Another Bad Draw-Miscue-Scoop Foul Call in a Major Pro Pool Tournament

Island Drive said:
Karma??.... I'd like to know who Chose the ref, Better yet what are the refs qualifications? These are valid questions a billiard judge would ask.
Life. :)
Click to expand...
I was joking with the whole Karma thing, but now I realize it was very inappropriate and takes away from the important messages of the video.
 
I would be in favor of a rule change where all miscues (including accidental scoops) would be deemed fouls. I’m sure it opens up a can of worms but being lenient on miscues feels amateurish like playing with cueball fouls only. I think the official and professional version of our precision sport we all love should hold itself to a higher standard. It’s not like APA or CSI would necessarily follow suit anyway.
 
MattPoland said:
I would be in favor of a rule change where all miscues (including accidental scoops) would be deemed fouls. I’m sure it opens up a can of worms but being lenient on miscues feels amateurish like playing with cueball fouls only. I think the official and professional version of our precision sport we all love should hold itself to a higher standard. It’s not like APA or CSI would necessarily follow suit anyway.
Click to expand...

I used to think that way also, but I now worry that the change would come with too many problems including the following:
  1. Miscues have never been considered fouls in the past, so this would be a major change to the sport and many people will find it difficult to accept.
  2. It is not always possible to be sure a miscue occurred. You can't judge them by sound, especially in a noisy environment, and especially with many people playing simultaneously on surrounding tables.
  3. Sometimes "partial miscues" occur, where the tip slips during contact, but not at the beginning of contact. These shots sometimes sound a little funny, and the CB might deflect a little more than normal, but they are not "blatant miscues."
What do other people think about this?
 
MattPoland said:
I would be in favor of a rule change where all miscues (including accidental scoops) would be deemed fouls. I’m sure it opens up a can of worms but being lenient on miscues feels amateurish like playing with cueball fouls only. I think the official and professional version of our precision sport we all love should hold itself to a higher standard. It’s not like APA or CSI would necessarily follow suit anyway.
Click to expand...
If it feels to me like I'm rubbing down the side of the ball when I do it I give up ball in hand, I don't want to carry that around for the rest of the match. Opponents ask why, I tell them I hit the ball twice.
 
Miscues happen ALLOT more now a days with layered tips than they EVER did in my past with Single Layered Tips.
I've seen thee best miscue (not always on power draw shots).... SO unexpectedly on simple shots, I NEVER saw that, unless the player jumped up or moved during execution.
It's the material between the layers creating a non leather surface/Slippage.
Be chalked up 100% and Scuffed 100%.... Also Swing Straight :).
Then you'll miscue ALLOT less. :)
 
I have on occasion Felt a double hit as I accelerate through the cue ball. I will tell on myself to avoid any Bad Karma. 🤷‍♂️ Karma is self inflicted. 🤷‍♂️ And definitely A Bitch 😉
Of course if my opponent has demonstrated that they are an Ass Hat, I will exercise My right to remain silent.
 
dr_dave said:
I used to think that way also, but I now worry that the change would come with too many problems including the following:

1. Miscues have never been considered fouls in the past, so this would be a major change to the sport and many people will find it difficult to accept
Click to expand...
I get that. Major sports make major rules revisions. Not often but it happens. Some people complain. Some people applaud. And you move on. For me its common sense miscues should be fouls. So much so that it's winked and nodded at as most likely violating other rules and we fiat them to be not fouls. It makes more sense to me to fiat them as fouls. Assuming CSI, APA and VNEA would likely lag behind adopting the same rule change (if ever like all ball fouls), the number of people affected is reduced to those that participate in professional events.

dr_dave said:
2. It is not always possible to be sure a miscue occurred. You can't judge them by sound, especially in a noisy environment, and especially with many people playing simultaneously on surrounding tables.
Click to expand...
I think the rule could be written in a manner that makes this less difficult. Start with "a sharp tinky sound may alert the players a miscue has occurred but alone is not evidence for a miscue. A miscue must be judged by an abnormal redirection of the cueball trajectory from the intended shot line, including a scoop jump on draw shot or a horizontal redirection beyond typical deflection upon use of sidespin." I'm sure that could easily be wordsmithed for clarity.

dr_dave said:
3. Sometimes "partial miscues" occur, where the tip slips during contact, but not at the beginning of contact. These shots sometimes sound a little funny, and the CB might deflect a little more than normal, but they are not "blatant miscues."
Click to expand...
I'm not really interested in a partial vs blatant distinction. Did you not have enough chalk? Did you strike past the miscue limit? Did the tip slide off the CB? I don't care the reason or severity. There is a normal amount a CB should deflect. If the cueball deflects by (pick a number...15?) degrees or more from the intended shot line then the stroke will be judged a miscue.
 
Last edited:
MattPoland said:
I get that. Major sports make major rules revisions. Not often but it happens. Some people complain. Some people applaud. And you move on. For me its common sense miscues should be fouls. So much so that it's winked and nodded at as most likely violating other rules and we fiat them to be not fouls. It makes more sense to me to fiat them as fouls. Assuming CSI, APA and VNEA would likely lag behind adopting the same rule change (if ever like all ball fouls), the number of people affected is reduced to those that participate in professional events.

