Elevated-Cue Shots ... Are They Legal?

[dr_dave]

With your video, it is very clear that each elevated shot has multiple hits.

Not true. When you elevate enough, a single hit is achieved, as demonstrated near the end of the video.

Unfortunately, under most playing conditions, we do not have high-speed cameras or even regular cameras.

Agreed; although, we can clearly see the distinctive chalk trail and multiple hit marks on the CB after the shot.

It would be nice if you could prove that ALL elevated shots are multiple hits, then possibly a rule could be implemented. Otherwise, I don't think it is practical to try and make all elevated shots a foul.

Show the video proof that ALL elevated shots are multiple hits and yes a rule could be implemented.

That was not my goal. My goal was to show that over a certain range of cue elevations, above-center hits like this often (if not always) result in multiple hits. I agree with you that these shots should not be called fouls under the current rules (because there is no clear evidence during the shot, and there is no advantage gained from the multiple hits).

REGARDLESS, your video scores two thumbs up from JoeyA

Thanks Joey!

Best regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I believe the double hit could be avoided by cueing the cue ball a little off center. If we had another view of the good shot by Dr Dave where he stated that his aim was off a little, I think that he contacted the cue ball with the cue tip a little off center.

Off center cueing makes the shot more difficult but with practice doable.

A similar example could be when shooting a shot with a level cue and the cue ball and object ball are very close. In this shot just using inside English helps avoid the double hit.

The shot in the video (and similar, but longer shots) would be extremely difficult with an off-centerline hit (with sidespin), due to the amount of swerve that would result from the cue elevation. And to avoid the multiple hits, I think the tip would need to be off center quite a bit (and even then, there still might be multiple hits). I'll try this out the next time I'm at a table. Maybe you and others can try it out also.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I showed the multiple-hit elevated-cue follow shot to my league teammates and we had a long discussion. We also came up with a scenario that I think presents a fair question.

Now that we know that above-center hits over a certain range of cue elevations causes multiple hits between the tip and the CB, and that those multiple hits are clearly obvious from a distinctive trail of chalk marks on the CB, what is the correct call in the following situation?

You are playing in a tournament with referees available. Your opponent is about to shoot over a ball like with the shot in the video. You ask for a referree to come over because you know a shot like this will result in multiple hits. You explain this to the referree and ask him/her to clean the CB so the trail of multiple chalk marks will offer undeniable evidence of multiple hits. The ref cleans and replaces the CB, the opponent shoots the shot, and the trail of multiple chalk marks is clearly visible after the shot. What should the referee rule in this situation? There is undeniable proof that the shot involved multiple hits.

I am curious to see what everybody thinks is the right call in this situation. I personally think the shot should be called a foul in this situation; although, I'm not sure if the current rules provide sufficient guidance on this topic. What do you think?

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I thought the scenario quoted below would create some discussion.

Does anybody have opinions or ideas about this?

Thanks,
Dave

I showed the multiple-hit elevated-cue follow shot to my league teammates and we had a long discussion. We also came up with a scenario that I think presents a fair question.

Now that we know that above-center hits over a certain range of cue elevations causes multiple hits between the tip and the CB, and that those multiple hits are clearly obvious from a distinctive trail of chalk marks on the CB, what is the correct call in the following situation?

You are playing in a tournament with referees available. Your opponent is about to shoot over a ball like with the shot in the video. You ask for a referree to come over because you know a shot like this will result in multiple hits. You explain this to the referree and ask him/her to clean the CB so the trail of multiple chalk marks will offer undeniable evidence of multiple hits. The ref cleans and replaces the CB, the opponent shoots the shot, and the trail of multiple chalk marks is clearly visible after the shot. What should the referee rule in this situation? There is undeniable proof that the shot involved multiple hits.

I am curious to see what everybody thinks is the right call in this situation. I personally think the shot should be called a foul in this situation; although, I'm not sure if the current rules provide sufficient guidance on this topic. What do you think?

