Elevated-Cue Shots ... Are They Legal?

[dr_dave]

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.

Do you know of something in the rules that disallows this, even "in the spirit of the rules?" I don't. Regardless, I agree with you that this sort of situation should be addressed somehow by the rules.

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:

I can't think of any advantage one might gain from this effect (in a controllable way), but I like the way "your friend" thinks. :grin-square:

Regards,
Dave

 

[gregcantrall]

Finally got around to trying it.

I tried it and got one chalk mark a small gap and then a nearly continuous very faint line almost half the circumference of the ball. I felt nothing was unusual and would have sworn there was no double hit.

I would not call it a foul.

Thanks for bringing this to our forum.:thumbup:

 

[dr_dave]

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?

FYI, I've had some e-mail correspondence with Mike Shamos (resident BD rules and billiards history expert), and here's his reply to the posted scenario (posted with his permission):

It's a foul, as the evidence clearly shows. This seems to me to be a good reason to restore the "one continuous stroke" rule for pocket games. I don't think we want strokes like this one to be illegal.

For those who don't remember or know the old "one continuous stroke" rule, it allows many currently-illegal things to happen (double hits, miscues, multiple-hit tip drag, hitting into a frozen or nearly-frozen ball, etc.) as long as the shot involves a normal and uninterrupted (or re-accelerated) stroke into the CB.

I personally don't like this old rule because it opens up a huge "can of worms" of possible rules interpretation abuse and potential weird shots that really should not be allowed, IMO.

What do you guys think?

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

FYI, I've had some e-mail correspondence with Mike Shamos (resident BD rules and billiards history expert), and here's his reply to the posted scenario (posted with his permission):

It's a foul, as the evidence clearly shows. This seems to me to be a good reason to restore the "one continuous stroke" rule for pocket games. I don't think we want strokes like this one to be illegal.

For those who don't remember or know the old "one continuous stroke" rule, it allows many currently-illegal things to happen (double hits, miscues, multiple-hit tip drag, hitting into a frozen or nearly-frozen ball, etc.) as long as the shot involves a normal and uninterrupted (or re-accelerated) stroke into the CB.

I personally don't like this old rule because it opens up a huge "can of worms" of possible rules interpretation abuse and potential weird shots that really should not be allowed, IMO.

What do you guys think?

Regards,
Dave

That would make shots like this legal, right? (8 ball and CB carom out of the way; stick follows through to knock the 9 ball into the pocket with the tip.)

I don't think Mike has thought this through.

pj
chgo

View attachment 78365

 

[336Robin]

Great Information

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

Dr. Dave,
I haven't read the thread yet. I will suffice to say that you continually amaze me at the wealth of information that you've provided the world of pool. Its very obvious to me that although those elevated shots do not contact another ball that they clearly do perform a double hit. I cant imagine that they would be called foul under playing conditions because of the absence of an object ball but there might need to be some clarification in the rules. Nice job!

 

[dr_dave]

I don't think the cue is allowed to contact an OB during a stroke, even under the "one continuous stroke" rule, but I don't know for sure.

I would definitely not approve of a set of rules that would allow a shot like this.

Regards,
Dave

That would make shots like this legal, right? (8 ball and CB carom out of the way; stick follows through to knock the 9 ball into the pocket with the tip.)

I don't think Mike has thought this through.

pj
chgo

View attachment 78365

 

[Tennesseejoe]

FYI, I've had some e-mail correspondence with Mike Shamos (resident BD rules and billiards history expert), and here's his reply to the posted scenario (posted with his permission):

It's a foul, as the evidence clearly shows. This seems to me to be a good reason to restore the "one continuous stroke" rule for pocket games. I don't think we want strokes like this one to be illegal.

For those who don't remember or know the old "one continuous stroke" rule, it allows many currently-illegal things to happen (double hits, miscues, multiple-hit tip drag, hitting into a frozen or nearly-frozen ball, etc.) as long as the shot involves a normal and uninterrupted (or re-accelerated) stroke into the CB.

I personally don't like this old rule because it opens up a huge "can of worms" of possible rules interpretation abuse and potential weird shots that really should not be allowed, IMO.

What do you guys think?

Regards,
Dave

Responding to your request: I like the rule as stands and see no need to change.However this may be added for emphasis: If you can not actually see the double hit or hear it clearly, it should be considered a legal shot.

 

[dr_dave]

For those interested, here are all of the WPA rules I could find that are pertinent to the shots in the video:

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.

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

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.

I could not find anything about whether a clear track of multiple-hit marks on the CB could be used as evidence when judging a double-hit foul, either in the WPA rules or in the WPA regulations.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Responding to your request: I like the rule as stands and see no need to change.However this may be added for emphasis: If you can not actually see the double hit or hear it clearly, it should be considered a legal shot.

I would write it like this instead:

If you cannot detect a double hit by observing clear evidence of a double hit in the motion of the balls, then the shot should be considered legal.

I don't think the sound of the shot is reliable evidence, and it would lead to many arguments. For example, when the CB is close to an OB and a hard tip is being used, some people might think they hear a double hit when there is none. Likewise, a double-hit shot might sound fine, but if the CB heads well forward of the tangent line immediately, the shot is obviously a foul.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Tennesseejoe]

For those interested, here are all of the WPA rules I could find that are pertinent to the shots in the video:

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.

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

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.

I could not find anything about whether a clear track of multiple-hit marks on the CB could be used as evidence when judging a double-hit foul, either in the WPA rules or in the WPA regulations.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave, I think the 3rd sentence of rule 6.7 is a good indication that this type of double hit should be allowed in your examples. And maybe include it in the next rules revisions.

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.

 

[Ron Swanson]

That would make shots like this legal, right? (8 ball and CB carom out of the way; stick follows through to knock the 9 ball into the pocket with the tip.)

I don't think Mike has thought this through.

pj
chgo

View attachment 78365

No it wouldn't - how on earth would you consider that a legal shot? It's an old snooker trick shot for starters, played very fast so the eye cannot see the tip hit the other ball.

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave, I think the 3rd sentence of rule 6.7 is a good indication that this type of double hit should be allowed in your examples. And maybe include it in the next rules revisions.

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.

I disagree. I don't think the sentences other the the first apply at all to the shots in the video.

I am not hitting the CB into or off a nearby OB in the video. Watch the video and read the rule paragraph carefully again, and let me know if I am missing something.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Tennesseejoe]

I disagree. I don't think the sentences other the the first apply at all to the shots in the video.

I am not hitting the CB into or off a nearby OB in the video. Watch the video and read the rule paragraph carefully again, and let me know if I am missing something.

Regards,
Dave

I re-read and agree with you.