An unusual foul called on me, anyone know this rule?

BRKNRUN said:
You are correct....


Many crimminals go free every day just for that reason.....;)


I have a hunch there is more to this story than a simple miscue...

Even if there was more... Based on the post the other player would have then identifed a different infraction than what should have been called......

Another reason why crimminals and/or traffic violators go free...The cop listed the wrong infraction.

The simple answer is

A miscue is not a foul.....The guy that called it a foul probably did not know the rules.......

But what fun would that be...Its more fun to speculate.....;)
Click to expand...


Your dog is foul.
 
Sorry guys but whether a typical ref would call it or not...which was not the question...the shot, as described is CLEARLY a foul.

Note that nearly all miscues are fouls...that clicking sound you hear is the ferrule making contact with the CB which is absolutely a foul under the rules.

BUT...because it is difficult to SEE the ferrule contact the CB, the rules provide a safe harbour in which the ferrule/CB contact is "clearly visible."

Well, when the player who was not attempting a jump shot, miscues and launches the CB off the table, it IS clearly visible that the ferrule and/or a portion of the shaft itself contacted the CB which did not leave the table by magic.

If left the table because it was struck from below by the ferrule and/or the shaft.


AGAIN...I am not saying that a foul would be called in every case...or in ANY similar case...I'm just saying what the rules are and that by rule, the player who called the foul was correct.

Granted it would help a LOT if the player calling the foul was much larger than the shooter and also fully trained in the martial arts.

8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
 
av84fun said:
... Well, when the player who was not attempting a jump shot, miscues and launches the CB off the table, it IS clearly visible that the ferrule and/or a portion of the shaft itself contacted the CB which did not leave the table by magic. ...
Click to expand...
You are making a deduction based on physics and not an observation. On such a shot you do not observe -- unless your eyes are much quicker than mine -- that the ferrule hits the ball. A scoop shot, as defined in the rule, gets quite a nice jump without the ferrule contacting the ball. (That's why the scoop shot was explicitly included in the rule.)
 
av84fun said:
Sorry guys but whether a typical ref would call it or not...which was not the question...the shot, as described is CLEARLY a foul.

Note that nearly all miscues are fouls...that clicking sound you hear is the ferrule making contact with the CB which is absolutely a foul under the rules.

BUT...because it is difficult to SEE the ferrule contact the CB, the rules provide a safe harbour in which the ferrule/CB contact is "clearly visible."

Well, when the player who was not attempting a jump shot, miscues and launches the CB off the table, it IS clearly visible that the ferrule and/or a portion of the shaft itself contacted the CB which did not leave the table by magic.

If left the table because it was struck from below by the ferrule and/or the shaft.


AGAIN...I am not saying that a foul would be called in every case...or in ANY similar case...I'm just saying what the rules are and that by rule, the player who called the foul was correct.

Granted it would help a LOT if the player calling the foul was much larger than the shooter and also fully trained in the martial arts.

8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
Click to expand...


Those two bolded lines are the cause of the gray area. and the reason on my origonal post I mentioned I would have to see the actual shot to make a call.

since in the miscue rule itself states that "usually" and "some"...that implies that not "all" miscues have that occurence.

It is possible to miscue with side english and not have the side of the cue hit the ball....

There is acually a few specific shots that you intentionally miscue off to the upper side of the CB (when it is very near an object ball)

I think the foul is the cue hitting the CB a second time, which would fall under a double hit rule...I do think the mis-cue is the catalyst to the foul....but it has to be clearly visable to call...which at real time speed it hardley is...(other than the obvious sound)

I again refer back to my origonal post...Look at the reacion of your opponent...It will usually tell you if it was a good or bad miscue... ;)
 
Jude Rosenstock said:
The OP has failed to describe a foul. If he tells us he was using a 30 inch cue, bridging with his shirt tail in his hand while sitting on the table, then yes, I would say he fouled.
Click to expand...

Does not BCA Rules say a Cue must be a minimum of 40"
 
Bob Jewett said:
You are making a deduction based on physics and not an observation. On such a shot you do not observe -- unless your eyes are much quicker than mine -- that the ferrule hits the ball. A scoop shot, as defined in the rule, gets quite a nice jump without the ferrule contacting the ball. (That's why the scoop shot was explicitly included in the rule.)
Click to expand...

Point well taken Bob. But as you know, LOTS of fouls are called based on infractions that cannot be easily seen...like good/bad hits on closely spaced OBs or double hits where the foul is called based on ball behavior.

In addition, sound is a sense that is just as good and often better than sight. When you hear the clicking sound, there is no question that the tip or ferrule has contacted the OB...which is precisely why the "sharp sound" is created. Maybe the ref doesn't SEE such fouls...but he doesn't smell, touch or taste them either! (-: So in such cases, SOUND and not sight is the definitive sense.

Yes, it is possible to scoop the ball without ferrule/shaft contact but the OP admitted to having miscued and in the case of a miscued scoop shot, I don't think it is possible to accomplish such a thing without ferrule/shaft contact.

