Please explain?

[Tokyo-dave]

Can somebody please explain to me what's going on at :04 and at 1:00 in this video? Some of the shots in this video are trick shots or 'hustle' shots, and he even demonstrates one of them, but for the life of me I can't figure out what's going on with the shot at :04, and then the other shot right at the 1:00 mark looks like nothing but a camera trick.
Explain?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLcvHZt4IhE&feature=feedrec_grec_index

dave

 

[PoolBum]

I believe the shot at :04 is done with right spin on the cueball (with a kind of miscue so the cueball actually rubs against the face of the object ball) which spins the object ball in the opposite direction down the cushion and into the pocket. I think this same kind of shot is usually done by aiming straight in line with the cueball and object ball with extreme right (at least that's the way it's been done when I've seen it and actually shot it).

 

[Bob Jewett]

I believe the shot at :04 is done with right spin on the cueball (with a kind of miscue so the cueball actually rubs against the face of the object ball) which spins the object ball in the opposite direction down the cushion and into the pocket. I think this same kind of shot is usually done by aiming straight in line with the cueball and object ball with extreme right (at least that's the way it's been done when I've seen it and actually shot it).

Yes, but I think he keeps pressing the side of the stick against the cue ball to herd the object ball back to the pocket.

The shot at 1:00 is off the corner of the pocket but the video misses the frame where the cue ball hits the opposite face, the same as at 0:53. That and the rest of the shots are all pretty much standard trick or fancy shots.

 

[robert1229]

What is going on is a bunch of fouls lol. the one @ :04 is called jamming and is a huge foul that some people try to get away with in 1 pocket. the one @ 1:00 is actually not a fould if hit correctly and is a common shot and common knowledge to the intermediate player.


Don't know how much this helped but it's correct for sure.

 

[risky biz]

Can somebody please explain to me what's going on at :04 and at 1:00 in this video? Some of the shots in this video are trick shots or 'hustle' shots, and he even demonstrates one of them, but for the life of me I can't figure out what's going on with the shot at :04, and then the other shot right at the 1:00 mark looks like nothing but a camera trick.
Explain?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLcvHZt4IhE&feature=feedrec_grec_index

dave

:04 is just a combo shot off the rail. 1:00 is a reverse spin masse' shot. I don't see anything mysterious there.

 

[risky biz]

What is going on is a bunch of fouls lol. the one @ :04 is called jamming and is a huge foul that some people try to get away with in 1 pocket. the one @ 1:00 is actually not a fould if hit correctly and is a common shot and common knowledge to the intermediate player.


Don't know how much this helped but it's correct for sure.

No fouls at :04 or 1:00.

 

[rrick33]

Explain

I think the shot at :04 is not a foul if the stroke remains fluid and constant; however, in this example, the only way both CB and OB would move backward is if the player has wedged the two balls against the rail with some portion of the ferrel or shaft as he pushed through the shot.

To make this shot you literally have to push the stroke diagonally to the left with pressure againt the rail.

Is it a foul if the side of the ferrel or shaft drags against the cue ball, wedging it against the raill if the stroke is one continuious motion? We don't consider a shot a foul if we miscue because the ferrel strikes the cue ball. Where is the distinction between thes two scenarios?

 

[MOJOE]

No fouls at :04 or 1:00.

WRONG!! The ball comes backward at .04 just as Bob Jewett say's. The ball closest to the cue runs along the cue for a short time in order to come backwards.. If that's not a foul, I don't know what is..

 

[rrick33]

Explain

Seems like my explaination isn't that far removed from Bob's interpretation.
Funny how people are eager to ridicule...??? What ever happened to mature conversation?

Truth is...if the balls are frozen, then you can push through the sroke and create a similar effect which is not a foul.

Given the fact that he appears to be stroking slightly up table but both balls are moving backward, he has to be pushing diagonally left accross the stroke to apply the reverse pressure. It's likely that the body of the shaft briefly contacted the ball at some point.

Is that a foul?

If it is....then why?

 

[Bob Jewett]

:04 is just a combo shot off the rail. 1:00 is a reverse spin masse' shot. I don't see anything mysterious there.

Well, no on both counts. The first shot is obviously a ball manipulation foul with the side of the cue stick and the one at 1:00 is not a masse. The second shot is on page 26 of Jimmy Caras's book on trick shots.

 

[John Brumback]

I saw lots of fouls also.Yeah I don't think you can use the side of your stick,have to use the tip and then you can only hit It once,unless froze and I think that should be a foul as well.Other than that,some pretty neat trick shots.John B.

 

[robert1229]

No fouls at :04 or 1:00.