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I showed the multiple-hit elevated-cue follow shot to my league teammates and we had a long discussion. We also came up with a scenario that I think presents a fair question.

Now that we know that above-center hits over a certain range of cue elevations causes multiple hits between the tip and the CB, and that those multiple hits are clearly obvious from a distinctive trail of chalk marks on the CB, what is the correct call in the following situation?

You are playing in a tournament with referees available. Your opponent is about to shoot over a ball like with the shot in the video. You ask for a referree to come over because you know a shot like this will result in multiple hits. You explain this to the referree and ask him/her to clean the CB so the trail of multiple chalk marks will offer undeniable evidence of multiple hits. The ref cleans and replaces the CB, the opponent shoots the shot, and the trail of multiple chalk marks is clearly visible after the shot. What should the referee rule in this situation? There is undeniable proof that the shot involved multiple hits.

I am curious to see what everybody thinks is the right call in this situation. I personally think the shot should be called a foul in this situation; although, I'm not sure if the current rules provide sufficient guidance on this topic. What do you think?

Regards,
Dave

I mentioned in an earlier post that it appears the tip "drags" across the CB toward the shooter (rather than "pushing" across it away from the shooter). In other words, the first chalk mark is farther from the shooter than the second, etc.

Does this make any difference in your thinking about whether or not it should be a foul? I don't know what to think about that myself, just curious.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

I mentioned in an earlier post that it appears the tip "drags" across the CB toward the shooter (rather than "pushing" across it away from the shooter). In other words, the first chalk mark is farther from the shooter than the second, etc.

That's the way I visualized it when I first noticed the chalk trails; although, I can see how people could easily be surprised by this. The tip isn't forcibly hitting the CB after the initial hit ... it is just bouncing or skipping along the CB surface as the ball attempts to roll away from the tip, and I think this occurs well before any significant follow through takes place.

Does this make any difference in your thinking about whether or not it should be a foul?

It doesn't change what I think. IMO, what matters is whether or not there are multiple hits or secondary contact, not how, when, or where the multiple hits or secondary contact might occur.

Regards,
Dave

 

[ENGLISH!]

I thought the scenario quoted below would create some discussion.

Does anybody have opinions or ideas about this?

Thanks,
Dave

I could be wrong but I don't think a player that is not shooting should be able to ask for the cue ball to be cleaned & stall the shooter. To me that is like a form of sharking.

As I basically stated in my first post of this thread, I think you have opened an APA can of worms & one that may spread farther & with no real good for the game.

Now you're basically saying that only if a ball is cleaned & can be examined for evidence after the fact it should be a foul & in other cases it would not be a foul for a lack of evidence.

That's sort of like looking for shoe polish to see if a baseball was hit off the shoe of the batter in the old days. Did it come from the batter's shoe or was it from a fielders glove from the play before?

Okay let's have a new ball for every pitch or examine it for cleanliness between every pitch.

To me... this in no way should be considered a foul but technically is by the rules now in play.

Basically that is NOT a good thing & the game is already in a bad way except for leagues played mostly in bars on coin tables.

Best Wishes.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

That's the way I visualized it when I first noticed the chalk trails; although, I can see how people could easily be surprised by this.

It surprised me.

It doesn't change what I think. IMO, what matters is whether or not there are multiple hits or secondary contact, not how, when, or where the multiple hits or secondary contact might occur.

I agree, and I think the foul should (and would) be called given the scenario you describe. But I can't think of a practical rule for it in normal play - I don't think calling a ref to clean the CB for any shot like this will catch on, especially since there doesn't seem to be any advantage to it (except being able to shoot that shot that way).

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

I mentioned in an earlier post that it appears the tip "drags" across the CB toward the shooter (rather than "pushing" across it away from the shooter). In other words, the first chalk mark is farther from the shooter than the second, etc.

