Controversial Double Hit? Team Biado vs. Team Raga – 10-Ball Doubles

[GideonF]

I don’t understand when anyone saying “intention” or “unintention” on this case, these are (or were) 4 world class players, Alcano was obviously trying to have a good shot and somehow missed cue. End of the day, it is whether a double hit shot or not. Nothing else matters or can cause a foul. How do you even intentionally miss cue?

The reason people are talking about intentional versus unintentional, is that under standard pool rules, unintentional miscues are not a foul, but an intentional miscue is a foul.

The most common intentional miscue is the scoop shot jumpshot. You are not likely to see that among world class players, of course.

However, there are other intentional miscues. In snooker, for example, it is common and not illegal to intentionally miss cue when the cue ball and object ball are almost frozen to allow for a legal shot without a double hit or push. such shots are not legal at pool.


See the first shot discussed in the video below

 

[july9x]

The reason people are talking about intentional versus unintentional, is that under standard pool rules, unintentional miscues are not a foul, but an intentional miscue is a foul.

The most common intentional miscue is the scoop shot jumpshot. You are not likely to see that among world class players, of course.

However, there are other intentional miscues. In snooker, for example, it is common and not illegal to intentionally miss cue when the cue ball and object ball are almost frozen to allow for a legal shot without a double hit or push. such shots are not legal at pool.


See the first shot discussed in the video below

We're talking pool, American pool.

A miscue or not a miscue, as long as it's a legal shot in pool, it's a legal shot, isn't it? What's the difference?

How and why does one even do an intentional miscue shot and hope it will be a legal shot and give yourself an advantage?

I mean it looked to me that Alcano obviously trying to shoot away from the 7... and missed cue. If anyone thinks he "intentionally" trying to miscue that shot, your fargo is probably 1200, out of my league.

I just don't know if it was a double hit or not, OR if his cue hit the 7 after hitting the cue ball...

 

[july9x]

the 7 ball moved 4 feet because he hit it with his stick not the cue ball.

It's a possibility, his stick hit the cue ball and push though and hit the 7 ball... really hard to tell even from a slow speed replay.

Probably need s frame to frame replay and some physics explanations as well to come to a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... How and why does one even do an intentional miscue shot and hope it will be a legal shot and give yourself an advantage? ...

There are several shots that are most easily made by miscuing. Some of them are only possible by miscuing. Robert Byrne has described several of them in his books. Such shots are the reason that intentionally miscuing is a foul. That includes miscue jump shots, but also the various little nudge safety miscues.

Here's a video of one of those special miscue shots:

 

[dr_dave]

The reason people are talking about intentional versus unintentional, is that under standard pool rules, unintentional miscues are not a foul, but an intentional miscue is a foul.

FYI, many examples of intentional miscues can be found here:

 

[GideonF]

A miscue or not a miscue, as long as it's a legal shot in pool, it's a legal shot, isn't it? What's the difference?

An intentional miscue is unsportsmanlike conduct under WPA rules (ie American pool). Rule below.

 

[july9x]

Thanks for the info regarding intentional miscue.
For this particular case, it is quite clear that it was not an intentional miscue from Alcano, right?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Thanks for the info regarding intentional miscue.
For this particular case, it is quite clear that it was not an intentional miscue from Alcano, right?

I guess he was trying to play a two-way shot without a miscue and half of it worked with a miscue. So, not intentional.

 

[dr_dave]

This was a very close match, with Biado and Alcano leading 13–11 when a big controversial shot happened. What followed was completely unexpected!

Most people will probably say it was a good shot, but I'd love to hear Dr. Dave's @dr_dave take on it. Could you analyze the shot and help clear up whether it was legal under the rules?

Here's the exact moment:

Curious to hear what everyone thinks!

Here's my thorough analysis and re-creation of the shot:

The shot was most definitely a foul, but it was a tough call to make from the video alone.

Here are the links to the video chapters:

• 0:00 - Intro​
• 0:35 - The Situation​
• 2:19 - A Closer Look​
• 3:01 - The Drama​
• 4:19 - What He Meant to Do​
• 5:30 - Double Hit Evidence​
• 7:53 - What He Could Have Done Instead​
• 9:02 - Conclusions​

And here are the supporting resources:

• original video with shot​
• 90° rule tangent line​
• double hit detection and avoidance​
• miscue-related rules​
• fouls resource page​
• rules resource page​

 

[GideonF]

Here's my thorough analysis and re-creation of the shot:

The shot was most definitely a foul, but it was a tough call to make from the video alone.

Here are the links to the video chapters:

• 0:00 - Intro​
• 0:35 - The Situation​
• 2:19 - A Closer Look​
• 3:01 - The Drama​
• 4:19 - What He Meant to Do​
• 5:30 - Double Hit Evidence​
• 7:53 - What He Could Have Done Instead​
• 9:02 - Conclusions​

And here are the supporting resources:

• original video with shot​
• 90° rule tangent line​
• double hit detection and avoidance​
• miscue-related rules​
• fouls resource page​
• rules resource page​

When I watched the original video I couldn’t tell if it was going along the tangent line or forward of it. I don’t think anyone could call a foul based on the original video alone.