It seems to me that such fouls should be called because they HAD to have occurred...just like double taps etc.

Regards,
Jim
 
Good goobity dam.....if he needed to jump (obvious me thinks) and scooped,he fouled.

If he didn't need to jump (obvious again I'm sure) and went for a draw shot that elevated the cueball,but got lucky enough to make a good hit and rail...no foul.

I don't care how many rule books get quoted in this thread.What I posted above is how I would call and/or act on this shot if it occured during my match.

The "spirit" of the game folks...its a no brainer.
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
Does not BCA Rules say a Cue must be a minimum of 40"
Click to expand...

Yes. The BCA has adopted the WPA equipment specs.

17. Cue Sticks
Cue Sticks used at WPA competitions should comply with the following
during play at table:

Length of Cue: 40 inches [1.016 m] minimum / No Maximum
Weight of Cue: No minimum / 25 oz. [708.75 gm] maximum
Width of Tip: No minimum / 14mm maximum
 
Mike Danner's Shot

Mike Danner, the guy who invented the Stretch Bridge System taught me a shot that I don't think is a foul:

The cue ball and the object ball are close together. They are separated by approximately one inch.

The shot is shot very hard with low Draw but I mean REALLY low draw. The tip hits the bottom of the cue ball and drives the cue ball upward above the equator of the object ball. The object ball moves forward at a rapid rate of speed but the cue ball bounces off of the object ball and goes straight up in the air and comes down with a little draw still on the cue ball and either stay right where it lands or draws back a little.

No ball is attempted to be cleared and basically the goal is to prevent a double hit on the cue ball and also to maintain a certain position for the cue ball.

Is this a foul?
JoeyA
 
You got sharked. I had this happen to me years ago and had to go to the TD for a ruling (clearly NO foul).
After the tournament the TD told me that wasn't the first time my opponent tried to pull this one.
It's pretty amazing the crap some people will try to get an edge, but this kind of behavior isn't just limited to pool.
 
JoeyA said:
Mike Danner, the guy who invented the Stretch Bridge System taught me a shot that I don't think is a foul:

The cue ball and the object ball are close together. They are separated by approximately one inch.

The shot is shot very hard with low Draw but I mean REALLY low draw. The tip hits the bottom of the cue ball and drives the cue ball upward above the equator of the object ball. The object ball moves forward at a rapid rate of speed but the cue ball bounces off of the object ball and goes straight up in the air and comes down with a little draw still on the cue ball and either stay right where it lands or draws back a little.

No ball is attempted to be cleared and basically the goal is to prevent a double hit on the cue ball and also to maintain a certain position for the cue ball.

Is this a foul?
JoeyA
Click to expand...

Got to try that shot, thank for the heads up.
 
good post

MBTaylor said:
If I am not mistaken, the rule you quoted is from the APA National Rules.

In APA, local rules/bylaws supersede the national rules when playing regular session and playoff matches, unless your APA league abides by national rules only. I say that because in many local APA leagues, local bylaws written up by the league operator are used to close gaps in the national rules or address specific issues.

If a person calls a foul, and you disagree, they must show you in writing. If they cannot do so, then there is no foul, hence no BIH.

Therefore, sometimes it is wise to ask the person, "Please show me in the bylaws where this is a BIH situation......"

If they cannot back up their position by quoting the bylaws, shoot on as if nothing happened.
Click to expand...

This is a good post explaining the variance in rules from the "regular" season, and regional and national competition. Personally I couldn't imagine a guy calling such a ticky tacky foul even if he was right, which he wasn't. I play on four different teams and have been in every league you can think of. One of the things we talk about once in a while, is players that try to call ridiculous fouls. The other night we played a new team that didn't know the rules, and I could have called all sorts of fouls, but I didn't. I like to win, but not bad enough to call little fouls on people.

I will say that some of the rules need more clarification, but not this one. He would have had to show me that one in writing, and even then, it could come down to interpretation of the rule.
 
JoeyA said:
Mike Danner, the guy who invented the Stretch Bridge System taught me a shot that I don't think is a foul:

The cue ball and the object ball are close together. They are separated by approximately one inch.

The shot is shot very hard with low Draw but I mean REALLY low draw. The tip hits the bottom of the cue ball and drives the cue ball upward above the equator of the object ball. The object ball moves forward at a rapid rate of speed but the cue ball bounces off of the object ball and goes straight up in the air and comes down with a little draw still on the cue ball and either stay right where it lands or draws back a little.

No ball is attempted to be cleared and basically the goal is to prevent a double hit on the cue ball and also to maintain a certain position for the cue ball.

Is this a foul?
JoeyA
Click to expand...
Sounds like a scoop shot -- as defined in the rules, so you may have to read them to know what I mean -- so it is a foul. It is also unsportsmanlike conduct since it is an intentional miscue. The rules are on-line at www.wpa-pool.com

Can he play the same shot with side rather than draw?
 
