BAD CALLS in Pro Matches - Unintentional Miscue SCOOP SHOTS

[iusedtoberich]

It's like when the IPT was around, it was ruled a foul to move a BIH CB with your stick (instead of your hand). A bunch of pros were called on that foul, I think Manalo was one. The rule came from Deno, who was the tour director. He who has the money makes the rules, WPA, BCA, etc, be damned.

 

[skogstokig]

i don't recall ever seeing an intentional scoop jump in pro pool. one has so much more control with a legal jump shot with a jump cue.

 

[dr_dave]

FYI, I just posted a new video that shows two recent examples of bad calls made in pro pool matches, discusses miscue scoop shot fouls, and makes a recommendation for a rule change:

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!

The only possible explanation for calling a foul is if you are sure the tip hit the CB first, and not the CB and table at the same time (or the table first). Then it would be obvious there was sliding contact and a secondary hit causing the scoop jump, in which case there would have been a clear double-hit foul. But this can be difficult to see during a live shot, and the benefit of any doubt should alwasy go to the shooter. Some unintentional scoops do involve the tip hitting the CB and table at the same time (or even the table first), which results in a single clean hit with no miscue or secondary contact (although, it could be argued that the tip being in contact with the table during CB contact is not proper).

What do you guys think?

PS’. BTW, super slow motion examples of all types of scoop shots can be found in the videos here:

scoop shot resource page
​

Here are some examples, including the type where the tip hits the CB and table at the same time (or the table first):

 

[Tennesseejoe]

In Florian's examples...those were intentional fouls. But how do you know in a game?

 

[dr_dave]

In Florian's examples...those were intentional fouls.

Yes, because we were intentionally attempting to capture interesting and marginal "partial scoop" jump shots during the filming.

But how do you know in a game?

You don't. That's one of the main messages in the "Jump Shot Physics in Super Slow Motion" video from which the clip was taken:

 

[dr_dave]

The only possible explanation for calling a foul is if you are sure the tip hit the CB first, and not the CB and table at the same time (or the table first). Then it would be obvious there was sliding contact and a secondary hit causing the scoop jump, in which case there would have been a clear double-hit foul. But this can be difficult to see during a live shot, and the benefit of any doubt should alwasy go to the shooter. Some unintentional scoops do involve the tip hitting the CB and table at the same time (or even the table first), which results in a single clean hit with no miscue or secondary contact (although, it could be argued that the tip being in contact with the table during CB contact is not proper).

What do you guys think?

PS’. BTW, super slow motion examples of all types of scoop shots can be found in the videos here:

scoop shot resource page
​

Here are some examples, including the type where the tip hits the CB and table at the same time (or the table first):

Does anybody have any comments, thoughts, or opinions about this?

 

[btal]

A can of worms might be opened if "any" miscue was ruled a foul. On soft shots with side spin, I don't even know myself sometimes if I miscued.

 

[BRussell]

Something similar happened at the World Cup of Pool just now, Albania vs Poland game 2. Cue ball on rail, Kaci hits it, sounds like a miscue, but obviously unintentional. They played the slow motion replay and you could see the second contact by the ferrule, and Marcel called the foul. What do you think about that call Dr Dave?

It‘s on DAZN so I don’t know how to capture the video, but maybe it will be on the highlights that they release on YouTube.

 

[BRussell]

Here's the link to the match, the shot in question is at around 17:00:

Definitely a double hit, but I'm not sure I've ever seen that called a foul before, except for by this particular ref.

 

[BasementDweller]

Here's the link to the match, the shot in question is at around 17:00:

Definitely a double hit, but I'm not sure I've ever seen that called a foul before, except for by this particular ref.

May be a triple-hit there. Two hits- like normal during the miscue, then a third hit after.

This is a can of worms but one that might as well be sorted out.

I think the miscue is penalty enough for the shooter without also rewarding the incoming player. Of course unless it's intentional or if the cue ball is pinned, killing its momentum.

 

[Bob Jewett]

...

