skiergd011013
Well-known member
not a foul
Is this a foul?
- Thread starter something_pool
- Start date
i agree with your first sentence. intent should be the matter - and NO foul.
however, i'm not sure it's possible to get that kind of jump action from that angle without the miscue itself being a scoop shot. so the shot was probably "illegal" but not intentional. surely the point of the rule is to counter intentional scoop shots, hence the reference to unsportsmanlike conduct.
Like I said, AFAIC, intent wasn't/isn't a question. Take hair fouls, who sets out to do those? And yet hair and garment fouls often have zero effect on the lie of the table. I'd ignore those before I'd ignore a miscue. Not that I attempt enforcing all fouls either.
A miscue is an unintentional foul that always puts at least the cue ball in motion; often more balls are involved. Only the slightest miscues are undetectable. Most of them have the audio signature of a ferrule, shaft or both contacting the cue ball and errant shots by pros are even easier to spot. I play socially in bars and rather than spotting all the drunks and novices, I ignore all touching fouls including miscues - even shooting accidentally, and enforce only scratching and legal contact fouls.
I could be wrong but miscues are not allowed in carom games. (?)
something_pool
Registered
No one is arguing that all fouls depend on intent. The question is specifically regarding when miscues are and are not fouls. Look at the WPA rules around miscues (section 8.18):
In this rule, intent clearly matters for determining whether it is unsportsmanlike conduct, and thus a foul. Hair fouls are a different story: under all ball foul rules, contact with an object ball with your hair/body/clothing is always a foul, no matter what the intent of the player.
Like I said AFAIC. I consider miscues fouls. By the rules, they are. That there is a separate rule that miscues are not fouls just means they're snookered and basically FOS.
I also said I don't bother enforcing anything except scratching and legal contact rules. I'll also add I always play by whatever the governing rules are, it's only pool.
something_pool
Registered
I'm asking about the official rules of pool in this thread, not your personal rules though.
The title asks if this is a foul, it is. You have finely honed players wondering why pool can't get legitimized - think Olympics, although legitimate might not be the best descriptor. Anyway, besides the the stigma - earned by decades of hardcore stealing, you have legislated incompetence like this miscue rule. Can you see it? Gold medal round, #1 in the world miscues and shits a ball in. Shot is good!1111!! GOOOOOOOOOOld
lol...
something_pool
Registered
You keep saying it's a foul but providing no evidence. If you think it's a foul, then please provide a link to where in the official rules of pool it says this is a foul.
It was obvious that he wasnt trying to jump a ball. According to the rules, "Scooping" the ball while attempting a jump shot is a foul. Not when miscuing. Unless there is a double contact on the cue ball.
Sorry Straightline.... when you say...
". I consider miscues fouls. By the rules, they are. That there is a separate rule that miscues are not fouls just means they're snookered and basically FOS.", that is an incorrect statement. Not all miscues are fouls.
Last edited:
Intent never matters in pool. I have never intended on ever miscuing or losing.
What happens is what matters
Best
Fatboy
There is nothing to prove. By the contact criteria it's a foul. What I am saying is some rules are FOS.
something_pool
Registered
This is just not true. Again, please refer to the WPA official rules of pool before posting. Under section 8.18:
*Intentional* miscues are treated as unsportsmanlike, and ruled as fouls, whereas unintentional miscues are not treated that way. Intent absolutely does matter.
That's just double talk because they're cornered. Now Pehlivanovic can't be too happy about the call and the ref does come off as a prick but he's making calls and standing by them. Pehlivanovic caught himself a free notch up; maybe one he needed.
yea, totally obvious. scooping often (always?) means contact with ferrule or double CB contact, but so does many miscues. intent clearly matters.
something_pool
Registered
I think the rule isn't written as clearly as it should be. The way I've interpreted it isn't that it's only a foul if you intend to miscue. It's that certain miscues are only called fouls depending on intent. In this case, a scoop, which is treated like a miscue, is only a foul if the player intended to use a scoop stroke to jump the ball, not if the player scooped by accident while intending to draw the ball (which is what happened here). I may be wrong in my interpretation here, but that's what I assumed they meant by intent. Maybe someone with more insight into the WPA rules, like Bob Jewett, can comment on this.
I’ve scooped the CB accidentally a few times.
I saw Sal Butera scoop the CB shooting a straight in 7 in the finals at the Andy Mercer memorial on the hill playing SVB. He was by the side pocket, straight in 7. Scooped it, swish the CB went over the 7 and landed in the hole. CB never touched the picket facings, bed or anything. All Net swish.
I felt so bad for him. 8 & 9 were 2 stop shots. SVB won. A jolt of adrenaline hit Sal and it scooped. He’s a hell of a strong player and just wanted a simple 16” CB to OB stop shot. Easiest shot possible. Pressure does funny things. It wasn’t intentional.
Idk anyone who’s a C player or better that “scoops” on purpose.
I’m not a rule expert either. I just play by the rules.
Having said that, I’d bring my own 5 ball.
Best
Fatboy
I’m confused. A scoop shot is not a foul? Can it be accomplished without that ‘second contact’? Clearly ‘intent’ is only relevant re: an ‘unsportsmanlike conduct’ call. An ordinary miscue leaves ‘benefit-of-doubt’ to the shooter, obviously, since that CAN possibly occur without ‘second contact’.
Have you read 8.18?