Does this make any difference in your thinking about whether or not it should be a foul? I don't know what to think about that myself, just curious.

pj
chgo

Yes, so the extra contacts are retarding forward 'spin' or momentum roll when that is what one is trying to get.

Hit it & 'clear' the cue & the tip OFF the ball by letting or making them 'bounce' into the air & not go onto the ball.

Just something for some to think about.

Best Wishes.

 

[PoloBob]

My whole life has been a lie!!

Thanks for the video, Dr. Dave. I always enjoy your posts.

 

[dr_dave]

I could be wrong but I don't think a player that is not shooting should be able to ask for the cue ball to be cleaned & stall the shooter. To me that is like a form of sharking.

If a ref is involved, I think he/she has the right to clean the CB if he/she thinks it would help him/her make the right call.

Regardless, the track of multiple chalk marks is so distinct and unmistakable, that even on a filthy CB, the post-shot evidence would be very compelling. In other words, cleaning the CB is really not required ... it just helps eliminate all possible doubt in my scenario.

As I basically stated in my first post of this thread, I think you have opened an APA can of worms & one that may spread farther & with no real good for the game.

I think the "good for the game" these types of examples and discussions create is improved awareness and reasons to improve or change the rules of the game in the next revision cycle so these sorts of questions won't come up again in the future. In fact, previous examples and discussions involving miscues and "scoop" jump shots have done just that ... resulted in changes in the WPA official rules of pool.

To me... this in no way should be considered a foul but technically is by the rules now in play.

As I explain on the video, I agree with you that this sort of shot should not be called as a foul in normal play. However, I think the rules need to be improved and/or clarified so that is clear that the shot is not a foul, even in the scenario with the ref I described. I don't think that is the case now, and the ref would be required to call a foul.

Thanks for your input,
Dave

 

[ENGLISH!]

If a ref is involved, I think he/she has the right to clean the CB if he/she thinks it would help him/her make the right call.

Regardless, the track of multiple chalk marks is so distinct and unmistakable, that even on a filthy CB, the post-shot evidence would be very compelling. In other words, cleaning the CB is really not required ... it just helps eliminate all possible doubt in my scenario.


I think the "good for the game" these types of examples and discussions create is improved awareness and reasons to improve or change the rules of the game in the next revision cycle so these sorts of questions won't come up again in the future. In fact, previous examples and discussions involving miscues and "scoop" jump shots have done just that ... resulted in changes in the WPA official rules of pool.


As I explain on the video, I agree with you that this sort of shot should not be called as a foul in normal play. However, I think the rules need to be improved and/or clarified so that is clear that the shot is not a foul, even in the scenario with the ref I described. I don't think that is the case now, and the ref would be required to call a foul.

Thanks for your input,
Dave

Dave,

As I believe someone else mentioned, how could this multiple hit be allowed & others not? What would the reasoning be?

Best Wishes.

 

[dr_dave]

I don't think calling a ref to clean the CB for any shot like this will catch on

I agree. I also think the scenario described should not be allowed, where the ref inspects the CB after a hit or has the ability to call this sort of shot a foul. But all of this needs to be clear in the official rules of the game. I don't think it is. Currently, if somebody did ask a ref to check the hit, and if evidence for a multiple hits or secondary contact is clear, I think the ref would be required to call a foul (under the current rules).

especially since there doesn't seem to be any advantage to it (except being able to shoot that shot that way).

Agreed. That's why the rules should be written in such a way that this sort of shot is legal and not a foul. There should be no doubt in how the rules should be interpreted in situations like these.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Hit it & 'clear' the cue & the tip OFF the ball by letting or making them 'bounce' into the air & not go onto the ball.

You have suggested this several times, but have you tried it? I have. I was not able to prevent the multiple hits with any stroke or follow-through variations I have attempted. With the obstacle ball there, and with the tip being fairly close to the miscue limit at lower cue elevations, and with the downward stroke (due to the cue elevation) it is very difficult to do what you describe. But how would you really know if you don't try it?