So using the shaft of your cue to bush a ball backwards isn't a foul?

Wanna play some one pocket? I don't know how you play but i'll give up like 10-4, with those rules lol.

 

[Tokyo-dave]

Ok, so the camera shot missing the frame where the cb hits the inside of the pocket satisfies me. That was the reason I couldn't figure the shot, or had it pegged to be a camera trick...............because in the closeup replay, the cb isn't shown hitting the inside of the pocket.
Thanks guys.
dave

 

[risky biz]

WRONG!! The ball comes backward at .04 just as Bob Jewett say's. The ball closest to the cue runs along the cue for a short time in order to come backwards.. If that's not a foul, I don't know what is..

You must be referring to the shot where he strokes at :05. I was referring to the shot that's stroked at :01 and completed at :04. The second shot in the video would be a foul in a game played by most rules.

 

[risky biz]

Well, no on both counts. The first shot is obviously a ball manipulation foul with the side of the cue stick and the one at 1:00 is not a masse. The second shot is on page 26 of Jimmy Caras's book on trick shots.

Given that I don't have Jimmy Caras' book (whatever book that is) why is the shot at 1:00 not a masse'?

 

[risky biz]

Seems like my explaination isn't that far removed from Bob's interpretation.
Funny how people are eager to ridicule...??? What ever happened to mature conversation?

Truth is...if the balls are frozen, then you can push through the sroke and create a similar effect which is not a foul.

Given the fact that he appears to be stroking slightly up table but both balls are moving backward, he has to be pushing diagonally left accross the stroke to apply the reverse pressure. It's likely that the body of the shaft briefly contacted the ball at some point.

Is that a foul?

If it is....then why?

What's immature prior to your post?

World Pool Association Nine-Ball Rules
"6.7 Double Hit / Frozen Balls
If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is close to but not touching an object ball and the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue ball contacts that object ball, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is very close to an object ball, and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball contact is made.
However, if the cue ball is touching an object ball at the start of the shot, it is legal to shoot towards or partly into that ball (provided it is a legal target within the rules of the game) and if the object ball is moved by such a shot, it is considered to have been contacted by the cue ball. (Even though it may be legal to shoot towards such a touching or “frozen” ball, care must be taken not to violate the rules in the first paragraph if there are additional balls close by.)
The cue ball is assumed not to be touching any ball unless it is declared touching by the referee or opponent. It is the shooter’s responsibility to get the declaration before the shot. Playing away from a frozen ball does not constitute having hit that ball unless specified in the rules of the game.

6.8 Push Shot
It is a foul to prolong tip-to-cue-ball contact beyond that seen in normal shots."

 

[Bob Jewett]

Given that I don't have Jimmy Caras' book (whatever book that is) why is the shot at 1:00 not a masse'?

Because the cue ball is shot from one pocket facing off the other pocket facing to run along the rail it was frozen to. The cue stick very clearly was not elevated enough to get that kind of speed and the speed could not have developed that quickly. The same shot from a wider view is at 0:51 -- I think that will make it clearer.

 

[risky biz]

Because the cue ball is shot from one pocket facing off the other pocket facing to run along the rail it was frozen to. The cue stick very clearly was not elevated enough to get that kind of speed and the speed could not have developed that quickly. The same shot from a wider view is at 0:51 -- I think that will make it clearer.

If you're referring to the leather facing at the back of the pocket the CB may be contacting that briefly and curving around but there is definitely traction on the felt from the spin applied to the CB. That's what I'm calling masse'.

I don't see the CB hitting the opposite cushion at all, if that's what you mean.

 

[Bob Jewett]

If you're referring to the leather facing at the back of the pocket the CB may be contacting that briefly and curving around but there is definitely traction on the felt from the spin applied to the CB. That's what I'm calling masse'.

I don't see the CB hitting the opposite cushion at all, if that's what you mean.

The leather material is called the pocket liner. The pocket facing is the cloth part that covers the shims (usually) in the jaws. The frames in the video missed the contact with the facing. Have you gone back to 0:51 and looked at the shot in wide angle? It is an absolutely standard trick shot. Here it is in Mike Massey's book:


Here it is (along with a "tricky" version) from Joe Hood's 1908 book:

 

[RunoutJJ]

The shots with the ball coming backwards is a HUGE foul!! No doubt about it!!! Like mentioned before watch the guy use his shaft to contact the cuebal after the stroke. Its very slight but you can see it if you look hard enough.

Ill tell you this.... I learned something with the last two shots of the video. Both the 9 ball and 6 ball shots were completely legal and shots you should know :thumbup2: