FYI, I cover "scoop shots" in the videos and articles here:
Sometimes scoop shots involve miscues, other times they do not. Sometimes they are fouls, other times they are not. See the videos for examples of all cases.
Regards,
Dave
Miscue == foul?
- Thread starter Fastolfe
- Start date
Sometimes scoop shots involve miscues, other times they do not. Sometimes they are fouls, other times they are not. See the videos for examples of all cases.
Regards,
Dave
Easy: I was the only one around who wasn't doing anything at the moment. I most definitely did not want to play the referee, and told the owner of the premises several times, but in the end I relented.
Resolution; Never be the ref., unless you just like to be in charge.....it's a sure way to lose some hair.
Yes, I figured that one out
I am no control freak, all I want is to leave other players be and do my own thing in peace with whomever I happen to be playing. The rest tends to bore the living daylights out of me, especially the perfectly insipid social pool lives of other players, how they think they progressed so much recently, and what they personally think of that guy sitting over there.
you know, it's so funny the poor op has to feel bad and apologize for being right. asian countries (who seem to have a clue, unlike us) consider all miscues fouls because, YES, the side of the ferrule will hit the cueball or you will hit the cb twice. they are probably all fouls, technically.
so, where does that leave us and this discussion? it leaves us with the fact that the op was right, yet wrong according to idiotic rules that we as pool players will continue to live by and not improve for decades (god knows why, because people with iq's of 8 are running things??).
anyway, i commend the op for calling an obvious foul a foul. and i hope we can one day soon change our terribly inadequate rules.
so, where does that leave us and this discussion? it leaves us with the fact that the op was right, yet wrong according to idiotic rules that we as pool players will continue to live by and not improve for decades (god knows why, because people with iq's of 8 are running things??).
anyway, i commend the op for calling an obvious foul a foul. and i hope we can one day soon change our terribly inadequate rules.
Well, OK, but can you describe a method to determine whether a miscue occurred on a particular shot? How about a partial miscue? When practicing draw shots, I sometimes get disappointing draw without any real jump but the tip is discolored. Should that be a foul? In an unrefereed match, if the shooter claims the shot was not a miscue, does the call go to him?
While many miscues are fouls according to a strict rule on multiple contacts, some are not. Miscues have never been considered fouls in any official rule set I know of. It would be a large change to make them fouls.
I've lived in Asia for almost 15 years and played and watched pool in several countries here including big tournaments. I have never seen a miscue called a foul unless it was a foul for some other reason like no legal hit or rail contact.
People usually play all fouls even in social play, but not miscue fouls as far as my experience goes.
Excellent points Bob. This is the kind of thing that helps people realize how difficult it is to write rules that will please everybody ... it's impossible.
You're probably right that making every miscue a foul is probably too big of a change, because people don't like change. However, if the change were made, the foul could be called only if the miscue were obvious (as with many other things in pool like double hits, wrong-ball first, push, rail contact, illegally touched ball, etc.!), and the benefit of doubt would always go the the shooter. People usually know a miscue when they see one.
Regards,
Dave
With all due respect, I think the point that Bob was trying to convey is that what is obvious to ONE person may NOT be so obvious to ANOTHER. Opinions may greatly differ as to if a shot taken resulted in a miscue or not. Leaving the "benefit of doubt" to the shooter just takes you full circle back to where we were BEFORE any rules were changed concerning "miscue fouls".
Another reason I believe we should NOT call a miscue a foul is this scenario (and this has happened to me, you, and virtually all pool players at one time or another: You are aiming low on the cueball for a "power draw" shot. You make contact with the cueball and hear a pathetic-sounding clink. The shot is away. The cueball does NOT come off the table (at least not enough to see at real-time speed). The shot is made. The cueball draws, although not as far as you have intended it to. It is obvious that there was a slight miscue on the shot. Not enough to fully change anything. The shot was made and the cueball drew back somewhat. Now, who wants to call a foul on THIS shot??? Not me, or anybody else I would hope. Just my opinion.
