Search results

the attitude that buisness only get buisness at the expense of otherr buisness is not only destructive to every one but ultimtly tends to get the worst service at the highest cot n my oppinion. having run run a succseful buisness for 25 years now I understand that if I pass buisness on to...

ok got it thanks

If I where to cut the 10 ball in the upper left hand corner clearly the cue ball would have to completly leave the kitchen before contact with the object ball So my question is more to do with how the rule is written as I feel that is not a legal shot

I gueess the question would be if an object ball is just behind the head string and you back cut it to the corner the cue ball would by necesity cross the head string to cut it backwards. So form your statement is this correct and you can only play straight at a ball that is over the line...

so if the rule just pretains to the cue ball than you can shoot at an object ball that is on the line as long as you back cut the ball to your pocket, Thus sending the cue ball past the head string. Regardless of the posittion of the object ball?

Ty for that dr Dave from the review it clearly just barley glances 3 on the way in wich now makes sense why the rebound line is more equal to the 3 ball as it adjusts the angle of contact. Ty not only for the first video but for your continued diligence. I was struggling with how the cueball...

I am quite familiar with bob jewitt and the rule he quoted clearly stated playing without a refferee so I am not sure you read the thread. I would assume that with a refferee than the refferees point of veiw superseeds anything

My main question is the path of the cue ball which is clearly the only way you can determine this hit. In my mind since the cue ball goes in almost the exact same path as the cue ball it was clearly not a ball first unless it was super super thin hit. From the video form dr dave it apears that...

from looking at the replay I can honelty say I do not know if it was a good hit or not it was very close and you even said that there isa possible way it was a bad hit. so he made a judgment call which all refs need to do and basicly it is his final decision no matter how much it is disected after

I know it is possible but the ref is the final word and on a close call they are forced to make a decision. The main thing is that there is no question it was a fould because the ref called it a foul. That does not mean he was correct just the reality of the situation

honestly it is a foul because the ref called it a foul. The ref even went through and did his best to determine the answer and that is all you can ask.

if this has not sold I would like to buy it from you