I think the rule could be written in a manner that makes this less difficult. Start with "a sharp tinky sound may alert the players a miscue has occurred but alone is not evidence for a miscue. A miscue must be judged by an abnormal redirection of the cueball trajectory from the intended shot line, including a scoop jump on draw shot or a horizontal redirection beyond typical deflection upon use of sidespin." I'm sure that could easily be wordsmithed for clarity.

I'm not really interested in a partial vs blatant distinction. Did you not have enough chalk? Did you strike past the miscue limit? Did the tip slide off the CB? I don't care the reason or severity. There is a normal amount a CB should deflect. If the cueball deflects by (pick a number...15?) degrees or more from the intended shot line then the stroke will be judged a miscue.
Click to expand...

All good points that are certainly worth consideration by the WPA Rules Committee.

Another problem is that it is possible to miscue and have larger-than-normal CB deflection with only the tip striking and quickly sliding off the CB, with no secondary contact with the tip, ferrule, or shaft.

The general philosophy of the rules is that a foul (double hit, contact with shaft, etc.) should not be called unless there is clear visual evidence that a foul has occurred, and any benefit of doubt must always go to the shooter (no foul).

To properly judge if a miscue is actually a foul or not, super-high-speed video equipment would be required filming every shot. That is not practical.

Now, as you suggest, the decision could be made to make all miscues fouls; but again, I think this would be a really hard sell, and "the devil is in the details" of how such a rule would be worded so it could be applied consistently without too much judgement required. It might be difficult to "pick a number" for an acceptable amount of CB deflection for a non-miscue shot. And again, "partial miscues" and different types of miscues can create a wide range of CB deflections from the ideal path.

It might be easy to say: "I know a miscue when I see one," but the rules must be very precise and easy to apply consistently.
 
dr_dave said:
All good points that are certainly worth consideration by the WPA Rules Committee.

Another problem is that it is possible to miscue and have larger-than-normal CB deflection with only the tip striking and quickly sliding off the CB, with no secondary contact with the tip, ferrule, or shaft.

The general philosophy of the rules is that a foul (double hit, contact with shaft, etc.) should not be called unless there is clear visual evidence that a foul has occurred, and any benefit of doubt must always go to the shooter (no foul).

To properly judge if a miscue is actually a foul or not, super-high-speed video equipment would be required filming every shot. That is not practical.

Now, as you suggest, the decision could be made to make all miscues fouls; but again, I think this would be a really hard sell, and "the devil is in the details" of how such a rule would be worded so it could be applied consistently without too much judgement required. It might be difficult to "pick a number" for an acceptable amount of CB deflection for a non-miscue shot. And again, "partial miscues" and different types of miscues can create a wide range of CB deflections from the ideal path.

It might be easy to say: "I know a miscue when I see one," but the rules must be very precise and easy to apply consistently.
Click to expand...

I accept my take on this is a single data point of preference and hypothetically if I was on the rules committee I wouldn't officially advocate for a change without gauging the preferences of professional players and referees. And like you said earlier, I'd also be curious how others in AZB feel about it.

But my preference wouldn't be "miscues are fouls when they are double-hits and/or shaft contact" leaving open the possibility of "miscues aren't fouls when they are only sliding single-hit, tip-only contact". My view of pool as a precision sport guides me that all miscues (even sliding single-hit, tip-only contact) should be reclassified as fouls because they are instances of failure to properly execute a clean stroke.

The "I know a miscue when I see one" aspect is funny because it's also true. I can't think of a time I saw a pro match and someone said "Was that a miscue? I'm not sure." Everyone is very sure pretty much every time. I know precise wording is important. And I know it's certain to be a very long discussion with many challenges. I just reject any suggestion that a rules committee is incapable of articulating a definition of a miscue.
 
If it did hit the shaft and it was only obvious by video, is it a foul? Should video review be allowed for miscues? With technology, if this is allowed then all miscues will soon be fouls.
 
Renderu said:
If it did hit the shaft and it was only obvious by video, is it a foul? Should video review be allowed for miscues? With technology, if this is allowed then all miscues will soon be fouls.
Click to expand...

i think intention is the word here. never in a million years will you see a pro player trying to scoop jump onto a ball that's not obstructed. intentional scoop miscues is something you see party bangers do in your local pool room. therefore, bad call
 
skogstokig said:
i think intention is the word here. never in a million years will you see a pro player trying to scoop jump onto a ball that's not obstructed. intentional scoop miscues is something you see party bangers do in your local pool room. therefore, bad call
Click to expand...
No intention is not being discussed here. No one is saying this was an illegal jump shot. What the referee Marcel is saying it seems, is that by video review it was agreed that it hit up the shaft.
 
Renderu said:
No intention is not being discussed here. No one is saying this was an illegal jump shot. What the referee Marcel is saying it seems, is that by video review it was agreed that it hit up the shaft.
Click to expand...

read OP rules link again:

Under the current rules (see WPA WSR 6.16c), a miscue is a foul only if it is intentional.

i have no doubt that marcel is right that cue hit cb multiple times, it was technically a foul, but an intention provision should overrule that
 
skogstokig said:
read OP rules link again:

Under the current rules (see WPA WSR 6.16c), a miscue is a foul only if it is intentional.

i have no doubt that marcel is right that cue hit cb multiple times, it was technically a foul, but an intention provision should overrule that
Click to expand...
I think everybody agrees it was not intentional. At issue here is if the cue ball obviously hit the shaft after being hit (an obvious double-hit).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top