1mm Jumps are NOT legal, I'm convinced

It is possible to clear the blocking ball ball when the cue ball is about a chalk's width to half a chalk's width apart from the blocking ball at less than a 90 degree angle approach on the cueball. There is no chance that the shaft is causing the forward motion on this shot. So I think that it's possible that the forward motion is not from the shaft on the 1mm jump. In any case it faster than the eye can see and so it's "legal" :-)
 
belmicah said:
For you idiots that are thinking that the cueball is moving forward because it is spinning in the air (like a baseball) your argument would be valid, if the cue ball wasn't so phucking dense (mass/volume) and SPINNING THE WRONG WAY!

Good argument though, really well thought out:p :p :p
Click to expand...

No actually they are correct, the ball would just have to curve on its way downward (which would never happen anyways).
To jcrack_corn a baseball pitching machine can spin a ball very quickly, but its very possible for a pitcher to get the same rpm's on the ball. But it is the seams on the baseball that makes it curve, slide, dive as it's thrown. Also remember that it takes a good amount of speed for the ball to be thrown for the spin to have any effect over just the falling motion of gravity.
 
The CheeZe said:
No actually they are correct, the ball would just have to curve on its way downward (which would never happen anyways).
To jcrack_corn a baseball pitching machine can spin a ball very quickly, but its very possible for a pitcher to get the same rpm's on the ball. But it is the seams on the baseball that makes it curve, slide, dive as it's thrown. Also remember that it takes a good amount of speed for the ball to be thrown for the spin to have any effect over just the falling motion of gravity.
Click to expand...
I pitched for ~15 years. I knew exactly what to do to make the ball spin. It was stated earlier in previous posts that the smoothness of the surface of the cue ball keeps it from curving due to its spin. This is very true.

Also, what I stated about the direction of spin also holds true, even if it had seams.
 
belmicah said:
For you idiots that are thinking that the cueball is moving forward because it is spinning in the air (like a baseball) your argument would be valid, if the cue ball wasn't so phucking dense (mass/volume) and SPINNING THE WRONG WAY!

Good argument though, really well thought out:p :p :p
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that...Isaac Newton was right???
 
Snapshot9 said:
Eric ... Thanks for the video. But, I would like to see Larry Nevel's 1mm jump shot video broken down to slow-mo that is on the X-breaker website. If, in fact, his showed the same thing as yours, then I would be 100% convinced.
Click to expand...

The way I see it, the natural laws of physics do not allow a legal jump shot to be made so close. As another poster said if you could go up at an angle that would hit neither the interferring object ball or the shaft the amount of forward force on the cue ball would be minimal, the almost all of the force would be vertical. The cue ball would have to go ridiculously high to get pass the interferring object ball. The shot cannot be done without some kind of force being applied to it after it is in motion, that is a double hit.
Nevertheless, it is one hell of a shot, illegal or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top