Yes it is. That's the whole point of the "unsportsmanlike conduct foul" rule in pool.
Avoiding double hit on 'easy' shot
- Thread starter livemusic
- Start date
Yes it is. That's the whole point of the "unsportsmanlike conduct foul" rule in pool.
Have you ever seen someone given an unsportsmanlike foul for potting an opponent's ball...? I have seen countless videos of professionals purposely taking fouls to manlipulate the table. Not once was there ever a threat of an unsportmanlike violation. ....and those were in ref'd matches
So there's a video of a player intentionally fouling twice in an effort to win a game. No threat of sportmanlike violation... why..>?
I beg to differ; in many cases, it is. See the WPA rules, for example, and search for "intentional."
Nope... Try the search yourself and se if you can find something I didn't. To keep it in context. I said intentionally fouling, and then gave two examples of intentional fouls that have never warranted a "unsportsmanlike" violation. So unless you can find something I didn't then no, the generalization of intentionally fouling does not warrant an unsportsmanlike conduct violation. Doing something deceitful or disrepectful does...
Here's what I did find on the WPA site regarding intentional fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct:
I have to admit, I’m a bit confused too. I can think of many times that a player has intentionally fouled. Hell, intentionally scratching after sinking an opponent‘s ball is a common one-pocket tactic.
I could use some additional insight/context.
expect crickets....
"6.6 Touched Ball ....If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.17
Unsportsmanlike Conduct."
"6.11 Bad Play from Behind the Head String ... If such a shot is intentional, it is unsportsmanlike conduct."
"6.13 Playing out of Turn ...If a player intentionally plays out of turn, it should be
treated like 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct."
These are three examples of fouls that if committed intentionally are unsportsmanlike conduct.
You quoted my post, so I'm assuming you read it.... Intentionally potting an opponent's ball, or intentionally hitting an illegal object ball does not warrant an unsportsmanlike conduct violation. Both of those practices are fouls, and are done intentionally. ...so why do they not warrant the unsportsmanlike violation...?
Purposely fouling can be unsportsmanlike, or it can be not-unsportsmanlike. It would be up to a ref to determine.
Because they are a regular part of the game via their strategic characteristics, not like a stroke motion that has been declared to be against the rules.
The cited examples also have consequences predetermined, unlike the disallowed stroke shot.
P.s. all unsportsmanlike fouls are intentional, but all intentional fouls are not unsportsmanlike. Basic logic.
Seems like this mental jerkoff is unnecessarily complicated.
Seems like this mental jerkoff is unnecessarily complicated.
I fixed it for you.... Basic logic...yep
Very unnecessary... unfortunately someone is going to read this misguided jerking off and try to get someone else in crap with the LO...lol
Thanks...thought I edited/ corrected that missing 'not'.
lol... ya no sh!t. My apologies all...
...back to double kisses.. The other day on the Corey D. 1pkt stream the commentator said that since the tangent of the ball (not sure if he meant CB or OB) doesn't go to the pocket, the double kiss wasn't there. I only heard the comment cause I was working in the other room. Can one of you virtual pool people make a diagram and show me what he meant by that? I usually just "feel" the shot, but another point of reference would always be nice.
There are several other ways to avoid the double hit -- see Dr. Dave's page. I think Mike's way is at least as hard to learn as the others. The other thing to consider is that Mike has more strength in his hand than many of us have in our arm.
I think the short answer is that unless you are Houdini the only way to not double hit or push through is to hit away, i.e., hit the cue ball away from the ball it's touching or almost touching. This would include hitting the cue ball at such an angle to impart motion to the frozen object ball. At least, that's what I do in pool. The rules about this are different for snooker and English pool.
Here's the WPA rule for this:
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.
Here's the WPA rule for this:
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.
I hate to tell secrets for free...but if the ob has half or less table width before the rail
Fuggit. I'm not telling.
Same here... I honestly don't have control over that incredibly short jab type shot. I'd rather leave something real long and awkward then choke up BIH.