Definitely a double hit, but I'm not sure I've ever seen that called a foul before, except for by this particular ref.

With the video replay available and allowed, it's hard to not call that continued hit. If there were no replay, it would be hard to call the foul depending on the ref's position.

 

[dr_dave]

A can of worms might be opened if "any" miscue was ruled a foul. On soft shots with side spin, I don't even know myself sometimes if I miscued.

If all miscues were considered fouls, a foul could be called only if the miscue is obvious based on the motion of the CB (just like with most fouls).

 

[dr_dave]

Here's the link to the match, the shot in question is at around 17:00:

Definitely a double hit, but I'm not sure I've ever seen that called a foul before, except for by this particular ref.

Thanks for posting that. I agree with Bob. Without the replay, the foul would have been difficult to call. However, with the clear visual evidence in the replay, the foul is clear.

 

[btal]

If all miscues were considered fouls, a foul could be called only if the miscue is obvious based on the motion of the CB (just like with most fouls).

3 cushion billiards rule .. Miscues are not a foul unless the player's ferrule or shaft touches the cue ball during the execution of the stroke. If a billiard is scored because of a miscued stroke, it shall be counted and turn continues (unless the miscue was a foul). I personally subscribe to the existing rules. They seem to exist across all disciplines. Intent would be paramount in deciding foul or no foul. "Obvious" to one might not be obvious to another - especially without replay. Thusly - a can of worms. IMO

 

[dr_dave]

3 cushion billiards rule .. Miscues are not a foul unless the player's ferrule or shaft touches the cue ball during the execution of the stroke.

FYI, every miscue I and others have filmed with high-speed cameras over the years clearly show that miscues involve sliding tip contact (unlike a normal shot, where the CB separates from the tip almost instantaneously with no sliding whatsoever) and secondary hits (from the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft), often multiple secondary hits. Many super-slow-motion video clips (from me and others) showing this can be found here:

miscue foul resource page
​

This information was not known when the rules were written. Maybe it is time to reconsider the rule, now that we know that miscues result in sliding contact and secondary hits.

I personally subscribe to the existing rules.

Most people do since the existing rules have been in place for a very long time. I agree that rules should not be changed unless there are compelling reasons. But I think we now have compelling reasons to reconsider the miscue rule.

Intent would be paramount in deciding foul or no foul.

I'm not sure what you mean here. In the current rules, "intent" is important in judging whether a miscue is a foul or not. Currently, a miscue is a foul only when there is clear visual evidence of secondary contact (based on CB motion) or if the miscue is "intentional." Both of these things require "judgement." FYI, many examples of both types of miscue fouls can be found in the videos under the "intentional miscue fouls" paragraph here:

miscue foul resource page​

"Obvious" to one might not be obvious to another - especially without replay.

Agreed, but this is the case with many types of fouls (double hits, wrong ball first, push shot, etc.). However, I think judging a miscue is much easier than judging other types of fouls. To most people, a miscue is obvious based on the errant path of the CB and the distinctive sound.

Thusly - a can of worms. IMO

I personally think the way the current rules are written concerning miscues and scoop shots is very problematic and needs to be reconsidered. Currently, errant shots involving sliding contact and secondary hits are being allowed, and judgement of "intent" is required. For a good example of why judgement of intent can be problematic, see the examples in these videos:

 

[Bob Jewett]

I think the main problem with changing the rule to "all miscues are fouls" is that it is a large change from what we are doing now. If there is no referee it requires additional good sportsmanship from the players. And for US bar leagues, I doubt that they would implement a rule that will primarily penalize weaker players for such an unintentional error.

 

[btal]

FYI, every miscue I and others have filmed with high-speed cameras over the years clearly show that miscues involve sliding tip contact (unlike a normal shot, where the CB separates from the tip almost instantaneously with no sliding whatsoever) and secondary hits (from the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft), often multiple secondary hits. Many super-slow-motion video clips (from me and others) showing this can be found here:

miscue foul resource page
​

This information was not known when the rules were written. Maybe it is time to reconsider the rule, now that we know that miscues result in sliding contact and secondary hits.