Given how close to the tangent line the 9b is in your re-creation, I wonder how far off you would have to be in order for the 9 to be on the tangent line?

I don’t know if you saw the comment yet but someone in the comments posted a link to a video with a different angle. I screen capped and slowed it down. Still looks very, very close to my untrained eye.

 

[straightline]

Here's my thorough analysis and re-creation of the shot:

The shot was most definitely a foul, but it was a tough call to make from the video alone.

Here are the links to the video chapters:

• 0:00 - Intro​
• 0:35 - The Situation​
• 2:19 - A Closer Look​
• 3:01 - The Drama​
• 4:19 - What He Meant to Do​
• 5:30 - Double Hit Evidence​
• 7:53 - What He Could Have Done Instead​
• 9:02 - Conclusions​

And here are the supporting resources:

• original video with shot​
• 90° rule tangent line​
• double hit detection and avoidance​
• miscue-related rules​
• fouls resource page​
• rules resource page​

Good call. No arguing the cue ball getting dragged like that. There's also the audible flam of the miscue which causes a curiously long audio smear in SM. Don't know if that's normal.

 

[dr_dave]

I wonder how far off you would have to be in order for the 9 to be on the tangent line?

Alcano’s shot had backspin. I don’t think it was possible to pocket both the 7 and 9 with backspin, even with full pocket cheat on the 7 (unless the 7 were overcut and there was skid, which didn’t seem to be the case).

I don’t know if you saw the comment yet but someone in the comments posted a link to a video with a different angle. I screen capped and slowed it down. Still looks very, very close to my untrained eye.

Thanks for sharing this, but I don’t think it offers any additional info. Do you?

 

[skogstokig]

but was it a triple hit?

 

[dr_dave]

Bottom line for me:

If a top view were available, where the cut direction and tangent line were clearer, the call would be much easier to make. With the limited views available, it was a tough call to make and the benefit of the doubt should probably go to the shooter (no foul call). The miscue was obvious, but the double hit was not (in the Alcano-shot videos available).

 

[GideonF]

Alcano’s shot had backspin. I don’t think it was possible to pocket both the 7 and 9 with backspin, even with full pocket cheat on the 7 (unless the 7 were overcut and there was skid, which didn’t seem to be the case).



Thanks for sharing this, but I don’t think it offers any additional info. Do you?

I wasn’t clear in my question. I meant how far off would you have to be in your ball placement for the 9b to have been on the tangent line? If you still have the reference marks in place, how much do you have to move the ball for the tangent line to lead to the 9?

In terms of the second video, I don’t think it shows anything definitive. That said, I don’t see any backspin on the CB when I slow it down. The video quality isn’t great but I *think* it’s probably showing the edge of the shaft hitting the CB on the miscue, but it’s not clear.

 

[dr_dave]

I wasn’t clear in my question. I meant how far off would you have to be in your ball placement for the 9b to have been on the tangent line? If you still have the reference marks in place, how much do you have to move the ball for the tangent line to lead to the 9?

I just looked and it appears that the 7 would need to be moved about 1 1/4" toward the top-left corner for the tangent line to head in a direction to barely pocket the 9, assuming no pocket cheating of the 7 into the upper corner. With maximum pocket cheat, it is closer to 1".

In terms of the second video, I don’t think it shows anything definitive. That said, I don’t see any backspin on the CB when I slow it down. The video quality isn’t great but I *think* it’s probably showing the edge of the shaft hitting the CB on the miscue, but it’s not clear.

As showed in my video, the CB in Alcano's shot definitely has backspin into the 7. At the slow speed of his shot (due to the miscue) it takes (and wears off) quickly after the CB hits the 7 (and after the likely double hit).

 

[Rocket354]

Here's my thorough analysis and re-creation of the shot:

The shot was most definitely a foul, but it was a tough call to make from the video alone.

Here are the links to the video chapters:

• 0:00 - Intro​
• 0:35 - The Situation​
• 2:19 - A Closer Look​
• 3:01 - The Drama​
• 4:19 - What He Meant to Do​
• 5:30 - Double Hit Evidence​
• 7:53 - What He Could Have Done Instead​
• 9:02 - Conclusions​

And here are the supporting resources:

• original video with shot​
• 90° rule tangent line​
• double hit detection and avoidance​
• miscue-related rules​
• fouls resource page​
• rules resource page​

Your effort and thoroughness is, as always, appreciated.

Your conclusion is less convincing to me. First, if the recreation of the layout of the balls is off by even the slightest amount, mere millimeters, that would change the evaluation of the shot. Maybe it wasn't possible in your recreation but in the reality that is slightly different, it was.

