When are MISCUE and SCOOP Shots Fouls?

[dr_dave]

I think there’s a huge difference between a miscue and a scoop shot.

Most of the time, in non-recorded matches, these shots are good because it’s hard to prove a double hit.

However, in televised or streamed matches, the referee can simply review the playback, just look to see whether the cue tip moves out of the way immediately after contacting the cue ball. It’s that simple.

As clearly demonstrated in my video, playback of normal video footage does not always reveal the action of the shot. But when it does not, the benefit of the doubt must always go to the shooter.

 

[Renderu]

I was hoping we would get some debate on this.

Do you think all miscues and scoops should be fouls? Is so, how would you respond to the 5 reasons above?

Also, how would you write the new rule so it could be applied accurately, fairly, and consistently?

For reference, here is the current rule:

2.11  MISCUE
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue-ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or due to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue-stick with the cue-ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue-ball at the same time, and this causes the cue-ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. If an unintentional miscue causes the cue-ball to leave the playing surface, including partially or fully jumping over a ball, it is treated like a legal jump shot. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 3.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).

Some of my miscues are only known to me. As mentioned in one of your reasons it sort of slips at the end of the contact period with the cue ball. I even get some drawback.

 

[dr_dave]

Some of my miscues are only known to me. As mentioned in one of your reasons it sort of slips at the end of the contact period with the cue ball. I even get some drawback.

I think those don’t usually result in secondary contact.

 

[MattPoland]

I’m in strong favor that all miscues should be fouls by definition / fiat in the WPA rules.

1. They are sloppy contacts of the cue tip to the cueball.
2. They are going to be double hits more often than not.
3. In honor of pool being a precision sport calling them fouls upholds the game to a higher standard and pedigree.
4. Permitting miscues and scoop jumps is amateurish like “cueball fouls only”.
5. I believe with careful effort a meaningful definition could be worded that doesn’t rely solely on the sound and can be generally accepted by players without too many arguments, especially since as players we all know a real miscue when we see one.
6. Leagues like VNEA, CSI, TAP and APA would maintain their own rules and amateurs would be largely unaffected (like with cueball fouls only)
7. I believe if we made the change, two generations from now would look back on this era and laugh at the fact miscues were ever allowed as legal strokes.
8. You already know it’s a blight by making intentional miscues “unsportsmanlike conduct”

That’s my singular opinion on the matter.

 

[dr_dave]

I’m in strong favor that all miscues should be fouls by definition / fiat in the WPA rules.

1. They are sloppy contacts of the cue tip to the cueball.
2. They are going to be double hits more often than not.
3. In honor of pool being a precision sport calling them fouls upholds the game to a higher standard and pedigree.
4. Permitting miscues and scoop jumps is amateurish like “cueball fouls only”.
5. I believe with careful effort a meaningful definition could be worded that doesn’t rely solely on the sound and can be generally accepted by players without too many arguments, especially since as players we all know a real miscue when we see one.
6. Leagues like VNEA, CSI, TAP and APA would maintain their own rules and amateurs would be largely unaffected (like with cueball fouls only)
7. I believe if we made the change, two generations from now would look back on this era and laugh at the fact miscues were ever allowed as legal strokes.
8. You already know it’s a blight by making intentional miscues “unsportsmanlike conduct”

That’s my singular opinion on the matter.

Thank you for posting this. I worked hard to try to convince the WPA Rules Committee to make all miscues and scoops fouls a couple of years ago. I will try harder this year. Do others have opinions or ideas on this matter?

 

[MattPoland]

Thank you for posting this. I worked hard to try to convince the WPA Rules Committee to make all miscues and scoops fouls a couple of years ago. I will try harder this year. Do others have opinions or ideas on this matter?

I think there’s this thing where we approach this topic thinking of beer belly Joe on a random Tuesday arguing with short temper Stu over a tink.

But in all honesty the real impact of this is picturing Ko Ping Chung accidentally scoop jumping or slip whacking the cueball against Fedor Gorst and lucking into a good hit on the TV Table for a game that means $20k difference between the two of them and trying not to pretend that moment wasn’t cringeworthy. You can almost hear Scott Frost commentate about how he “got a roll” on that one and the entire viewing audience audibly rolling their eyes in unison.

And food for thought. I just played a cheap set race to 9 tonight where I spotted the 8 (and lost) and not once did either of us miscue. It’s not supposed to happen.

