Is this a foul?

Bob Jewett said:
Well, not exactly. I can play at more than 45 on a close ball and still clearly foul it.

I believe at DCC 45 degrees of either elevation or cut makes it OK to hit the cue ball more than once.
Click to expand...
Did Dr Dave do a video on that? I cant seem to find it.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Well, not exactly. I can play at more than 45 on a close ball and still clearly foul it.

I believe at DCC 45 degrees of either elevation or cut makes it OK to hit the cue ball more than once.
Click to expand...
I found it. I like that technique at the 3:20 time index!
 
buckshotshoey said:
Did Dr Dave do a video on that? I cant seem to find it.
Click to expand...
I believe he mentioned a VNEA rule that says frozen balls must be shot from 45 degrees. The very close object ball isn't part of that, I don't think. It was in his rules that need to be changed video.

I had heard the 45 degree rule for close balls but didn't know it was Derby City. I see a lot of middling players who don't understand the concept of a double hit foul. People who have applied themselves to the game enough that a common situation like a double hit should be known.
 
Bob Jewett said:
See rule 8.18 in the WPA rules. A miscue is generally not a foul by itself. Of course many miscues include contact of the side of the stick with the cue ball, but if it's not clearly visible it is assumed to not have happened. Some miscues do not have that second contact.

I think the ruling in the match was wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree, no foul. Ref was WRONG to call it a foul.
 
Should not have been called a foul. You can even see the back spin on the ball. The ref probably couldn't see the spin, and thought he miscued, but an unintentional miscue is not a foul.

I had a ref watch a shot during the VNEA championships this past spring. It was an obvious foul, all who watched the shot agreed, even my opponent. But the ref said it was good and my opponent continued his run out. Some refs are just not very good at what they do.
 
Philthepockets said:
If you hit the CB with anything other than the tip it's a foul, if you scoop the ball it's pretty much guaranteed you hit it with the ferrule.
Click to expand...
Which might lead you to conclude that all miscues should be ruled as fouls, but that's not what the rules say or how the game has been played for a long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
Bob Jewett said:
Which might lead you to conclude that all miscues should be ruled as fouls, but that's not what the rules say or how the game has been played for a long time.
Click to expand...
I think with a miscue the tip would go off to one side or over the top, a scoop would be a different contact.
 
I would be interested to find out what Dr Dave thinks on whether it was a foul or not....
I thought the call was wrong.
 
I might have missed it, as I am catching up with the discussion.
I call foul based on the requirement to strike the ball above horizontal center to Jump. Whether it was intended it was a jump that appears to be a single contact......but it was below center. Foul.
 
Bob Jewett said:
See rule 8.18 in the WPA rules. A miscue is generally not a foul by itself. Of course many miscues include contact of the side of the stick with the cue ball, but if it's not clearly visible it is assumed to not have happened. Some miscues do not have that second contact.

I think the ruling in the match was wrong.
Click to expand...
I thought the whole thing was irrelevant...
 
This is super interesting to me. Can someone explain "why" a scoop shot is not allowed versus a jump shot? Why should it matter if the cue does not hit the ball you are jumping?

I am assuming that a scoop shot is if you keep the cue more or less parallel with the table top and strike the cue ball low and it hops over the ball you are jumping. As opposed to a jump shot where you strike down on the back of the cue ball. I don't understand why it should matter, gotta be a reason. Unless it's to prohibit somebody ripping up the table cloth like W. C. Fields did in that old pool skit. Hilarious! But didn't he also do another shot where he drove the cue all the way through the slate, which could only be done striking down on the ball like you do when executing a jump shot? So, either way could be detrimental to a table top? Sorry for ignorance, lol!
 
livemusic said:
This is super interesting to me. Can someone explain "why" a scoop shot is not allowed versus a jump shot? Why should it matter if the cue does not hit the ball you are jumping?

I am assuming that a scoop shot is if you keep the cue more or less parallel with the table top and strike the cue ball low and it hops over the ball you are jumping. As opposed to a jump shot where you strike down on the back of the cue ball. I don't understand why it should matter, gotta be a reason. Unless it's to prohibit somebody ripping up the table cloth like W. C. Fields did in that old pool skit. Hilarious! But didn't he also do another shot where he drove the cue all the way through the slate, which could only be done striking down on the ball like you do when executing a jump shot? So, either way could be detrimental to a table top? Sorry for ignorance, lol!
Click to expand...
Seriously?? It is to protect from tearing cloth. Kinda obvious i would think. Legal jumpshots create burn marks but that's about it. Scooping can easily lead to a rip. Not always but that's the reason its banned. Normally only see it in bars with drunk morons playing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top