MISCUES … Should the Rules be Changed to Make Them FOULS?

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
FYI, I just posted a new video that shows with super-slow-motion footage from high-speed video cameras that all miscues (for sidespin, topspin, and bottom-spin shots) involve pushing sliding tip contact and secondary hits. So, should the rules be changed to make all miscue shots fouls? This video addresses this question and offers a recommendation. Check it out:


Content:
0:00 - Intro
---- 1:51 - rules
2:53 - Sidespin with No Chalk
3:49 - Topspin with No Chalk
4:39 - Bottom Spin with No Chalk
5:16 - Sidespin with Chalk
6:15 - Highly Elevated and Others with Chalk
7:14 - Wrap Up
---- 7:37 - pros for changing rules
---- 8:21 - cons for changing rules

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
 
I’ll play Devil’s advocate a little here. You’re defining a miscue as a hit where the cue ball travels obviously off the intended line of aim and makes an obviously funny sound. But it’s the secondary hit(s) on the tip/shaft/ferrule that send the cue ball off line, so of course any shot that goes obviously off line involved a secondary hit.

So I still wonder if it’s possible that there are some bad hits that sound and feel a little funny, leave a bald spot on the tip, but don’t send the ball far off the line of aim. I know I’m not the only one who has miscued and still made the shot. I feel like this is something that has happened to me quite a few times, but I suppose I’d need to capture it on video. If Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are still avoiding the cameras, the non-foul miscue could be too!
 
My opinion::
At the professional level (winners get paid) we might as well make a miscue a foul.
At league level (winners do not get paid) we should leave this alone as it would drive away players at the bottom of the ability list (right where the new-guys come from ).
Between league and professional (semi-pro) I don't have an opinion.

But this leave bipartite rule between league level and professional level. Making it even that much more difficult to achieve a uniform set of rules world wide.

"So I still wonder if it’s possible that there are some bad hits that sound and feel a little funny, leave a bald spot on the tip, but don’t send the ball far off the line of aim."

Last week I had an unintentinal scoop shot (trying for big draw) where the CB went over OB and landed on its top-back side. CB went into the pocket followed by OB.
 
BRussell said:
I’ll play Devil’s advocate a little here. You’re defining a miscue as a hit where the cue ball travels obviously off the intended line of aim and makes an obviously funny sound. But it’s the secondary hit(s) on the tip/shaft/ferrule that send the cue ball off line, so of course any shot that goes obviously off line involved a secondary hit.
Click to expand...

Good point. The sliding (and pushing) tip contact also causes the CB to head off line (even if the secondary hits don't occur).


BRussell said:
So I still wonder if it’s possible that there are some bad hits that sound and feel a little funny, leave a bald spot on the tip, but don’t send the ball far off the line of aim. I know I’m not the only one who has miscued and still made the shot. I feel like this is something that has happened to me quite a few times, but I suppose I’d need to capture it on video. If Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are still avoiding the cameras, the non-foul miscue could be too!
Click to expand...

I call those "late" or "partial" miscues, where the sound is only a little funny and the CB heads close to the desired direction with close to the desired amount of spin. I propose that a foul would not be called for these shots because they are not obvious miscues. Even novice players know an obvious miscue when they see (or hear) it.
 
MitchAlsup said:
My opinion::
At the professional level (winners get paid) we might as well make a miscue a foul.
At league level (winners do not get paid) we should leave this alone as it would drive away players at the bottom of the ability list (right where the new-guys come from ).
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was proposing the change for the official WPA rules. Most leagues do they own thing, per the info here:



MitchAlsup said:
But this leave bipartite rule between league level and professional level. Making it even that much more difficult to achieve a uniform set of rules world wide.
Click to expand...

Good point. I wish all leagues would just use the WPA "official rules of pool" (except maybe the APA, which caters to novice players). It would make things much simpler for everybody.
 
One issue that I have is that there's that gray area. That area where there might be the perception of a miscue because the hit sounded a little clanky and the cue ball may have appeared to skis a bit off line...or not.

Without a definition that clearly differentiates a good hit from the foul, I just think there are too many opportunities for confusion and potential conflict.

For me, file this one under the heading of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
 
David in FL said:
One issue that I have is that there's that gray area. That area where there might be the perception of a miscue because the hit sounded a little clanky and the cue ball may have appeared to skis a bit off line...or not.

Without a definition that clearly differentiates a good hit from the foul, I just think there are too many opportunities for confusion and potential conflict.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The rule would need to be worded carefully so only blatant miscues (with an obvious sliding-tip push and secondary hits, as evidenced by the distinctive sound that everybody knows and the grossly errant CB motion that everybody can recognize) would be called fouls (since they do involve a push and double hit, both of which are illegal). Everybody knows this type of miscue when they see it. The rare "late" or "partial" miscues that sound just a little funny and push the CB offline just a little (or not at all) or don't deliver quite the amount of spin expected would not be called as fouls (because they don't clearly involve a push or secondary hits).


David in FL said:
For me, file this one under the heading of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Click to expand...

But it is broke. We are allowing shots that have been proven to involve a sliding-tip push and multiple secondary hits. These things are supposed to be illegal in pool.
 
dr_dave said:
Agreed. The rule would need to be worded carefully so only blatant miscues (with an obvious sliding-tip push and secondary hits, as evidenced by the distinctive sound that everybody knows and the grossly errant CB motion that everybody can recognize) would be called fouls (since they do involve a push and double hit, both of which are illegal). Everybody knows this type of miscue when they see it. The rare "late" or "partial" miscues that sound just a little funny and push the CB offline just a little (or not at all) or don't deliver quite the amount of spin expected would not be called as fouls (because they don't clearly involve a push or secondary hits).




