Elevated-Cue Shots ... Are They Legal?

[dr_dave]

Interesting video Dr. Dave. No, I would not rule that a foul, but also think that the rule books need to clarify this type of shot as not a foul to avoid the rule nitpickers.

I agree that since the chalk trail on the CB is so prominent, and obviously indicates multiple hits, the rules should probably mention and allow this type of shot specifically (unless there is clear evidence of multiple or secondary contact during the shot).

Your video made me think of another shot, a level cue with max topspin. I wonder if that also is a foul. I'm thinking that the force hitting the near edge of the cb is what causes the dbl. hits. If so, then it seems a max topspin shot might also. ??? Might not because the cb is going straight forward and the forward speed is not retarded by going down first, but would be interesting to check.

With some shafts (especially those that are very stiff, like carbon-fiber shafts) multiple hits are possible with any extreme spin shots (topspin, sidespin, or bottom spin). With extreme tip offsets, the cue doesn't slow as much when it hits the CB, and if it doesn't deflect away from the ball enough, or if it returns to soon, secondary contact can result. For more info and demonstrations, see the maximum english resource page.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Would you have a better chance of hearing the double-hit as opposed to seeing it?

I don't think so. These multiple hits are happening extremely fast. And as I point and show during the video, you really can't tell the difference between the multiple-hit and clean-hit shots, either visually or by sound.

Check out the video again and let me know if you think you can judge the multiple hits by a difference in the sound of the hit.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

USUALLY you can hear the multiple contacts, making it an illegal shot

I don't think a difference in sound is clear enough evidence to call a foul on this type of shot. Do others think a foul can be called based on the sound of a shot? I think a soft tip would certainly sound a lot different than a hard tip on shots like this. Regardless, I don't think the multiple hits can be detected by a difference in sound. In the video, the clean hit doesn't sound much different than the multiple-hit shots. Watch it again. Again, I don't think you can call a foul based on sound. Based on my understanding of the rules, there must be clear visual evidence during the shot to call a foul. If this is not clear in the rules, it probably should be made more clear in the next revision.

I called Dr. Dave's first two attempts illegal, since I could hear it.

Again, I don't think that is appropriate, but I'm curious to hear what others think. I don't think any qualified and experience ref would call any of these shots a foul, except the miscue with obvious secondary contact.

Thank you for your perspectives,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Well I hear the sound of a double hit often ...

I hope you do the same type of video for the cue ball being close to the object ball or frozen to the object ball

I already have that topic covered very completely with numerous videos here:

double hit resource page

The videos cover how to both detect and avoid standard double hits.

These types of double hits are very easy to call based on the action of the CB; although, not all people (especially in leagues) have a complete understanding of these effects.

I wish every league player were required to view the videos on the double hit resource page"]double hit resource page[/URL]. It would probably help prevent arguments and bad feelings.

Check it out,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Funny how the game has existed over several decades and this is the only time that this has been discussed and seen

When I first noticed this, I was also surprised that I had never seen it discussed before.

I noticed it when I was doing the elevated-shot drill (S8) in the BU Skills Exam (Exam II). The chalk marks and trails on the CB were so obvious, and I couldn't believe I hadn't noticed them before.

For me a double hit is a double hit, regardless of intention and is technically a foul, the problem is proving it in an actual game.

Also, the proof must be convincing and visually clear during the shot. Otherwise, the benefit goes to the shooter (just like the base runner in baseball).

Regards,
Dave

 

[BRussell]

Good video, I had never thought about this before. But to be clear, this is not about any type of elevated shot, it's about elevated plus hitting above the core of the cue ball. I would think hitting at or below the core would not produce the same kind of multiple hits (e.g., when drawing a ball that's an inch or two from the rail). It also makes me wonder how often people foul when shooting from the rail. Those shots aren't usually elevated like they are over a ball, but you see it sometimes.

