Is this a foul?

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...
The primary reason I consider the scoop a foul is ferrule/shaft contact is built into the shot. Sometimes the shooter will ask if scooping is allowed. If we are playing by standard rules I usually say no. If the scoop is inconsequential, as in I'm in no danger of losing the table, then I might relent.
I don't penalize miscues but I do call them and at the pro level of tournament play, miscues of any kind should be criminalized.
 
straightline said:
The primary reason I consider the scoop a foul is ferrule/shaft contact is built into the shot. Sometimes the shooter will ask if scooping is allowed. If we are playing by standard rules I usually say no. If the scoop is inconsequential, as in I'm in no danger of losing the table, then I might relent.
I don't penalize miscues but I do call them and at the pro level of tournament play, miscues of any kind should be criminalized.
Click to expand...

That makes sense now that I think about it; seems you're right, the ferrule or shaft would likely hit/graze the cue ball. This thread is the first mention I have ever read of a 'scoop shot' being defined, thanks for the explanation. But I'm just a regular Joe, never played in a league. I've seen bars say "no jump shots" but I've never seen a mention of a scoop shot, ever. Very interesting, live and learn!

As for the purported infraction, I would vote that it was a bad ruling if intent is truly key but I don't know much!
 
livemusic said:
That makes sense now that I think about it; seems you're right, the ferrule or shaft would likely hit/graze the cue ball. This thread is the first mention I have ever read of a 'scoop shot' being defined, thanks for the explanation. But I'm just a regular Joe, never played in a league. I've seen bars say "no jump shots" but I've never seen a mention of a scoop shot, ever. Very interesting, live and learn!

As for the purported infraction, I would vote that it was a bad ruling if intent is truly key but I don't know much!
Click to expand...
One of the things most done in pool has been mixing and matching rules and conditions so two players can come to terms for cash. Logic and common sense usually prevail. Sometimes in organized events where many, many players need to be accommodated, quick decisions have to be made and play ushered ahead. The original question was is it a foul. The answer, "yes" is indisputable. The "intent clause" being played is irrelevant since no unsportsmanlike infraction was declared. The refs adamance might be due to multi disciplinary training where miscues are considered fouls and penalized with at least loss of turn. IDK. He seemed dead certain and I have not heard any official comment regarding the situation.
 
straightline said:
One of the things most done in pool has been mixing and matching rules and conditions so two players can come to terms for cash. Logic and common sense usually prevail. Sometimes in organized events where many, many players need to be accommodated, quick decisions have to be made and play ushered ahead. The original question was is it a foul. The answer, "yes" is indisputable. The "intent clause" being played is irrelevant since no unsportsmanlike infraction was declared. The refs adamance might be due to multi disciplinary training where miscues are considered fouls and penalized with at least loss of turn. IDK. He seemed dead certain and I have not heard any official comment regarding the situation.
Click to expand...

not sure about the rule for miscues in snooker. generally they're unlikely to hit the OB with smaller balls and bigger surface so then it's a foul anyway. but i do know a scoop shot miscue is a foul, no matter the intent, so that's a difference. i don't think it mattered in the end here, but he needs to do his referee homework. this is sanjin's and the other pros' livelihood and it shouldn't be determined by bad calls.
 
skogstokig said:
not sure about the rule for miscues in snooker. ...
Click to expand...
At snooker intentional miscues are legal. There is a fairly common safety technique in which the player cues almost outside the cue ball and the miscue sends the cue ball softly into the nearby object ball. That is unsportsmanlike conduct at pool -- it is not a permitted stroke.
 
Last edited:
I once read on a German forum an explanation by the former head referee in DBU, the German Version of WPA:
The Interpretation of the rules is, that a miscue scoop shot is called a foul, if the cue ball jumps over an object ball, like in the video. A miscue with scoop, but the cue ball flying free and not over an object ball is thus no foul. All this assumes an accidental miscue in addition that no other foul was made (lowest ball hit first and a rail afterwards)
This, (in-) official (?), interpretation is not explicitly written in the rules. There was the idea to add it as note, but it seems it never made it to the text.
Does anyone here have a contact to an official at WBA to raise this point somewhere?

Cheers
MaxMad
 
This shot by Sanjin can’t be a foul based on past precedence of similarly struck cue balls that have taken similar flight paths as we have seen in the 2005 World Pool Championship Final put on by none other than Matchroom Sport. Here are 2 examples of shots that Wu played having miscues that were not called fouls that just as easily could have gone over the object ball and and come back and made legal contact.

youtube.com

✂️ 2005 WPC final

60 seconds · Clipped by theanchor20 · Original video "Jiaqing Wu vs Po-Cheng Kuo | 2005 World Pool Championship Final" by Matchroom Pool
youtube.com youtube.com

youtube.com

✂️ 2005 WPC final

60 seconds · Clipped by theanchor20 · Original video "Jiaqing Wu vs Po-Cheng Kuo | 2005 World Pool Championship Final" by Matchroom Pool
youtube.com youtube.com

Until the WPA rules explicitly states that such miscues are fouls, I’m sorry referee Marcel Eckardt they definitely aren’t and I would strongly suggest learning the rulebook in more details and stating to a player in the future under which section of the WPA rulebook the foul applies to.
 
briclops said:
This shot by Sanjin can’t be a foul based on past precedence of similarly struck cue balls that have taken similar flight paths as we have seen in the 2005 World Pool Championship Final put on by none other than Matchroom Sport. Here are 2 examples of shots that Wu played having miscues that were not called fouls that just as easily could have gone over the object ball and and come back and made legal contact.

