I think the BCAPL rules explains it best. Definitely a foul.
So this makes swoop shots illegal then.
Hope nobody has been wasting their time perfecting this illegal technique! :thumbup:
Is this a legal shot?
- Thread starter BRussell
- Start date
So this makes swoop shots illegal then.
Hope nobody has been wasting their time perfecting this illegal technique! :thumbup:
I guess the forward motion depends on how you lift the stick. If you go straight up with the stick then there is no forward motion, however if you flick your wrist then you create and arc with the tip even if it's very slight. That could be considered forward motion. But questionable if it's could be considered a stroke.
Swoop shots as in a jump shot done by scooping under the cueball? Those are illegal outside of the legal stroke rule. A scoop shot is done with a mostly legal stroke but with an illegal result. It's is basically a deliberate mis-cue from the bottom of the ball along with ferrule contact, which is all sorts of illegal. Or do you mean shots done by placing the tip under the ball and pushing the tip upwards?
Just for history, if you look up "is this a legal stroke," you'll see this same shot discussed about a hundred times. That's one reason why it's explicitly handled in BCAPL. I wish it were explicit in WSR, APA and VNEA. As long as it's not taken care of in all governing bodies, it will continue to be discussed.
Freddie
I was spotting the guy 9-6, just $40 a game. I had him trapped like crazy. He reaches into his pocket, pulls a ball out and spots it, then sits down. It really didn't matter because I stuck him again. He screwed up and I ran out. I've come to accept that sportsmanship is a rarity in one pocket. Lol
A swoop shot is one in which your tip is moving left to right (or right to left) along with also moving forward at the moment of impact with the cue ball. It is essentially like applying backhand english during the final stroke/cue ball contact instead of applying it beforehand. While there are some that believe otherwise, the swoop stroke offers no real benefit but it does come with a lot of downside since it is yet another variable in the mix that can go wrong and that has to be timed and judged and executed perfectly.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/stroke.html#swoop
http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2015/aug15.pdf
That would be an intentional miscue which would be a foul at best and unsportsmanlike conduct (which potentially more severe penalties) at worst. Your shot and the ramifications for it are discussed in post #'s 23, 25, and 29.
I would think u could do it without a miscue. Sorta like the shot in the movie hustler where cue ball froze on back rail and object ball is touching it. He hits top of cue ball at the rail and kicks object ball down corner. Of course that is illegal since they are already touching but in the example here there is some distance between the object ball and cueball. Just seems to me you be able get the stick out the way faster if hitting the top of ball rather than the bottom and you wouldn't have to lift or hit sideways on the cue
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
The tip sliding off the edge of the cue ball is what a miscue is be definition. That is what is happening in your suggested shot. If the tip wasn't sliding off the edge of the ball (miscueing) then there would be no need to have to hit near the very edge of the ball to begin with--you could just hit center ball or anywhere else instead and get the same result. The whole benefit in your suggested shot is that because of the miscue not all of the forward energy from the tip gets transferred into the cue ball and so the cue ball doesn't move very much.
Last edited:
Ok I see what u mean. I been saying for years if a lawyer becomes a pro pool player we are all in trouble cause of so many unknown rules haha. Also just curious by that definition of a miscue couldn't Alot of people be called on a miscue foul if they are simply using to much side English. I've seen a lot of times especially newer shooters use to much English they make a good hit but like u said not all the forward energy from the tip would get transferred
Also the shot I was talking about if in this situation. The cue ball should move just as much or more than the cueball does in the video posted
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Also the shot I was talking about if in this situation. The cue ball should move just as much or more than the cueball does in the video posted
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I see what you're saying, and I agree with you. The problem is that unless the guy admits he was intentionally miscuing, how can someone call it a foul? People miscue all the time without a foul being called as long as a ball gets a rail.
Check out posts 25 and 29. Only intentional miscues are fouls unless there is obvious secondary contact between the cue ball and some part of the cue stick etc. If your miscue is not intentional, and is not otherwise an obvious foul like the ferrule or shaft making obvious contact with the cue ball, then it is considered to be a legal shot.
If the cue ball would move in your shot more than it does in the video in the first post, then you didn't hit it very good. You either hit it too hard, or didn't hit close enough to the edge to get a good miscue (and if you aren't hitting close enough to the edge to get the miscue then you might as well just hit center ball because where you hit isn't making much difference until you get close enough to the edge to get the miscue).
Sometimes it is pretty obvious. Like in the shot in the video in post 1, if you just try to graze the very top of the cue ball like HoldemRw mentioned it is obvious why you are doing that, so that you can get the intentional miscue, even if you didn't realize that it was in fact a miscue. A scoop shot is another example of an obvious miscue and of course there are others. Some will be harder to determine intent on though, or they will be easier for your opponent to argue and proclaim innocence on even if it wasn't innocent, but there are tough calls to be made and arguments that will occur not unlike with lots of other things such as whether you grazed the object ball you were trying to hit or not, or whether you got a rail or not after contact on an object ball that was close to the rail, or whether a shot was a double hit or not, or whether you hit my ball or your ball first, etc.
Last edited:
Ok I see ur point. I was talking about hitting top of cue ball just because I know if object and cueball are certain distance apart they say it's impossible to move ur cue out the way fast enough causing a,2nd hit foul. But to me that's when the rules get hazy. Who is to say whether it was a intentional miscue or not a referee who we know more than likely there isn't one watching at the time in 95% of the tourneys across USA
To me these rules are part of the problem with pool catching on in our country with our youth I can't tell u how many times I've seen guys playing for fun, couple bucks, or high stakes and 1 of these subjective rules pop up and cause a argument or better yet just deter the newbies from wanting to join or play with the more experienced
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
To me these rules are part of the problem with pool catching on in our country with our youth I can't tell u how many times I've seen guys playing for fun, couple bucks, or high stakes and 1 of these subjective rules pop up and cause a argument or better yet just deter the newbies from wanting to join or play with the more experienced
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Well in a shot like in the original video, if you try to just graze the very top of the cue ball then it is obvious that it was intentional. You didn't choose to graze the very edge of the ball for no reason, you did it because you were trying to get the miscue and would get a big benefit from it in this particular case, and so it is obviously intentional since there was otherwise no reason to hit so close to the edge here. Some miscues will be hard to determine whether they are intentional or not just like there are other tough calls in pool that will lead to arguments or to the "tie going to the runner".
I know what u mean I was just pointing out the million problems with the rules haha. Iam sure we have all seen this pop up as well. Guy lines up fairly straight in shot and maybe needs to use Alot of low English to setup leave on next ball. He hits cueball immediately says dang I miscue and u can hear the miscue but the ball he called still went in called pocket. Can I call a foul. As was said before we know he intentionally put that low English for position on next ball and by miscue definition he miscued??
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
He is shooting away from the object ball in that shot. It can be a legal shot.
Further, if the cue ball is frozen to the object ball, it is legal to shoot the cue ball towards the ball it's frozen to. In the case of the Hustler opening scene bank on the 8 ball, high speed video shows that the shot may be legal but sometimes there is ferrule-cueball contact. (The shot was studied in the Jacksonville Experiment.)
No. Unintentional miscues are condoned by the rules and unless a second hit is clearly visible, no foul is called.
I can't picture that froze bank being a legal hit, Bob.
Paul Bruesloff showed me that shot in Detroit a long time ago...he said he could prove
it was a bad hit....he cleaned the cue....and breathed on it to fog it up....
...then he made the bank and showed six or seven different chalk marks on the cue ball.
Paul said he didn't think anybody could make the shot and leave one chalk mark.
pt...gonna google Jacksonville experiment.