3 cushion question

doubletrouble

doubletrouble

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
watching a accu-stats video of cuelmanns and lee for about the 100th time and noticed that on a cuelmanns shot, he hit the object ball after
just 1 cushion, but then the cue ball goes 2 more cushions and hits the count ball again. got to thinking its 3 cushions albiet the lucky way, but
no count. is this right? or did the ref miss what i missed the 1st 99 views of this contest?
 
doubletrouble said:
watching a accu-stats video of cuelmanns and lee for about the 100th time and noticed that on a cuelmanns shot, he hit the object ball after
just 1 cushion, but then the cue ball goes 2 more cushions and hits the count ball again. got to thinking its 3 cushions albiet the lucky way, but
no count. is this right? or did the ref miss what i missed the 1st 99 views of this contest?
Click to expand...

The shot in question is called a, "ticky-tic". Cushion, ball,cushion, cushion, ball for the score!

Bill Smith "Mr3Cushion"
http://mr3cushion.com
 
A score is defined as contacting both object balls and 3 rails prior to contact with the 2nd ball. Order not important, as long as both the aforementioned requirements are met.
 
doubletrouble said:
watching a accu-stats video of cuelmanns and lee for about the 100th time and noticed that on a cuelmanns shot, he hit the object ball after just 1 cushion, but then the cue ball goes 2 more cushions and hits the count ball again. got to thinking its 3 cushions albiet the lucky way, but no count. is this right? or did the ref miss what i missed the 1st 99 views of this contest?
Click to expand...
I assume this is Raymond Ceulemans and Sang Chun Lee. Which tournament was it? Any chance the video is on Youtube?

The shot you describe could be a ticky, or a rail-first off the outside of the ball, or even a "Schaefer shot" which is side rail with reverse, ball near the corner, end rail, same side rail and out.

I'm certain that both Ceulemans and Lee knew exactly whether the shot was legal or not and neither one of them would have taken a point that was unclear. In general, their calls are more accurate than those of the referees.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I assume this is Raymond Ceulemans and Sang Chun Lee. Which tournament was it? Any chance the video is on Youtube?

The shot you describe could be a ticky, or a rail-first off the outside of the ball, or even a "Schaefer shot" which is side rail with reverse, ball near the corner, end rail, same side rail and out.

I'm certain that both Ceulemans and Lee knew exactly whether the shot was legal or not and neither one of them would have taken a point that was unclear. In general, their calls are more accurate than those of the referees.
Click to expand...

Certainly neither of them would take a point that was questionable, and it could have been any of the shots you mention.

But what does the OP mean by "hits the count ball AGAIN"? It sounds to me that he is describing a shot where the second object ball is struck after just one cushion and then struck again after two more cushions. I am often asked by novices whether such a shot counts; after all he did hit both balls and three cushions which seems to abide by the wording offered above by Black-Balled. (The rule should include the words "for the first time".)
 
mark got it right. count ball hit after 1 cushion (mistake) goes two more rails and hits count ball again. wouldn't think it was a score, but really didn't know. the video is raymond cuelmanns and sang lee-accu-stats carl s. conlon memorial world cup 2001. believe it was held in vegas. don't know if it on you tube.
 
double,

I have that DVD. Tell me which shot you're asking about, and I will have a look. Which set was it in and what was the score at the time?
 
mbvl said:
Certainly neither of them would take a point that was questionable, and it could have been any of the shots you mention.

But what does the OP mean by "hits the count ball AGAIN"? It sounds to me that he is describing a shot where the second object ball is struck after just one cushion and then struck again after two more cushions. I am often asked by novices whether such a shot counts; after all he did hit both balls and three cushions which seems to abide by the wording offered above by Black-Balled. (The rule should include the words "for the first time".)
Click to expand...

No point! "3 rails prior to contact with the 2nd ball, say I!
 
Black-Balled said:
A score is defined as contacting both object balls and 3 rails prior to contact with the 2nd ball. Order not important, as long as both the aforementioned requirements are met.
Click to expand...
That should, of course, be "prior to first contact with the 2nd ball" or else hitting both balls then three cushions and then the second ball for the second time would arguably be a point. One must be careful with the words of rules.

But we still don't have a clear description of the shot in question.
 
will have to have a look again. it's later in the match, i'd say 3rd or 4th set.
I have that DVD. Tell me which shot you're asking about, and I will have a look. Which set was it in and what was the score at the time?[/QUOTE]
 
mbvl said:
double,

I have that DVD. Tell me which shot you're asking about, and I will have a look. Which set was it in and what was the score at the time?
Click to expand...

occurs in the 4th set. score is 13-6 cuelmanns. cuelmanns shooting for point in question. no count.
 
doubletrouble said:
occurs in the 4th set. score is 13-6 cuelmanns. cuelmanns shooting for point in question. no count.
Click to expand...

I watched the shot in question. Raymond is trying a 4-railer off white which is near the middle of the short cushion. To get the proper angle to the second cushion he must come quite close to the red. He hits the red on the way by, then hits the red again after two more cushions.

So the point doesn't count for the reason explained above.
 
mbvl said:
I watched the shot in question. Raymond is trying a 4-railer off white which is near the middle of the short cushion. To get the proper angle to the second cushion he must come quite close to the red. He hits the red on the way by, then hits the red again after two more cushions.

So the point doesn't count for the reason explained above.
Click to expand...
I assume that he sat down as soon as the first contact on red happened.

I notice now that I misread the OP, which assumes that such a point would be good (I think).
 
Bob Jewett said:
I assume that he sat down as soon as the first contact on red happened.

I notice now that I misread the OP, which assumes that such a point would be good (I think).
Click to expand...

yep, went to seat directly. sang's top run in the 5 sets is 10 or 11 which had 2 kiss-ins during run. good stuff. thought maybe raymond snuck a lucky 1 in there, but guess not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top