An unusual thing just happened at the 14.1 pred
- Thread starter fan-tum
- Start date
Diliberto must have had some strange food for lunch.
From the World Standard Rules
Miscues
8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue.
Ref's judgment call
From the World Standard Rules
Miscues
8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue.
Ref's judgment call
See Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett's vids. Miscues are clearly fouls...when viewed on hi-speed film!
That's pretty much the way its always been it's not considered deliberate.
There are indeed some strange things going on. Miscue's may be the topic of conversation, but Ortman's dominance is what's really made my drop my jaw. Another oddity was Immonen's last match where he started off at -1 and ran 101 to close it out.
How is Mika's 101 ball run an oddity?
:smile:
I miscued and a guy asked if it was a foul, I showed him my tip where it was clear chalk was missing, to me it was not a foul. :smile:
I have been told that other than the US miscues are fouls. Japan was cited as the main example when I was told this. Anyone validate this?
I never called miscues fouls unless there was secondary contact after the miscue. I was refereeing a match between Lou Butera and Howard Vickery once upon a time and Howard miscued. The object ball rolled slowly to the corner pocket and dropped in. I didn't say anything and Lou went ballistic on me screaming foul. The score at that time was something like 2-1 Butera in a Race to Eleven. Howard ultimately won the match something like 11-9 and Lou blamed me for the loss. I don't think he spoke to me for several years afterwards, and we had been close friends. Right or wrong, I thought he was wound a little too tight about it. We reconciled our friendship years later, but I could never forget how harshly he reacted to my non call.
Well now how in the world could playing slow waste energy in an interview conducted after the match is already over?
The rules say "unless such contact is clearly visible" and in this case ref decided that the foul was not clearly visible, so no foul occurred. Agreed with Bigtruck. If a player disagrees with the ref, he can make an official complain on it to get a ruling from the TD, but it has to be done right away. If he lets the play to continue, he accepts the refs decision and cannot argue with the it afterwards. No point in blaming the ref for your own mistake.