One possible solution to just not calling the foul is to make the shot itself illegal. If shots like this always produce multiple hits, there's no need to try to find the evidence of the foul. And there is some precedent - the scoop-jump, for example, is always illegal.

 

[dr_dave]

Good video, I had never thought about this before. But to be clear, this is not about any type of elevated shot, it's about elevated plus hitting above the core of the cue ball. I would think hitting at or below the core would not produce the same kind of multiple hits (e.g., when drawing a ball that's an inch or two from the rail).

Agreed.

It also makes me wonder how often people foul when shooting from the rail. Those shots aren't usually elevated like they are over a ball, but you see it sometimes.

I think multiple hits happen often with these types of shots. But, again, these shots are still legal (i.e., they are not fouls) ... unless the rules are changed in the next revision.

Regards,
Dave

 

[BRussell]

Dr. Dave can you explain why you say these shots are not illegal under the current rules? If they're double hits, they're illegal. Is it because of the lack of evidence? A lack of evidence would make them hard to call but doesn't make them legal.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I just posted the following video dealing with elevated-cue shots, showing how they often involve multiple hits and prolonged tip contact. Some people might think these shots are fouls, even though they seem perfectly normal. Check out the video to see what you think. Here it is:

NV H.1 - Elevated-Cue Pool and Billiards Shots ... Are They Legal?

I look forward to hearing what you think about my conclusions and perspectives.

Enjoy,
Dave

Nice vids and analysis, Dave. I was wondering when you'd get to this...

Dave and I played around with this when we were together this summer in Crested Butte, CO. We concluded then that it probably was too difficult to call a foul even though there were clearly multiple hits from the visual evidence. I was amazed to see the evidence myself - like everybody else, it simply hadn't occurred to me (hence why it shouldn't be a foul). Dave makes a habit of surprising us with the evidence...

One thing I notice from the slomo shots is that the tip doesn't bounce across the CB's surface in the direction away from the shooter, but instead "drags" across the surface in the direction toward the shooter (so each successive chalk mark is closer to the shooter on the CB, not farther away). So although it's clearly a multiple hit, it isn't a "push", but rather a "drag" shot (which probably slows the CB down).

I don't think this minor fact makes any difference in the determination of whether or not the shot is a foul - just an interesting sidebar.

Thanks again, Dave!

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dr. Dave can you explain why you say these shots are not illegal under the current rules? If they're double hits, they're illegal. Is it because of the lack of evidence? A lack of evidence would make them hard to call but doesn't make them legal.

Yes, in fact it does make them legal, if a shot is considered legal unless there's clear visual evidence otherwise during the shot. This is necessary to avoid unresolvable disputes.

pj
chgo

 

[BRussell]

Yes, in fact it does make them legal, if a shot is considered legal unless there's clear visual evidence otherwise during the shot. This is necessary to avoid unresolvable disputes.

pj
chgo

Show me...

 

[Colin Colenso]

Am i alone in finding push rule in all forms of pool to be a complete mess?

I agree. I'd banish the rule. In various games we have different rules / interpretations. In snooker, have to hit away when CB is touching, in US games, can push through when CB is touching an OB. In UK pool, at least how we play it in Australia, pushing through when not touching is allowed, provided it is in one deliberate stroke or something along those lines.

imho, whether touching or 6 inches apart, if one has the skill to push through a shot along one line, or sweep, without changing direction or speed of cueing deliberately, would suffice as more sensible way to deal with such shots, and would add another dimension of creativity and skill to the various games.

Until that is arrived at, we'll be dealing with arbitrariness and silly rules that don't properly interpret the minutiae of what is going on with some shot executions.

Try a 3/4 ball cut with 3 inches between CB and OB as a deliberate push stroke... that takes some practice to get any sort of control over. If someone can do that well, he deserves applause imho.

Colin

 

[dr_dave]

Dave, you might want to shoot the shot with the same cue alignment, but let the cue & tip 'clear', that is, come up off the ball & the cue off your bridge hand.

