Flakeandrun
Well-known member
Playing for nothing, against a friend. Occasionally it slides.
Even if playing for the light fee, or a race to 7 in serious practice match.
All ball fouls. All the time.
BAD CALLS in Pro Matches - Unintentional Miscue SCOOP SHOTS
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Even if playing for the light fee, or a race to 7 in serious practice match.
All ball fouls. All the time.
Punishment for being human
Happens all the time with All Ball Fouls.
Ummm.... Carom players always play all fouls. So do snooker players.
No. Punishment for violating a rule of the game.
That's in a perfect world. Not all rule violations are easy to see or detect. For example: Controversies with referee calls happen in every sport.
What you're missing on your list is that there should be logic and consistency in the rules. The rules have to support each other in following a common theme. One important rule in call shot games is that we don't require HOW a ball gets pocketed --- only that we make a legal hit and it goes into the called pocket.
So you could conceivably miscue, jump over the called ball, and hit it on the way back off the cushion and pocket it, and you get to keep shooting. If you start punishing players for miscues, then you will have to require them to state exactly how they want the balls to roll on every shot, including what balls they may touch along the way. If you're shooting a ball along a cushion, you may have to call how many times it will bump against the cushion on the way down.
This is the logic behind allowing miscue hits as non fouls as long as a legal hit is made, and the shot is not an intended jump shot. It's consistent with not having to call HOW a ball is meant to be pocketed by the shooter. Can you imagine having to call the exact path of a called safety shot?
If you start isolating one out from the others, you start to affect the theme and purpose of the rules, and interrupt their logic and consistency. Lack of consistency in the rules causes more confusion than anything else.
Last edited:
It just happens to not be consistent with the rules of double hits and contacting the cueball with something other than the tip. We all know what makes that sound and it sure isn’t leather. The rules on miscues acknowledge that they are double hits because the author know that aspect of the rules is inconsistent with the logic of the rest of the rules. They felt compelled to call out the inconsistency.
A double hit is where the tip hits the ball twice. What you're referring to is the pool cue interfering with the shot. The question that needs to be answered is at what point does it become a foul and is it a foul if it occurs during a continuous stroke?
WPA rules say, "If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul." It does not constrain that to just the tip hitting the ball more than once. If you contact the cueball with your tip and then separation and then contact the cueball with your ferrule (all in one continuous stroke), that's still a double hit.
Now lets say the tip hits the ball and the ball slides off the tip into the ferrule with no separation at any point all in one continuous stroke. You might argue it was not a double hit because there was no separation / secondary contact. But that also matches the definition of a touched ball which says "It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cueball except when it is in hand or by normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot." In this case the path of the cueball is altered by abnormal ferrule-to-ball sideways steering. There are intentional miscue trick shots / proposition shots famous for this technique.
The miscue rule in the WPA rules only exist to be lenient on the player making an accident. It's not consistent with the logic employed in the double hit, touched ball, and push shot rules. In fact it acknowledges that some miscues are double hits. It knows it's being inconsistent with the logic. It intentionally marks itself as an exception. You can appeal to leniency to the player or you can appeal to tradition for its existence. But appealing to consistency with the logic of the other rules as a whole doesn't really stand up.
The scenarios that stand out to me is like when playing 8-ball. Your opponent is stripes. They're shooting at the 10-ball that's an easy hanger. They're putting right spin on the ball to play position using the rail after contact. They accidentally miscue and we all hear a loud *tink*. Instead of going straight the cueball squirts off at an unnatural 45 degree angle and catches the 12-ball instead, finds a rail, and happens to get a full snooker from all the solids on the table. As the rules stand today, they got lucky. The rules don't have to change. But if they did change, I would be an advocate for that shooter to have fouled and his opponent gets ball in hand.
I don't know how the cb riding up on to the shaft during a continuous stroke can be a double hit without it striking the tip a second time. Maybe if it goes airborne and lands on the shaft, but I've never seen that happen. But even if the tip strikes it a second time during that continuous stroke, slow motion replay must be allowed during the tournament in order to make the call. Otherwise the hit should be considered good.
It's just a matter of definition, but let's say you shoot a top spin shot and over-extend the follow through to where as the cb is rolling forward, the cue shaft lands on top and touches it. Sure, that's hitting it twice, but that's not what we consider in pool terminology a double-hit. It's interference of the shot by the pool cue. We know a double hit to be when the tip hits the ball twice. It's just semantics, but it's important because we know what we're referring to when we discuss the rules.
Exactly.