BAD CALLS in Pro Matches - Unintentional Miscue SCOOP SHOTS

[iusedtoberich]

..snip...

Their online rules page indicates:

“World Nineball Tour events are conducted and played according to the Standard Rules and Regulations,”

1) How did you find this rules link? I clicked all over their site and could not figure out how to navigate to it, without your direct link. I haven't read this MR rule set in full before, so thanks for finding it.

2) The first sentence of the link is this:
World Nineball Tour events are conducted and played according to the Standard Rules and Regulations, with the exceptions of the following:

"Standard Rules and Regulations" do not infer WPA rules to me. Nowhere on that page does it use the letters WPA once. Did you see somewhere else on their site where they explicitly called out WPA rules? If not, its a stretch to assume WPA rules, considering all the drama between MR and WPA.

 

[dr_dave]

1) How did you find this rules link?

Google search.

2) The first sentence of the link is this:
World Nineball Tour events are conducted and played according to the Standard Rules and Regulations, with the exceptions of the following:

"Standard Rules and Regulations" do not infer WPA rules to me. Nowhere on that page does it use the letters WPA once. Did you see somewhere else on their site where they explicitly called out WPA rules? If not, its a stretch to assume WPA rules, considering all the drama between MR and WPA.

I can see why MR might not want to directly acknowledge the WPA due to their ongoing “drama,” but the WPA World Standardized Rules are the “standard” and “official” rules of pool. The WPA RULES are also published as is by the BCA in their printed pool rules book. What rules do you think MR might be referring to instead?

 

[dr_dave]

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:

What do other people think about making all miscues and scoop shots fouls based on the info above and to simplify the rules and eliminate the need to judge player intent?

 

[iusedtoberich]

Google search.


I can see why MR might not want to directly acknowledge the WPA due to their ongoing “drama,” but the WPA World Standardized Rules are the “standard” and “official” rules of pool. The WPA RULES are also published as is by the BCA in their printed pool rules book. What rules do you think MR might be referring to instead?

That’s the whole point. You are assuming it’s the WPA and stating it as fact. It might very well be. But the way they state it is ambiguous. It might be a BCA rule book from 1995 for all we know that Barry had sitting on his coffee table. There is no such thing as “standard” and “official” rules without the explicit governing body specified.

 

[briclops]

That’s the whole point. You are assuming it’s the WPA and stating it as fact. It might very well be. But the way they state it is ambiguous. It might be a BCA rule book from 1995 for all we know that Barry had sitting on his coffee table. There is no such thing as “standard” and “official” rules without the explicit governing body specified.

I have yet to see Matchroom produce their own rulebook and they are in charge of the World Pool Championship so therefore they are using WPA rules.

 

[Tennesseejoe]

I have yet to see Matchroom produce their own rulebook and they are in charge of the World Pool Championship so therefore they are using WPA rules.

The WPA is a good denominator for pool rules.

 

[DynoDan]

What do other people think about making all miscues and scoop shots fouls based on the info above and to simplify the rules and eliminate the need to judge player intent?

I’m all for it. Though it will (like many other ‘pro’ rules) likely be ignored by the barroom bangers, it will incite better play in the end.
I have recently noticed that miscues can usually be avoided while still accomplishing your goal, if you try hard enough. In ‘all fouls’ pro games, the careless inadvertent touching of object balls (that seems all too common otherwise) is typically avoided. The optimistic gambler usually expects his excessive english miscue will still get to a rail (or the ‘hanger‘ OB will be a sure thing), so he is thus not careful. A foul penalty would change that.

 

[DynoDan]

…and eliminate the need to judge player intent?

P.S. ‘Player intent’ should always be a consideration, as any intentional miscue that benefits the shooter would constitute ‘unsportsmanlike conduct’ and possibly result in loss of game.

 

[dr_dave]

P.S. ‘Player intent’ should always be a consideration, as any intentional miscue that benefits the shooter would constitute ‘unsportsmanlike conduct’ and possibly result in loss of game.

If all miscues were fouls, I would propose getting rid of the “unsportsmanlike conduct” penalty for miscues. In that case, no judgement of intent (or appropriate penalty) would be required.

 

[DynoDan]

If all miscues were fouls, I would propose getting rid of the “unsportsmanlike conduct” penalty for miscues. In that case, no judgement of intent (or appropriate penalty) would be required.

I agree that a situation where an intentional miscue might still benefit the shooter after the consequences of accepting a foul penalty would likely be rare, but unlike other types of intentional fouls, still inexcusable (IMHO).

 

[Brookeland Bill]

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!

When I started playing in 1960 the only way we knew to jump was to ‘scoop’. There were signs on the walls of pool rooms ‘No Massé or Jump Shots’. Both techniques could possibly damage the cloth. I Don’t understand the reasoning for calling a scoop shot or miscue a foul. But then again I don’t agree with the rule regarding the 10 ball in a ten ball game.

 

[SEB]

4 inch pockets. Break box. 9 on the spot. Now all miscues a foul?

Do you guys ever think we’re demanding too much? It feels like the entire pool community just wants to see pro’s either play like them or play to absolute perfection to overcome all the barriers we've combined in the last few years.

I’ve been ok with the changes up until 4 inch pockets. It’s too tight and has led to far too many matches going the wrong way for balls hanging up in the jaws. The Spanish open was a perfect example of how super tight pockets lead to massive variance in 9 ball. You could flip coins in a lot of matches on who would win because the pockets wouldn’t allow a dominant player.