 

[InsertCleverNameHere]

The vast majority of miscues are not so obvious to anyone but the shooter. And some are only very slight. Almost all miscues result in a horrible/losing/negative value shot anyway so does it really need to be a foul also? "Miscue" is just so vague but what isn't vague is that the result of the shot on a miscue is virtually never good for the shooter.

Deliberate scooping is obviously not ok and I'm sure most rulesets reflect that.

I saw that call live in the Shaw match and it put a bad taste in my mouth but then again my bias probably had something to do with that. Not a fan of the player or the call.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Before a rule outlawing miscues is adopted, it should be tested in several hundred matches between top players, maybe in a few of the large, open tournaments. I think it would be bad to make such a large change in the rules without sufficient field trials. Maybe test it in amateur league play as well.

I don't think it will be easy to word such a rule well.

 

[sudocrushms]

"A miscue is a mistake that is usually penalty enough since the shot objectives are not achieved. Adding a ball-in-hand penalty might be considered a bit harsh."

Along this line: what percent of miscues result in a foul for other reasons? (missed object ball, no rail, etc)
At least in my experience it's most.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I worked hard to try to convince the WPA Rules Committee to make all miscues and scoops fouls a couple of years ago. I will try harder this year. Do others have opinions or ideas on this matter?

I think you covered it pretty well in your post below, and as you stated the reasons are compelling. Compelling enough that I am not personally seeing why you are still in favor of all miscues being fouls, although I certainly understand still having a bad taste in your mouth about the way things currently are because it is at best the lesser of two evils.

One might make an argument that all miscues should be fouls. However, there are compelling reasons to not do this:

1. Tradition. Miscues have never been considered automatically fouls in the past, so this would be a major change to the sport, and many people will find it difficult to accept. Rules should not be changed unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
2. A miscue is a mistake that is usually penalty enough since the shot objectives are not achieved. Adding a ball-in-hand penalty might be considered a bit harsh.
3. Rarely, a miscue is a clean hit with no secondary contact.
4. It is not always possible to be sure a miscue occurred. You can’t judge them by sound, especially in a noisy environment, and especially with many people playing at once on surrounding tables. For more info and demonstrations, see: using sound to judge fouls.
5. Sometimes “partial miscues” occur, where the tip slips during contact, but not at the beginning of contact. These shots sometimes sound a little funny, they might not involve secondary contact, they leave a different type of mark on the tip, and the CB might deflect a little more than normal, but they are not “blatant miscues.” Calling “partial miscues” might be difficult and require too much judgment.

Regarding #3, a foul being assessed on an otherwise legal shot, simply because there was a human error made by the shooter (a non-foul miscue in this case), just doesn't seem appropriate nor do we do it in the case of any other similar human errors that I can think of that don't otherwise violate any pertinent rules. You are in effect penalizing the human error itself as opposed to penalizing a rule violation. When the shooter hits the wrong ball first, but it is otherwise still a legal shot (happens a lot in 8 ball), we don't assess a foul penalty for that shooter error, so why would we here? When a shooter really butchers their position play, we don't assess a foul penalty for that gross human error, so why would we do it here? Etc. If we are going to penalize this human error, we need to look at penalizing some others as well.

Of biggest concern to me are #'s 4 and 5. I think the rule (if it was effective enough for the intended purposes) could not be written well enough that a lot, and I mean a lot, of subjective judgement would still need to be involved.

The last thing we need is another rule requiring subjective judgement from referees, and even more so when there isn't much compelling need for the rule to begin with. Referees all too often can't even get very clear cut objective things right. A rule requiring a large degree of subjective judgement carries the potential (certainty) for bad calls. Your solution to a problem can't be an even bigger problem than the one it proposed to solve. When being anywhere near on the fence about something, we should lean towards what is going to remove subjectivity rather than towards what is going to add subjectivity.

The last thing we also need are more almost purely subjective things for amateurs to argue about. Half these people can't even tell an obvious double hit foul when there is indisputable objective evidence to look at. I can see amateurs everywhere arguing "that was a miscue/partial miscue, that is a foul!" with the other guy arguing back "are you fricking blind, there was no miscue there!" (or vice versa), and with no way to prove one way or the other, shortly before taking it outside. Yes, it is true that amateurs can use another rule set, but the reality is that in tournaments, leagues, and just while playing on their own, the official WPA rules are very commonly used by amateurs and are often seen as the standard to go to and the standard to aspire to.

 

[dr_dave]

I think you covered it pretty well in your post below, and as you stated the reasons are compelling. Compelling enough that I am not personally seeing why you are still in favor of all miscues being fouls, although I certainly understand still having a bad taste in your mouth about the way things currently are because it is at best the lesser of two evils.