Most people do since the existing rules have been in place for a very long time. I agree that rules should not be changed unless there are compelling reasons. But I think we now have compelling reasons to reconsider the miscue rule.




I'm not sure what you mean here. In the current rules, "intent" is important in judging whether a miscue is a foul or not. Currently, a miscue is a foul only when there is clear visual evidence of secondary contact (based on CB motion) or if the miscue is "intentional." Both of these things require "judgement." FYI, many examples of both types of miscue fouls can be found in the videos under the "intentional miscue fouls" paragraph here:

miscue foul resource page​

Agreed, but this is the case with many types of fouls (double hits, wrong ball first, push shot, etc.). However, I think judging a miscue is much easier than judging other types of fouls. To most people, a miscue is obvious based on the errant path of the CB and the distinctive sound.




I personally think the way the current rules are written concerning miscues and scoop shots is very problematic and needs to be reconsidered. Currently, errant shots involving sliding contact and secondary hits are being allowed, and judgement of "intent" is required. For a good example of why judgement of intent can be problematic, see the examples in these videos:

Very informative Dave. I never understood how number 15 has never been a foul. I agree .. "that" cue sliding action should be. Players generally pay the consequences for their miscues. Sometimes they get "lucky."

 

[BRussell]

With the video replay available and allowed, it's hard to not call that continued hit. If there were no replay, it would be hard to call the foul depending on the ref's position.

Thanks for posting that. I agree with Bob. Without the replay, the foul would have been difficult to call. However, with the clear visual evidence in the replay, the foul is clear.

Right, but the same ref called that foul on Pehlivanovic without a replay. He clearly thinks all miscues are fouls.

I’m not even sure that the female ref called the foul due to the miscue; she might have thought there was no rail.

 

[dr_dave]

Very informative Dave.

Thanks.

I never understood how number 15 has never been a foul.

For those interested, here is "shot 15:"

I agree .. "that" cue sliding action should be.

Sometimes sliding or secondary contact is not clear live or with regular video replay. Although, it is usually obvious in super slow motion.

Players generally pay the consequences for their miscues. Sometimes they get "lucky."

Agreed. A miscue is a bad mistake and the result of the shot is usually penalty enough; but sometimes people get "lucky" and get legal contact and a rail anyway, fluke a ball in, or leave their opponent locked up for a safety, all from an errant shot which is technically a foul.

 

[dr_dave]

I think the main problem with changing the rule to "all miscues are fouls" is that it is a large change from what we are doing now.

I don't see it as a "large change," but I can see how others might see it that way.

Many miscues are fouls already. Here are examples:

1. a "typical miscue" where the CB doesn't go where intended and doesn't hit a legal OB first or get rail contact (this is probably the most common miscue, which is already a foul).
2. a "scoop shot" where a miscue occurs close to the bottom of the CB causing the CB to hop. This is currently a foul only when it is "intentional."
3. an "intentional miscue" (as judged by the ref) used to the player's benefit.

So I think making all miscues fouls (and not just the ones listed above, which includes many if not most miscues) is only a small change. It would also eliminate the need to judge player "intent," which can be problematic.

If there is no referee it requires additional good sportsmanship from the players.

... only if the players can't agree if a shot is a miscue or not. If they can't, and if a ref or bystander wasn't available to judge the shot, then the benefit of the doubt must go to the shooter, as with any foul call. I think a miscue is much easier for players to judge compared to other fouls like double hits and wrong-ball-first calls. Most people know a miscue when they see it (the CB doesn't go in the direction expected for the shot) and hear it.

And for US bar leagues, I doubt that they would implement a rule that will primarily penalize weaker players for such an unintentional error.

Leagues have the option to not abide by all "official rules of pool." In fact, most of them exercise this option already, per the lists of league rule differences here:

differences among APA, BCAPL, and VNEA league rules​