Secondly, you initially mention it's possible the cue hit the 7. I actually believed this to be the case upon first seeing the shot because of the speed of the 7 compared to the CB given the angles involved. However, you don't mention that possibility again or analyze it. You also demonstrate clean hits where the CB goes into the 9, but the 7 misses the pocket. Is it possible the cue hit the 7 directing it toward the pocket on an otherwise "clean" hit?

Of course clean has to be in quotations because we all know most miscues are actually double hits. Which of course makes this entire scenario very strange in that we are looking for evidence of a double hit, but apparently not the one caused by the miscue. So a triple hit? Is it possible the miscue's double hit is what caused the slightly off CB reaction, assuming the recreation was spot on? If so, why would that miscue not be a foul in some situations, but now is a foul in this situation?

All told, this really is an edge case of an edge case, and an interesting shot. I think replaying the rack is probably the best conclusion they could have come to.

 

[MattPoland]

Here's my thorough analysis and re-creation of the shot:

The shot was most definitely a foul, but it was a tough call to make from the video alone.

Here are the links to the video chapters:

• 0:00 - Intro​
• 0:35 - The Situation​
• 2:19 - A Closer Look​
• 3:01 - The Drama​
• 4:19 - What He Meant to Do​
• 5:30 - Double Hit Evidence​
• 7:53 - What He Could Have Done Instead​
• 9:02 - Conclusions​

And here are the supporting resources:

• original video with shot​
• 90° rule tangent line​
• double hit detection and avoidance​
• miscue-related rules​
• fouls resource page​
• rules resource page​

The current pool rulemakers are fully aware that all miscues involve both sliding tip contact with the ball (arguably a push foul for prolonged contact) and/or multiple tip, ferrule, or even shaft contact with the ball (arguably a double-hit foul).

And yet their philosophy is that even though a foul was most likely committed, the mistake of the miscue in and of itself is punishment enough. So they say we should ignore the likely push/double hit unless there is clearly visible evidence that occurred.

And yet the tradition has been to set a very weak standard of visible evidence. The cueball shooting away on a 45 degree angle from the shotline or the cueball accidentally scoop jumping into the air do not count as "clearly visible evidence".

And yet here in this video analysis the cueball going 5-10 degrees ahead of the tangent line on a miscue is treated as "clearly visible evidence". This situation begs for highly knowledgeable refs, slow motion video footage, and Dr Dave retrying the shot in a "Mythbuster video" to make the case.

The standards of "clearly visible evidence" are very incongruous in my opinion. I know it's an uphill battle to argue against decades of tradition. But this is the reason why I'm in support of all miscues being treated as fouls and to change the rules to be more strict. The mistake isn't punishment enough. This is a precision sport and the standards should be higher. The mistake in execution should be the foul. I know that's a debatable take with a tradeoff of pros and cons.

The exception I have in mind is the scenario where you're tree-topped over an obstructing object ball requiring a fairly elevated cue. Striking these shots very commonly have imperceptible sliding tip and multiple tip-contact but don't register to the eyes and ears as a miscue. I think we have to leave those shots alone as they are already difficult, require careful execution, and often themselves align with a strict definition of not demonstrating "clearly visible evidence" of bad contact.

 

[skogstokig]

The current pool rulemakers are fully aware that all miscues involve both sliding tip contact with the ball (arguably a push foul for prolonged contact) and/or multiple tip, ferrule, or even shaft contact with the ball (arguably a double-hit foul).

And yet their philosophy is that even though a foul was most likely committed, the mistake of the miscue in and of itself is punishment enough. So they say we should ignore the likely push/double hit unless there is clearly visible evidence that occurred.

And yet the tradition has been to set a very weak standard of visible evidence. The cueball shooting away on a 45 degree angle from the shotline or the cueball accidentally scoop jumping into the air do not count as "clearly visible evidence".

And yet here in this video analysis the cueball going 5-10 degrees ahead of the tangent line on a miscue is treated as "clearly visible evidence". This situation begs for highly knowledgeable refs, slow motion video footage, and Dr Dave retrying the shot in a "Mythbuster video" to make the case.

The standards of "clearly visible evidence" are very incongruous in my opinion. I know it's an uphill battle to argue against decades of tradition. But this is the reason why I'm in support of all miscues being treated as fouls and to change the rules to be more strict. The mistake isn't punishment enough. This is a precision sport and the standards should be higher. The mistake in execution should be the foul. I know that's a debatable take with a tradeoff of pros and cons.

The exception I have in mind is the scenario where you're tree-topped over an obstructing object ball requiring a fairly elevated cue. Striking these shots very commonly have imperceptible sliding tip and multiple tip-contact but don't register to the eyes and ears as a miscue. I think we have to leave those shots alone as they are already difficult, require careful execution, and often themselves align with a strict definition of not demonstrating "clearly visible evidence" of bad contact.

you make a good case for it.

 

[straightline]

Confused again. Must be a trap.