Regarding #3, a foul being assessed on an otherwise legal shot, simply because there was a human error made by the shooter (a non-foul miscue in this case), just doesn't seem appropriate nor do we do it in the case of any other similar human errors that I can think of that don't otherwise violate any pertinent rules. You are in effect penalizing the human error itself as opposed to penalizing a rule violation. When the shooter hits the wrong ball first, but it is otherwise still a legal shot (happens a lot in 8 ball), we don't assess a foul penalty for that shooter error, so why would we here? When a shooter really butchers their position play, we don't assess a foul penalty for that gross human error, so why would we do it here? Etc. If we are going to penalize this human error, we need to look at penalizing some others as well.

Of biggest concern to me are #'s 4 and 5. I think the rule (if it was effective enough for the intended purposes) could not be written well enough that a lot, and I mean a lot, of subjective judgement would still need to be involved.

The last thing we need is another rule requiring subjective judgement from referees, and even more so when there isn't much compelling need for the rule to begin with. Referees all too often can't even get very clear cut objective things right. A rule requiring a large degree of subjective judgement carries the potential (certainty) for bad calls. Your solution to a problem can't be an even bigger problem than the one it proposed to solve. When being anywhere near on the fence about something, we should lean towards what is going to remove subjectivity rather than towards what is going to add subjectivity.

The last thing we also need are more almost purely subjective things for amateurs to argue about. Half these people can't even tell an obvious double hit foul when there is indisputable objective evidence to look at. I can see amateurs everywhere arguing "that was a miscue/partial miscue, that is a foul!" with the other guy arguing back "are you fricking blind, there was no miscue there!" (or vice versa), and with no way to prove one way or the other, shortly before taking it outside. Yes, it is true that amateurs can use another rule set, but the reality is that in tournaments, leagues, and just while playing on their own, the official WPA rules are very commonly used by amateurs and are often seen as the standard to go to and the standard to aspire to.

Excellent points. Thank you for sharing them.

My reasons for possibly wanting to make all miscues and scoops fouls are the following:

1. All obvious miscues involve sliding contact and secondary hits per this video.
2. Most scoop shots involve a miscue and the tip making secondary contact with the CB and table at the same time.
3. Scoop shot fouls are sometimes misjudged per this video.
4. The current rules for miscues and scoops require that player intent be judged. Player intent is usually obvious, but not always.
5. Many miscues and scoops result in fouls anyway since the hit is so bad.

If the rules were changed, a miscue foul would be called only if the miscue is obvious based on the distinctive sound and clear visual evidence of the miscue (the CB having motion very different from what would be expected for the shot being played). All scoop shots are obvious, so there is no need for judgement there. Pretty much everybody knows a miscue or scoop when it occurs. When it is not obvious, any benefit of doubt would go to the shooter, as with all fouls in pool.

 

[dr_dave]

I don't think it will be easy to word such a rule well.

Here is the current rule (with the parts to possibly change in bold):

2.11  MISCUE
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue-ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or due to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue-stick with the cue-ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue-ball at the same time, and this causes the cue-ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. If an unintentional miscue causes the cue-ball to leave the playing surface, including partially or fully jumping over a ball, it is treated like a legal jump shot. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 3.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).


If it were decided instead that all miscues and scoops are fouls, the rule could be worded like this instead (with new parts bolded):

MISCUE AND SCOOP FOULS
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue-ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or due to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. A miscue also causes the cue-ball to head in a much different direction than expected for the shot due to excessive cue-ball deflection caused by secondary contact with the tip or side of the cue-stick. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue-ball at the same time, often after a miscue with an attempted backspin shot, causes the cue-ball to rise off the cloth. Both miscues and scoop shots are called as fouls only when the errant motion of the CB is clear. If it is not clear a miscue or scoop occurred, the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter and no foul is called.

 

[GideonF]

I generally agree with Poolplaya9.

In addition to his points, I would note the following:

1 The video you linked on “all miscues are fouls” includes scoop shots as being multiple hits or secondary hits, when your more recent video says they are not always so. This raises two points: (a) those should not be fouls if you cannot tell if it might be legal; and (b) perhaps your conclusion that all non-scoop shot miscues are fouls is also incorrect - perhaps you just didn’t get lucky to catch one.

2 An interesting parallel could be drawn to Fouetté shots. Your video on them shows that some of them are fouls (shaft hits the CB). Should they also be outlawed like unintentional scoop shots, just because sometimes they are a foul?

If the general principle of the rules is that we don’t call things fouls unless we are sure they are fouls, then unintentional miscues should not be fouls unless we have clear evidence of a foul.