Please let us know whether or not you are able to prevent the multiple hits at all cue elevations for the shot in the video (with a legal hit, without miscuing or disturbing the obstacle ball).

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

As I believe someone else mentioned, how could this multiple hit be allowed & others not?

Multiple-hit miscues are allowed, unless secondary contact is clearly visible (as with the example in the video) or unless the miscue is intentional (e.g., to achieve some normally-impossible shot action, as with some of the examples on the miscue resource page). Also, any time there is no clear visual evidence (as with some "Is that a double hit?" shots and some "Which ball was hit first?" shots), the shots are allowed even if fouls might have technically occurred.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Pidge]

What I want to know is, would a follow through that isn't straight cause a player to miss elevated shots more when the original contact was sending the cue ball on line to pot the ball? In essence, the numerous hits on the cue ball after if the follow through isn't straight, would it cause the cue ball to squirt off?

 

[dr_dave]

What I want to know is, would a follow through that isn't straight cause a player to miss elevated shots more when the original contact was sending the cue ball on line to pot the ball? In essence, the numerous hits on the cue ball after if the follow through isn't straight, would it cause the cue ball to squirt off?

I don't think a non-straight follow-through would have much effect on these shots (assuming the initial hit is center-ball and straight), because the multiple hits occur very vast (during what the player perceives as a single hit) and before any significant follow through occurs.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Pidge]

I don't think a non-straight follow-through would have much effect on these shots (assuming the initial hit is center-ball and straight), because the multiple hits occur very vast (during what the player perceives as a single hit) and before any significant follow through occurs.

Regards,
Dave

Thanks for the speedy reply... Which leads me onto my second question...

Would an off-centre hit on the cue ball multiple times cause the cue ball to squirt off line more?

There have been times these shots have come up and I've had to play with side spin, and I've been baffled by missing the shot by a long way even though I've been certain I've accounted for everything.

 

[BRussell]

I showed the multiple-hit elevated-cue follow shot to my league teammates and we had a long discussion. We also came up with a scenario that I think presents a fair question.

Now that we know that above-center hits over a certain range of cue elevations causes multiple hits between the tip and the CB, and that those multiple hits are clearly obvious from a distinctive trail of chalk marks on the CB, what is the correct call in the following situation?

You are playing in a tournament with referees available. Your opponent is about to shoot over a ball like with the shot in the video. You ask for a referree to come over because you know a shot like this will result in multiple hits. You explain this to the referree and ask him/her to clean the CB so the trail of multiple chalk marks will offer undeniable evidence of multiple hits. The ref cleans and replaces the CB, the opponent shoots the shot, and the trail of multiple chalk marks is clearly visible after the shot. What should the referee rule in this situation? There is undeniable proof that the shot involved multiple hits.

I am curious to see what everybody thinks is the right call in this situation. I personally think the shot should be called a foul in this situation; although, I'm not sure if the current rules provide sufficient guidance on this topic. What do you think?

Regards,
Dave

I'd say yes, if everyone involved has watched your video and agrees. But for this to become widespread a lot more education would need to happen and that would take time. Otherwise it would be like trying to call a double hit based on cue ball path against someone who doesn't understand it - it would just cause problems.

I've never heard of a ref examining a cue ball to determine if there was a foul. I'd prefer to see that actually written in the rules before doing it. It's a bit like introducing instant replay - there really should be an explicit rule for it.

On a separate note, in your video you say there's no apparent effect on the cue ball. Can you think of a way someone could use the fact that this is not a widely-known foul to their advantage? I've heard of people using a double hit to send the cue ball further than they otherwise could. Maybe somethings similar could be done here. Asking for a friend. :wink:

 

[dr_dave]

Thanks for the speedy reply... Which leads me onto my second question...

Would an off-centre hit on the cue ball multiple times cause the cue ball to squirt off line more?

Yes, but this can happen only with extreme tip offset (very close to the miscue limit) and a very stiff shaft, or with a "partial" miscue.

Regards,
Dave