But it is broke. We are allowing shots that have been proven to involve a sliding-tip push and multiple secondary hits. These things are supposed to be illegal in pool.
Click to expand...

Would you be interesting in purchasing a device that recognizes if a miscue happened?

Your discussions on policies is exciting, but it doesn't translate into a physical application that any user can be successful with.

Eventually the product could be fined tuned to do audio/visual analysis. I am introducing an audio measuring/analyzing tool as an initial test.

What soundwave profile does a miscue have and is there more than one type? A small processor board could handle that application. Guitars have tuning devices.

Pool tables can have miscue tuning devices.
 
dr_dave said:
Agreed. The rule would need to be worded carefully so only blatant miscues (with an obvious sliding-tip push and secondary hits, as evidenced by the distinctive sound that everybody knows and the grossly errant CB motion that everybody can recognize) would be called fouls (since they do involve a push and double hit, both of which are illegal). Everybody knows this type of miscue when they see it. The rare "late" or "partial" miscues that sound just a little funny and push the CB offline just a little (or not at all) or don't deliver quite the amount of spin expected would not be called as fouls (because they don't clearly involve a push or secondary hits).




But it is broke. We are allowing shots that have been proven to involve a sliding-tip push and multiple secondary hits. These things are supposed to be illegal in pool.
Click to expand...
But it isn’t broke. It has been this way for centuries now. Now somebody (this isn’t personal or anything intended to be insulting) comes along with advanced technology that wasn’t available 100 years ago and proves there is technically a foul. I don’t see how you draft a rule that can be applied. I don’t want to see high def super slo mo booth reviews. Fairly strike at the cue ball. Don’t push it. A miscue isn’t an automatic foul. This has worked forever from barrooms to ballrooms. On the list of problems in pool this is below the problem of 5 balls not being orange. IMO
 
justnum said:
Would you be interesting in purchasing a device that recognizes if a miscue happened?

Your discussions on policies is exciting, but it doesn't translate into a physical application that any user can be successful with.

Eventually the product could be fined tuned to do audio/visual analysis. I am introducing an audio measuring/analyzing tool as an initial test.

What soundwave profile does a miscue have and is there more than one type? A small processor board could handle that application. Guitars have tuning devices.

Pool tables can have miscue tuning devices.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is necessary. Everybody can easily recognize a blatant miscue shot (involving a sliding-tip push and secondary hits, based on sound and the motion of the CB).
 
JPB2 said:
But it isn’t broke. It has been this way for centuries now. Now somebody (this isn’t personal or anything intended to be insulting) comes along with advanced technology that wasn’t available 100 years ago and proves there is technically a foul. I don’t see how you draft a rule that can be applied. I don’t want to see high def super slo mo booth reviews. Fairly strike at the cue ball. Don’t push it. A miscue isn’t an automatic foul. This has worked forever from barrooms to ballrooms. On the list of problems in pool this is below the problem of 5 balls not being orange. IMO
Click to expand...

You don't need a high-speed camera during actual play. During play, it is obvious if a miscue occurs. As has been shown in this video, the observed motion of the CB is clearly the result of a sliding-tip push and secondary hits. Therefore, the shot can confidently be called a foul (if we decide to change the miscue exception rule).
 
dr_dave said:
I don't think it is necessary. Everybody can easily recognize a blatant miscue shot (involving a sliding-tip push and secondary hits, based on sound and the motion of the CB).
Click to expand...

True, but again by definition there is something between a perfectly "good hit" and a horrible "miscue". Unless you can define the exact moment that a good hit becomes a miscue, I don't think you could write the rule such that it would be applied equally by every person, every time, and in every situation.

And that's what a good rule really needs. Equity and consistency in application.

For the golfers out there, I liken it to those who want to allow golfers to remove their golf ball from a divot in the fairway.

The issue becomes that eventually a divot fills in and at some point is no longer a divot. But, exactly when does that happen?

Until someone can define the exact moment in time when that divot is no longer a divot, the rule becomes open to individual interpretation and subsequently inconsistent/inequitable interpretation and enforcement.
 
David in FL said:
True, but again by definition there is something between a perfectly "good hit" and a horrible "miscue". Unless you can define the exact moment that a good hit becomes a miscue, I don't think you could write the rule such that it would be applied equally by every person, every time, and in every situation.

And that's what a good rule really needs. Equity and consistency in application.

For the golfers out there, I liken it to those who want to allow golfers to remove their golf ball from a divot in the fairway.

The issue becomes that eventually a divot fills in and at some point is no longer a divot. But, exactly when does that happen?

Until someone can define the exact moment in time when that divot is no longer a divot, the rule becomes open to individual interpretation and subsequently inconsistent/inequitable interpretation and enforcement.
Click to expand...

IMO, the call would need to based mostly on the motion of the CB. If the shot is a suspected miscue (maybe from the sound or CB motion) and the CB motion clearly indicates a sliding-tip push or secondary contact, based on the motion being very different from what would be expected for the shot being played, then the shot would be called a foul (if the miscue exception rule is eliminated). As the video clearly shows, the errant CB motion with miscues is due to a sliding-tip push or secondary hits, both of which are fouls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top