 

[Vahmurka]

If it were decided instead that all miscues and scoops are fouls, the rule could be worded like this instead (with new parts bolded):

MISCUE AND SCOOP FOULS
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue-ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or due to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. A miscue also causes the cue-ball to head in a much different direction than expected for the shot due to excessive cue-ball deflection caused by secondary contact with the tip or side of the cue-stick.

I don't think there is a need to change the rule so that ALL miscues are automatic fouls. Because even there you leave a benefit of a doubt towards the shooter, and it will be close to impossible to make a call at the table. Also here your wording alleges that the different direction is necessarily a result of secondary tip contact or side of the cue/ferrule contact - which, again, can be false in some particular case.

Imagine the object ball (in rotation game) is on the short rail and I'm shooting from 7 feet distance, applying strong side spin aiming to brush the ball and drive the whitey away (hence side spin). I miscue, so the cue ball takes different path, gets driven to the side rail and still makes good contact with intended object ball, completing a legal shot.
Why call a foul on me for the mere reason of a miscue? Since the cue ball deflection might have been a result of a single tip contact?

 

[dr_dave]

I generally agree with Poolplaya9.

In addition to his points, I would note the following:

1 The video you linked on “all miscues are fouls” includes scoop shots as being multiple hits or secondary hits, when your more recent video says they are not always so. This raises two points: (a) those should not be fouls if you cannot tell if it might be legal; and (b) perhaps your conclusion that all non-scoop shot miscues are fouls is also incorrect - perhaps you just didn’t get lucky to catch one.

In the previous video, I was making the point that the tip always slides on the CB (which could be considered a "push") during a miscue, and there is almost always secondary contact. With this assumption (the sliding tip part), every miscue is a foul! I have never filmed a miscue with no secondary contact (that I can remember anyway), but I believe it can occur, maybe with a "partial miscue" or with an extremely whippy shaft.

2 An interesting parallel could be drawn to Fouetté shots. Your video on them shows that some of them are fouls (shaft hits the CB). Should they also be outlawed like unintentional scoop shots, just because sometimes they are a foul?

No, because there is no reason to suspect a foul with a well-struck fouetté shots if the CB motion is consistent with a good hit. The same cannot be said for miscues, where the errant CB motion clearly indicates a sliding tip and likely secondary contact.

If the general principle of the rules is that we don’t call things fouls unless we are sure they are fouls, then unintentional miscues should not be fouls unless we have clear evidence of a foul.

There are definitely strong arguments on both sides of this matter.

 

[MattPoland]

I’d just say to keep in mind that if miscues were to be defined as fouls it wouldn’t be because they might be double hits (a different foul in itself). It wouldn’t be because they are deemed foul worthy in their own right. Kinda like push shots are not fouls because they could be a double hit. They are fouls because they were decided to be fouls in and of themselves by definition. There is something inherently undesirable about them. And there’s at least a case that miscues are undesirable or else intentional miscues wouldn’t be deemed unsportsmanlike conduct. It’s kinda weird to be permissive of unintentional miscues (and scoops) in the same way it would be weird to have a rule permitting unintentional push shots and only penalizing intentional push shots.

 

[Vahmurka]

There is something inherently undesirable about them. And there’s at least a case that miscues are undesirable or else intentional miscues wouldn’t be deemed unsportsmanlike conduct.

Let me fight your logic a bit on this one. It is specifically intentional miscues that are "undesirable" (because they are used to gain advantage with kind of cheating method), but that would not stand the same for occasional miscues.

 

[garczar]

The vast majority of miscues are not so obvious to anyone but the shooter. And some are only very slight. Almost all miscues result in a horrible/losing/negative value shot anyway so does it really need to be a foul also? "Miscue" is just so vague but what isn't vague is that the result of the shot on a miscue is virtually never good for the shooter.

Deliberate scooping is obviously not ok and I'm sure most rulesets reflect that.

I saw that call live in the Shaw match and it put a bad taste in my mouth but then again my bias probably had something to do with that. Not a fan of the player or the call.

Agree. Let's just slow the damn game down even more by calling all miscues a foul. Gimme a break people. Do we need to get so ultra-nitty?? DD i know you can't help yourself, its the 'geek' in you i get it but i really hope i never play anyone that nitty. And yes Virginia imo calling all miscues a foul is beyond nitty. The way fouls have called for eons is just fine, do you really want to toss that wrench in the works?? I'm cool with the 'scoop' rule but all miscues as fouls? No. Not ever.