Thunderball said:
Good goobity dam.....if he needed to jump (obvious me thinks) and scooped,he fouled.

If he didn't need to jump (obvious again I'm sure) and went for a draw shot that elevated the cueball,but got lucky enough to make a good hit and rail...no foul.

I don't care how many rule books get quoted in this thread.What I posted above is how I would call and/or act on this shot if it occured during my match.

The "spirit" of the game folks...its a no brainer.
Click to expand...

With respect, your position is one of the many things that the pool community could improve upon.

Golf, tennis and virtually every other major sport can be played anywhere in the world without arguments over what is and is not legal but not so with pool.

People like Bob Jewett spend countless hours attempting to standardize the rules and yet there are those who say what you say they don't care about the rules and will play however they think is best.

I am not flaming you AT ALL and totally respect your right to your views. I am just saying that IMHO, it is not helpful to the game of pool to have sort of a Dodge City mentality regarding how the game should be played.

Having said that, I think that there is MUCH work yet to be done on the WSRs and the not exactly comparable BCA rule set which, in spite of tons of hard work, can still be made more foolproof....as this thread and others demonstrates.

Just one example is my point that a ref can and will call good/bad hits on closely spaced OBs...even when the shooter uses break speed on the shot and actually perceiving the hit is beyond the capability of the human eye.

Such shots are called based on the behavior of the balls after impact because such behavior is conclusive.

But the SOUND of a hard surface such as the ferrule or shaft contacting the CB...which we hear clearly on most miscues and which cannot be caused by the relatively soft tip...is NOT ruled a foul because you can't SEE that contact. But that should make no difference because a blind man can call the foul correctly without fail.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Jim
 
not a foul ! seen it too many times and experienced it as well. it's a miscue and unintentional jump. regular players would normally let those shots go without questioning it's legality.

* note: only a foul when you scoop the CB during a jump attempt. clearly different scenario from a simple miscue.
 
I dont think its a foul, I wouldnt call it on anyone,

I will play anyone in the world who attempts scoop shots(thinking they are a good idea) for what ever they can stand and i'd even let them call this a foul on me ;) I like to keep my customers happy.
 
I always thought the rule was something like the tip of the cue cannot make contact with the table before (or maybe at the same time) it makes contact with the cue ball. Stated this way, an intentional scoop shot is obviously a foul, but a miscue is different.

Kelly
 
I got ya Jim..and no disrespect felt.

My point was and is still valid in my eyes though....but this is from my pespective...which is league banger/hoper ect.

If the OP scoops an obvious jump,its a foul..and is called.

If he hops a draw shot,its not ...providing a good hit/rail ect.

Regarding the "sound" of the hit...well,I' ll see if if I can find a thread that I started a while back about a somtimes "clickty cue" that may pull you off of that point.Perhaps it won't,but it may make you reconsider...it was a thread I started quite a while back about a cue that "sounded" like it was miscueing,even on well chalked center ball hits.

I do,however see your greater point of the need for distinct clarification and frankly I welcome it.

My reply was and is my interpretation considering my situations given my level of play and my OPs.At levels where these things might be exploited and used to an advantage in the most precise of manners,I can see the potential need.....I just need two more decades of practice to see how that might be lol.

(I'll edit in the clikity cue thread if I can find it)...EDIT:.... here it is:http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=82105

Just saying...the ears are not a lock either...the problem with this cue was in the joint.(surpised the shit outta me fwiw)

Ken
 
Last edited:
Got you two Ken...Thanks!

Re: the clickety cue, I assume it had a loose ferrule or weight bolt but I also assume that it clicked on most or all shots so that...you are right...the clicking sound would not be definitive.

But on 99.999% of the cues in use, the clicking sound clearly proves ferrule/shaft contact with the cue ball.

If I recall correctly, opinions from the community are solicited whenever the WPA holds its rules changing sessions and when the next one takes place, all I'm saying is that one of my suggestions would be that fouls can and should be called by the operation of EITHER sight, sound or ball behavior...especially since in many potential foul situations, sight is the LEAST definitive means of detection.

Regards,
Jim

PS: To be clear, I wouldn't have called the shot in question a foul either. I was just commenting on the rule.
(-:
 
Bob Jewett said:
You are making a deduction based on physics and not an observation. On such a shot you do not observe -- unless your eyes are much quicker than mine -- that the ferrule hits the ball. A scoop shot, as defined in the rule, gets quite a nice jump without the ferrule contacting the ball. (That's why the scoop shot was explicitly included in the rule.)
Click to expand...


just curious ...

I am not a big fan of jumping the balls in the first place but why is one technique legal and another not? either you are allowed jump the balls or you are not.. why do the rules dictate a specific technique?

considering evidence has shown that on hard break shots the cue ball does actually leave the table before hitting the rack... i.e. jumping with a level cue..a hard break should be illegal by the strictest interpretation of the rules..

I am just curious as to why the scoop shot was made illegal in the first place..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top