I've had many people try this shot, and the chalk marks have appeared for everybody, with different strokes, different cues, different tips, different bridges, different follow-throughs, etc.

Give it a try. I'd be very surprised if you can find a stroke type that will prevent the multiple chalk marks on the CB. Let me know if you do, shooting the shot shown in the video at similar cue elevations and speeds.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yes, in fact it does make them legal, if a shot is considered legal unless there's clear visual evidence otherwise during the shot. This is necessary to avoid unresolvable disputes.

BRussell:
Show me...

Yassuh, massa Russel, suh!!

WPA Rules - Definitions

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. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).


Although this only specifically deals with multiple ferrule contacts, I think it's clearly also attributable to multiple tip contacts. This is just the first instance I found - there may be others in the rules.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave can you explain why you say these shots are not illegal under the current rules? If they're double hits, they're illegal. Is it because of the lack of evidence? A lack of evidence would make them hard to call but doesn't make them legal.

PJ already responded, and I agree.

A shot is illegal only if there is clear visual evidence of a foul during the shot.

A miscue is a similar example. Even though double hits and secondary contact occur on pretty much every miscue shot, a miscue is not considered a foul unless there is clear visual evidence of secondary contact.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

In snooker, have to hit away when CB is touching, in US games, can push through when CB is touching an OB.

I think we should be careful with terminology here.

A push shot, where cue tip remains in contact with the cue ball longer than is appropriate, is a foul.

Hitting with a normal stroke into a CB frozen to an OB is not a push shot (even though it might feel like it). It is a single clean hit, like any other non-frozen shot. Slow-mo videos of these types of shots clearly shows a single, clean hit. See the frozen-CB resource page for more info and demonstrations.

Regards,
Dave

 

[KRJ]

As bad as the second shot was, in APA it would only be a foul if he does not drive his ob to a rail or hit ob and have cb go to rail.

I don't call any fouls in APA because you will NEVER get the call, and I have to be home by 11pm to go to sleep

So, if he miscues I'm going to the table anyways, and I will NEVER win the bih argument anyways.... you just pick your battles, and in APA, this ain't one of them.

 

[dr_dave]

FYI, I've sent messages to Bob Jewett, Mike Shamos, and Buddy Eick about this thread. Hopefully, they will also share their perspectives concerning the rules and this sort of shot. (But I think they will all agree with the conclusions in the video.)

Regards,
Dave

Yassuh, massa Russel, suh!!

WPA Rules - Definitions

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. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).


Although this only specifically deals with multiple ferrule contacts, I think it's clearly also attributable to multiple tip contacts. This is just the first instance I found - there may be others in the rules.

pj
chgo

 

[accustatsfan]

Thank you to Dr Dave for more information

 

[BRussell]

Yassuh, massa Russel, suh!!

WPA Rules - Definitions

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. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).


Although this only specifically deals with multiple ferrule contacts, I think it's clearly also attributable to multiple tip contacts. This is just the first instance I found - there may be others in the rules.

pj
chgo

That's very specific to miscues, which are not normally fouls; it's the shaft contact that's a foul.

In a way this is just a semantic issue and I'd be happy if you guys instead said "it may or may not be a legal hit, but it's too hard to tell so in practice you can't call it." The way you state it is like saying "double hits are legal," and could be confusing to people.

But more generally, the reason I think it's important to say it that way rather than the other is that it comes up a lot in pool: A foul occurs quickly, and no one has a video camera, is it a foul? It happens a lot with this specific issue of double hits, as we all know. For example, if the CB and OB are separated by a mm and someone shoots into it, but other balls prevent a clear view of the CB path, you and Dr. Dave would call that legal, based on what you're saying here, because there's no evidence of the foul. But we know it couldn't have been a legal hit. I think every ref would call it a foul. That seems directly analogous to this elevated cue example. If a certain elevation produces a foul every time, it should be a foul and called a foul. It's just a matter of whether people know about it.