You realize we’re going to wake up some day soon and we’re going to be playing a whole different game right?? A game that looks a whole lot more like snooker. I’m uncomfortable with that.

The game is growing and Matchroom is doing great things. I just have a slight hesitation to the massive amount of changes coming in such a short time.

I would warn the influencers to be careful with what they push as the game is highly impressionable right now.

 

[dr_dave]

I agree that a situation where an intentional miscue might still benefit the shooter after the consequences of accepting a foul penalty would likely be rare, but unlike other types of intentional fouls, still inexcusable (IMHO).

Can you think of any situation where an intentional miscue could benefit the shooter more than some other type of intentional foul (no rail, double hit, wrong-ball first, push shot, etc.)? I have lots of examples of intentional miscues in the videos under the "intentional miscue fouls" paragraph here:

miscue resource page​

but none of them is effective for the shooter if the opponent gets ball in hand after the miscue.

 

[dr_dave]

When I started playing in 1960 the only way we knew to jump was to ‘scoop’. There were signs on the walls of pool rooms ‘No Massé or Jump Shots’. Both techniques could possibly damage the cloth. I Don’t understand the reasoning for calling a scoop shot or miscue a foul.

Depending on who and where you are playing, many things are allowed (or disallowed) if playing under "bar rules."

However, under the WPA official rules of pool, a scoop jump shot is illegal. At the bottom of the scoop shot resource page, I suggest the following possible reasons:

"For a jump shot to be legal, you must hit the CB from above, causing it to bounce off the table's slate. A purposeful scoop jump is illegal because it is too easy. It also involves an intentional miscue and secondary contact and/or the tip hitting the CB while in contact with the table. It can also cause cloth damage if executed forcefully, especially on a table with loose cloth."

 

[dr_dave]

Do you guys ever think we’re demanding too much?

Double hits are fouls, and all miscues that have been filmed in super slow motion clearly show sliding tip contact and secondary hits. I think it is "demanding too much" to allow some miscues, but not others, even though they all involve sliding contact and secondary contact. It is also "demanding too much" to expect refs or opponents to be able to judge "player intent" in deciding whether or not a miscue or a scoop shot is legal (unintentional) or not. Making all miscues and scoop shots fouls would make things simpler and more appropriate since they really are foul shots anyway.

 

[DynoDan]

Can you think of any situation where an intentional miscue could benefit the shooter more than some other type of intentional foul (no rail, double hit, wrong-ball first, push shot, etc.)? I have lots of examples of intentional miscues in the videos under the "intentional miscue fouls" paragraph here:

miscue resource page​

but non of them is effective for the shooter if the opponent gets ball in hand after the miscue.

‘Malicious intent’ doesn’t have to be rational. Offhand, the only situation that comes to mind would be a compelling need to move an opponents ball when no other route seems possible.
The scene that keeps playing in my mind, is the one from the ‘Shot In The Dark’ movie, where Peter Sellers turns the curved cue around 180, with disastrous results.

 

[dr_dave]

‘Malicious intent’ doesn’t have to be rational. Offhand, the only situation that comes to mind would be a compelling need to move an opponents ball when no other route seems possible.

How could an intentional miscue create a “route” not possible with other types of shots (fouls or not, intentional or not)? Can you think of a concrete and realistic example? Are you thinking about scoop shots or regular (non-jumping) miscues?

Again, if a miscue were considered a foul, it wouldn’t matter if it in “intentional” or not. It would be treated like any other foul, where intent doesn’t matter. The opponent gets ball in hand, regardless of what the player intended to do.

Or are you suggesting that any “intentional” foul (especially if it has “malicious intent”) should incur an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty? I don’t think we want that.

 

[DynoDan]

How could an intentional miscue create a “route” not possible with other types of shots (fouls or not, intentional or not)? Can you think of a concrete and realistic example?

Again, if a miscue were considered a foul, it wouldn’t matter if it in “intentional” or not. It would be treated like any other foul, where intent doesn’t matter. The opponent gets ball in hand, regardless of what the player intended to do.

Or are you suggesting that any “intentional” foul (especially if it has “malicious intent”) should be penalized as an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty? I don’t think we want that.

If you were locked up behind a large/jumbled pack, and all kick paths were blocked, how else could you be certain of contacting your target other than jumping? A ‘legal’ jumpshot would require an elevated cue angle, something quite easy to recognize.
Whatever. It just seems to me that any intentional play that obviously endangers the equipment should involve a more severe penalty than that inflicted upon those who are merely careless (or unlucky).

 

[DynoDan]

Sometimes I’m nostalgic for simpler days, when we were kids just learning and didn’t yet know the rules. The only foul back then was the ‘scratch’, and the only ‘penalty’ was loss of turn. No referee required either to notice the CB was no longer in play.

 

[BRussell]

Question: Are all/most miscues fouls? I’ve heard this before, and I think Dr Dave has said this.

But in my experience, the vast majority of miscues leave a hard spot of chalk on the cue ball and a blank spot on the cue tip. You need to scrape the chalk off the cue ball with your fingernail because it doesn’t just rub off like normal, and you need to re-chalk your tip in one very visible spot.

That would not be a foul because the bad contact clearly occurred on the tip - that’s why the chalk has been heavily imprinted on the cue ball. It just happened on the outside of the tip. Of course secondary contact on the shaft or ferrule does happen, but in my experience the “edge of tip” miscue occurs much more often. You can hear the miscue, and it throws off the shot, but there’s no shaft or ferrule contact.