Maniac
Good points. I don't think any type of miscue rule could ever consider a "partial miscue" alone a foul. However, under the current rules, an obvious and full miscue is sometimes a foul and sometimes not depending on perceived intention, and whether or not there is clear visual evidence of secondary contact (e.g., if you miscue on a follow shot and the cue shaft hits the top of the ball). These calls sometimes require judgment, and can often involve disagreement. If a clear and obvious miscue (people know it when they see it) were always a foul, no judgment would be required.
BTW, based on the video evidence here, most obvious and full miscues do involve secondary contact.
Another related example is a "scoop" (illegal jump) shot. Sometimes it is a foul (e.g., if it is intentional), and sometimes it is not (e.g., if it is caused by an accidental draw-miscue and doesn't results in any other foul). For more info, see:
I just like the idea of simple rules requiring as little judgment as possible. But I know this is sometimes easier said than done.
Regards,
Dave
BTW, based on the video evidence here, most obvious and full miscues do involve secondary contact.
Another related example is a "scoop" (illegal jump) shot. Sometimes it is a foul (e.g., if it is intentional), and sometimes it is not (e.g., if it is caused by an accidental draw-miscue and doesn't results in any other foul). For more info, see:
I just like the idea of simple rules requiring as little judgment as possible. But I know this is sometimes easier said than done.
Regards,
Dave
i've only been playing for a couple years... but i thought the rule was that only the cuetip could be used to contact the cueball and that using any other part of the cuestick to intentionally make contact constituted a foul
this has been a very interesting thread to read either way
this has been a very interesting thread to read either way
My 2 cents..
Without reading the entire thread, there is something I would like to point out... If someone has already made this point, then I apologize in advance..
If you are jacked up and miscue, that's a foul... Without question.. There is literally no way you can avoid hitting the cue ball twice in this instance... Once with your tip, and once with the side of your cue..
IMO, if you are level and "scoop" the cue ball, there is a possibility of doing either, fouling, or not fouling.. Judgment call at that point..
Without reading the entire thread, there is something I would like to point out... If someone has already made this point, then I apologize in advance..
If you are jacked up and miscue, that's a foul... Without question.. There is literally no way you can avoid hitting the cue ball twice in this instance... Once with your tip, and once with the side of your cue..
IMO, if you are level and "scoop" the cue ball, there is a possibility of doing either, fouling, or not fouling.. Judgment call at that point..
There's a statement that NOBODY should argue with :grin-square:!!!
BTW Dave, thanks for the never-ending stream of videos that you post on your threads. They are very much insightful and helpful!!!
Maniac
it may be a "large change" but that definitely doesn't make it wrong to attempt to change it.
this would cause a lot of arguments though, i'll give you that. so perhaps you are right. it almost like we have "fixed" this problem with an "ignorance is bliss" type attitude though, which bugs me.
i mean how many times now have you seen a guy try to load up, the cueball flies up in the air, and the object ball still goes or he gets safe after this huge blunder. no easy solution, but once again you MUST admit that the pattern for us to stay in the dark ages continues-- i mean we are calling OBVIOUS fouls good hits.
this below scenario is actually a pretty easy call, especially in the case of the ball drawing back. if the ball draws like this its a good hit, because i would have to assume the vast vast majority of the contact was with the leather. i realize its hazy but the way you described it would be pretty easy for me at least, to call that a good hit. this is actually a good thing to bring up, maybe there could be something like if "cueball action" in the form of backspin is seen on the cueball, the hit is good. i realize this isn't perfect, but it may help in many cases. i still contend we must do something about this, i mean we really are laughing stocks, i mean really a HUGE OBVIOUS foul is a good hit? i mean cmon, there has to be a better solution.
Last edited:
good to know, thanks. i heard a commentator state that one day, i thought it was mark wilson? anyway, i guess he was wrong whoever it was.