.

It is difficult to tell on these two specific situations without seeing either, if they were good or not.

chevybob20
06-03-2011, 03:24 PM
Thats fine until somebody jacks up 45 degrees and commits a obvious foul and then says it was a good hit because he was jacked up 45 degrees.

I don't think the angle of the cue should absolve somebody of making a bad hit.

....and this happens all too often. I had one guy foul three times last Wednesday but claimed it wasn't a foul because he elevated his cue greater than 45 degrees. This notion is so ingrained in peoples crainiums that it's not debatable anymore. Very annoying situation. It's the action of the cue ball after the hit that tells the full story.

I stopped the cue ball 1/16 of an inch behind his ball on a good defensive shot. He jacks up and blasts them claiming the 45 degree rule. :angry:

TheNewSharkster
06-03-2011, 03:40 PM
....and this happens all too often. I had one guy foul three times last Wednesday but claimed it wasn't a foul because he elevated his cue greater than 45 degrees. This notion is so ingrained in peoples crainiums that it's not debatable anymore. Very annoying situation. It's the action of the cue ball after the hit that tells the full story.

I stopped the cue ball 1/16 of an inch behind his ball on a good defensive shot. He jacks up and blasts them claiming the 45 degree rule. :angry:

I know a guy that pulls this move. I now get a 3rd party to watch when he tries that shot. Now the problem is finding a person who understand the physics of the cue ball and what constitutes a double hit. Either way my chances are better with a 3rd party :grin-square:

randyg
06-03-2011, 04:44 PM
Look at this video: http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-111.htm

It shows 3 shots in a row, at Slow, Medium and Fast speeds. If the shot we are speaking of by Shane is the Faster type (the Draw back Shot), he had fouled. (This is with only a slightly elevated cue)

In these elevated shots you can see that you can avoid the double hit with the highly elevated cue.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-112.htm
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-115.htm (This one shows it better)

In this video, starting at 1:06 in the video you have a elevated cue shot that is legal and again at 1:34 you can see how it may not be a foul.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-6.htm



The BCA and I believe a few other organizations determined that if you go at a shot closer than 1 chalk length and either hit away or elevate at 45 degrees the shot will be legal. If you do not, then it would be a foul. Seeing that every shot can't be watched in slow motion, the general rule was put in place.
NOT TRUE............ The rules says: you may only strike the cue ball once"....randyg



There are tons of more video's you can view to learn what really happens: http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/

I discussed many of these options with the physics professors at my college about 10+ years ago. They described the angle at which your cue tip would actually cross the path of the contact point the 2nd time. (The spot you originally hit after it moved to the frozen point of the object ball.) If you hit down (45 degrees or more) your tip contact point on the round cueball would avoid the double hit, whereas less than 45 degrees (or forward) would possibly double hit the ball. The farther away the 2 balls the easier chance to avoid the double hit as the contact point would be farther away from the follow through of the cue tip.

But I've heard many talk of the 45 degree rule in close to frozen balls as the rule of thumb to avoid things you just can't prove at the table in a match.

The double hit is a fairly easy call to make. Too bad most people don't understand this as good as you do. Like would be a lot easier.....randyg

3andstop
06-03-2011, 06:26 PM
I find it interesting that this rule is continuously labored over and argued over. Yet, when someone attempts a draw shot and gets a tad too low on the CB and miscues, a foul is never called, even though the ferrule obviously hits the CB.

I honestly don't even know what the rule is these days. I rarely play anymore and when I do its with a few old friends.

We use a guideline I heard Grady Mathews mention years ago, and in my opinion, they should throw all those other rules out and use Grady's guideline.

What Grady said was this... It isn't a foul if the CB shows character. Simple, easy to see, and easy to call.

Anyway, that's what I think. :)

Neil
06-03-2011, 07:56 PM
............

GeoEnvi
06-03-2011, 09:40 PM
I know a guy that pulls this move. I now get a 3rd party to watch when he tries that shot. Now the problem is finding a person who understand the physics of the cue ball and what constitutes a double hit. Either way my chances are better with a 3rd party :grin-square:

The 3rd Party Paradox is my biggest pet peeve. Instead of two knowledgeable and honest shooters calling their own fouls in an un-officiated match, they need to call a 3rd Party referee. How often is a neutral 3rd party available to settle the double hit debate, let alone know what to look for and/or how to detect the double hit?

Not often enough.

Wags
06-04-2011, 11:23 PM
If you jack up atleast 45 degrees and have a good draw stroke on it then it is a good hit.

If he didn't get over the 45 degree line then in super slow mo you'd see that it was indeed a double hit.

The reason the 45 degree line is established is this is the line that divides shooting forward versus shooting downward.

This is all under the assumption that the 2 balls were less than 1 chalk width apart.

I've seen so many players elevate, but only to the 30 degree line and then do exactly what you just mentioned. The cue ball goes forward and then spins back and they think it's a good hit. The reality is the draw spin is created by the double hit of the stroke forward and is a foul.

The 45 degree actually was just a helpful guideline that somehow became a rule in some organizations to help eliminate the decision-making. I believe the originator of the guideline was then BCA head referee Cecil Messer. He once said that it was one of the dumbest things he ever did with the rules.

All three examples in the OP are definitely fouls as other posters have explained. Gambling has nothing to do with it and BOTH players KNOW they were fouls.

stuckart
06-06-2011, 03:53 PM
See the part I put in red. If you are hitting the ob at an angle, I agree. However, if you are hitting the ob full on, and the cb passes through where the ob was, it is an obvious foul. On a full hit, the cb ALWAYS comes to a stop. Draw or follow then determines if it comes back or goes forward. The only way it can go forward on a full hit and then draw back is if you double hit the cb. Plain and simple way to tell if it was a foul or not.

Did you watch all the video's? It is very possible to hit the OB full on and the CB can pass through and then draw back without it being a double hit. Not with a Level Cue or Even a Slightly Elevated cue though.

TheNewSharkster
06-06-2011, 04:12 PM
The 3rd Party Paradox is my biggest pet peeve. Instead of two knowledgeable and honest shooters calling their own fouls in an un-officiated match, they need to call a 3rd Party referee. How often is a neutral 3rd party available to settle the double hit debate, let alone know what to look for and/or how to detect the double hit?

Not often enough.


The thing is even if the 3rd party doesnt know a good hit from the back of his hand at least somebody who is unbiased is watching the shot. In a lot of cases I can find somebody who is good at pool to watch.

mullyman
06-06-2011, 04:15 PM
This is where one of these quirky Japanese rules comes in handy. If the cue ball and the object ball are within a distance from each other that a cube of chalk won't fit between them you can call "push" and shoot right through it without it being a foul. I know, I know, but it ends any arguments over any petty crap like this.
MULLY

Neil
06-06-2011, 04:15 PM
..............