youtube.com

✂️ 2005 WPC final

60 seconds · Clipped by theanchor20 · Original video "Jiaqing Wu vs Po-Cheng Kuo | 2005 World Pool Championship Final" by Matchroom Pool
youtube.com youtube.com

youtube.com

✂️ 2005 WPC final

60 seconds · Clipped by theanchor20 · Original video "Jiaqing Wu vs Po-Cheng Kuo | 2005 World Pool Championship Final" by Matchroom Pool
youtube.com youtube.com

Until the WPA rules explicitly states that such miscues are fouls, I’m sorry referee Marcel Eckardt they definitely aren’t and I would strongly suggest learning the rulebook in more details and stating to a player in the future under which section of the WPA rulebook the foul applies to.
Click to expand...
The contact rule does not state, let alone explicitly state, "except miscues". I don't think there are rules stating miscues are not fouls either. The pass on those situations are by convention and decorum.
 
I had a discussion last weekend at a tournament.
If you are at the table, is there a foul if you drop the chalk on the table, but you didn't hit any ball?
Only dropping the chalk on the slate is a foul?
 
briclops said:
This shot by Sanjin can’t be a foul based on past precedence of similarly struck cue balls that have taken similar flight paths as we have seen in the 2005 World Pool Championship Final put on by none other than Matchroom Sport. Here are 2 examples of shots that Wu played having miscues that were not called fouls that just as easily could have gone over the object ball and and come back and made legal contact.

youtube.com

✂️ 2005 WPC final

60 seconds · Clipped by theanchor20 · Original video "Jiaqing Wu vs Po-Cheng Kuo | 2005 World Pool Championship Final" by Matchroom Pool
youtube.com youtube.com

youtube.com

✂️ 2005 WPC final

60 seconds · Clipped by theanchor20 · Original video "Jiaqing Wu vs Po-Cheng Kuo | 2005 World Pool Championship Final" by Matchroom Pool
youtube.com youtube.com

Until the WPA rules explicitly states that such miscues are fouls, I’m sorry referee Marcel Eckardt they definitely aren’t and I would strongly suggest learning the rulebook in more details and stating to a player in the future under which section of the WPA rulebook the foul applies to.
Click to expand...
Hi.

As I wrote: If the cue ball jumps over an object ball, the interpretation is that it is a foul. In both your videos this is not the case, no foul.
This is also supported by Marcel explaining to Sanjin that He jumped OVER the ball.

Cheers.
 
MadMaxl said:
Hi.

As I wrote: If the cue ball jumps over an object ball, the interpretation is that it is a foul. In both your videos this is not the case, no foul.
This is also supported by Marcel explaining to Sanjin that He jumped OVER the ball.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
So the call was it's a moar foul? :D

Reminds me of bar rules.
 
MadMaxl said:
I once read on a German forum an explanation by the former head referee in DBU, the German Version of WPA:
The Interpretation of the rules is, that a miscue scoop shot is called a foul, if the cue ball jumps over an object ball, like in the video. A miscue with scoop, but the cue ball flying free and not over an object ball is thus no foul. All this assumes an accidental miscue in addition that no other foul was made (lowest ball hit first and a rail afterwards)
This, (in-) official (?), interpretation is not explicitly written in the rules. There was the idea to add it as note, but it seems it never made it to the text.
Does anyone here have a contact to an official at WBA to raise this point somewhere?

Cheers
MaxMad
Click to expand...

if that indeed is the case, the rule should change imo.
 
MadMaxl said:
I once read on a German forum an explanation by the former head referee in DBU, the German Version of WPA:
The Interpretation of the rules is, that a miscue scoop shot is called a foul, if the cue ball jumps over an object ball, like in the video. A miscue with scoop, but the cue ball flying free and not over an object ball is thus no foul. All this assumes an accidental miscue in addition that no other foul was made (lowest ball hit first and a rail afterwards)
This, (in-) official (?), interpretation is not explicitly written in the rules. There was the idea to add it as note, but it seems it never made it to the text.
Does anyone here have a contact to an official at WBA to raise this point somewhere?

Cheers
MaxMad
Click to expand...
Apparently they remove that rule from EC and Eurotour few years ago, confirmed by EPBF refs

Sent from my Mi 9T using Tapatalk
 
Players miss balls on thin hits where the cue ball comes back off of the rail and makes legal contact. I do not see how that original miss of the ball by it jumping over is any different than the cue ball going over the object ball and coming back and making a legal hit. They are both valid kick shots and I do not see that anyone has yet to state where in the rulebook that it is not allowed. All people are stating is that they believe it is a foul with no written evidence that it’s a foul.

The WPA needs to inform us if this type of shot is illegal as nothing that they have printed in the rules says that it is not legal. If the WPA wants to be taken seriously they need to look into this call and state whether the referee was correct or not.

If something like this happened in MLB, NHL, NBA or the NFL, we would likely have clarification by now on the correct ruling.
 
briclops said:
... If something like this happened in MLB, NHL, NBA or the NFL, we would likely have clarification by now on the correct ruling.
Click to expand...
And I imagine that those businesses have someone on staff who is paid to deal with the rules. Or maybe even a whole group of people.

The WPA Vice President frequently refers rules questions to me. I was the chief editor of the current revision of the WPA World Standardized Rules. Much of the wording is mine. If that is enough authority for you, a ruling has been given, but I have no official position within the WPA.
 
Hi Bob.

One question: Do you know by any chance a point of contact who one could approach with dedicated questions to the rules?

Cheers
MadMaxl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top