Mite of gotten the yips during execution.
Another Bad Draw-Miscue-Scoop Foul Call in a Major Pro Pool Tournament
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Yes, assuming the video is reviewed.
... only if the ref thinks there is a strong reason to do so.
Nope, unless the rules are changed and super-slow-motion filming of every shot with expensive high-speed-video cameras becomes common-place. I don't see that happening anytime soon. The frame rate of regular video cameras is not fast enough to catch possible secondary contact with during typical miscue and scoop shots.
Here's the other pertinent rule:
2.11 MISCUE
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue-ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or due 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. If an unintentional miscue causes the cue-ball to leave the playing surface, including partially or fully jumping over a ball, it is treated like a legal jump shot. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 3.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
Isn't it inconsistent that intentional miscue is unsportsmanlike while intentional/ deliberate foul is not?
Isn't it inconsistent that intentional miscue is unsportsmanlike while intentional/ deliberate foul is not?
I don't think so because a deliberate foul is a defensive shot, and it gives ball-in-hand to your opponent. An intentional miscue (if not called as an unsportsmanlike conduct foul) can be used as an offensive weapon. Many examples can be found here:
"An unintentional scoop caused by a draw shot miscue is not a foul regardless of whether there is secondary contact between the tip or ferrule and the cueball which there most always is."
How on earth could the ref call a foul with the above information written into the rules?
If one believes in Karma, the foul call had nothing to do with Jayson Shaw's later situation.
His early win celebration on the other hand...
How on earth could the ref call a foul with the above information written into the rules?
If one believes in Karma, the foul call had nothing to do with Jayson Shaw's later situation.
His early win celebration on the other hand...
Please let me know where you got that quote. It is incorrect without more context. If there is clear visual evidence of secondary contact, either live or during video replay, the shot is a foul.
… unless you think of the missed 9 as somehow balancing the favorable call he received earlier. For the record, I I do not believe this. It was just a bad joke on my part in my video.
Good point.
Last edited:
Your exact words straight from the video.
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
Intention has zero to do with fouls. Do you generally intend to scratch? Do you intend to not hit a rail after contact?
Miscues should not be fouls unless an obvious double hit occurred. By obvious, I mean with the naked eye without video payback. Replay would be the death of pool, which is already boring as hell to watch. Before someone jumps down my throat, that is my opinion (which should be obvious), but also seems to be the consensus of the non pool playing population.
"with the naked eye"? can you post a video example example of such a miscue in a match? the double hits in a miscue are almost always happening so fast in succession they can't be spotted.
and again, read the WPA rules about intention in these situations, or tell them that intention has zero to do with fouls.
Not true. Search for "intention" in the WPA Rules document, and you will see all the place player intention must be considered.
Replay is already used in pro tournaments for questionable calls only, where the referee is unsure. I think that is a good thing.
The 'Regardless of secondary cue ball contact' is something they should italicize. Most players believe that 2nd hit is a foul. Need a billboard for that one!!
As usual,
Thanks Doc!!
My take on whether miscues or unintentional scoop shots should be fouls is simple, what are we realistically trying to solve? These poor hits do not create an advantage 99.999999999999999% of the time. We all know an intentional scoop when we see it and any arguement against this should also cast doubt on not requiring players to audibly call obvious shots.
This hasn't been an issue for nearly 200 years of competitive cue sport competition until some European refs (mostly with a snooker origin) got confused about the American pool rules and instead of learning, dug in.
I suppose you can try to set this new take on the rules but without a high speed camera on every table I doubt you'd get the average league player accept the foul ruling because it “sounded” like a miscue.
Simplest solution? Point these refs to the WPA documents. After that, replace the ref.
This hasn't been an issue for nearly 200 years of competitive cue sport competition until some European refs (mostly with a snooker origin) got confused about the American pool rules and instead of learning, dug in.
I suppose you can try to set this new take on the rules but without a high speed camera on every table I doubt you'd get the average league player accept the foul ruling because it “sounded” like a miscue.
Simplest solution? Point these refs to the WPA documents. After that, replace the ref.
I believe that the WNT break box is narrower than that in use in WPA/Predator events, so that's another WNT specific treatment.