How in the #%*^ is that a good hit?
Crazy Finish - must watch! Hill-Hill
- Thread starter JB Cases
- Start date
I agree that massé shots are allowed...even at snooker, which is pretty nit-picky about
how balls are hit.....but we're TRAPPING the cue ball between the tip and the cloth.
I've done some that feel as iffy as the double kiss bank shot in an early scene in the Hustler.
………………………..
Last edited:
That would have been my shot as well. I could never pull off the shot that was actually executed.
Look, buddy, I know you are well educated....but you aint no zoologist...
...THIS is a zebra....
I don't see how that was a good hit. Both balls are frozen to the rail - so to be a good hit he would have had to pocket the ball or drive either ball to a DIFFERENT rail.
Neither of those things happened
……………………...
Last edited:
The only shot I see to make it is to shoot off the side pocket point.
Either the cue ball or the object ball has to contact a different rail I think. In this situation the object ball went between the points so it was a legal shot.
Man I don't know.... The ref said it double kissed back into the original rail so I guess it was legal. We shot it with the cue ball going away from the pocket after the match.
If we got away with a call then I guess the pool gods were on our side. In a sense it was a lucky roll as well to have our player even in that position.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Last edited:
The object ball was deeper in the pocket than the cue ball. The shot went if you aimed at the middle diamond on the opposite rail.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
………………………....
Last edited:
I have to go against the crowd with this one. Especially since who shot it knows better. I would call an intentional miscue on the shot. Not legal.
That said, I have no idea why he would shoot it the way he did when there were two better and easier options.
That said, I have no idea why he would shoot it the way he did when there were two better and easier options.
As long as it leaves the rail it is frozen to, and then hits an ob, it is allowed to return to the same rail. The problem here, is this- did it actually leave the rail it was frozen to before contacting the ob? I don't see how it possibly could since both balls were frozen to their rails and to each other.
This describes my thoughts as well.
John, thanks for posting this rare and interesting dilemma. I enjoyed it.
Whew!
Will Prout
Last edited:
Just my opinion,
What I saw is when he shoots to the inside point, he is compressing the rail just enough to cause separation between th cue ball and the object ball, then the cueball came back and hit it now not frozen object ball and the 'bunny-hop or kick back off the object ball caused the cue ball to re catch a rail where it originally had been frozen too. Rememer you can compress a rail quite a bit when you are frozen to it. But you have to hit in a solid stroke with confidence since you are hitting at the very top of the cueball, there is a higher chance or a miscue taking place but I don't believe for a second that what happened here was an 'intentional' miscue, I just think he skimmed over the top of the cueball to avoid a double hit on the cueball.
I think the call by the referee was spot on, if you see and look at the balls and think of the mechanics of how he shot the ball.
If you had HIGH SPEED cameras recording this, if you were focused on the cueball and object ball, just as he hit over the top into the rail, you would see just for a split second a gap appear between the cueball and the object ball as he compresses the cueball into the inside of the rail.
What do you think??
Respectfully, REMEMBER EVERYONE, Respectfully, this is just my opinion,
Please respond with respect,
Thanks,
Mike 'acedonkeyace' Kennedy:thumbup:
What I saw is when he shoots to the inside point, he is compressing the rail just enough to cause separation between th cue ball and the object ball, then the cueball came back and hit it now not frozen object ball and the 'bunny-hop or kick back off the object ball caused the cue ball to re catch a rail where it originally had been frozen too. Rememer you can compress a rail quite a bit when you are frozen to it. But you have to hit in a solid stroke with confidence since you are hitting at the very top of the cueball, there is a higher chance or a miscue taking place but I don't believe for a second that what happened here was an 'intentional' miscue, I just think he skimmed over the top of the cueball to avoid a double hit on the cueball.
I think the call by the referee was spot on, if you see and look at the balls and think of the mechanics of how he shot the ball.
If you had HIGH SPEED cameras recording this, if you were focused on the cueball and object ball, just as he hit over the top into the rail, you would see just for a split second a gap appear between the cueball and the object ball as he compresses the cueball into the inside of the rail.
What do you think??
Respectfully, REMEMBER EVERYONE, Respectfully, this is just my opinion,
Please respond with respect,
Thanks,
Mike 'acedonkeyace' Kennedy:thumbup:
Last edited:
………………………....
Last edited:
This is why I think you and others are wrong on it being legal....
He hits the cb as high as he can, which he knows is an intentional miscue, which is a foul in and of itself. Now, the cb then leaves the ob as it compresses the rail he is shooting into. The rail rebounds and sends the cb back to the ob.
Upon contact with the ob, the cb will stop dead in it's tracks. Even with follow on it, (which it actually has draw on it due to the reversed direction) it will stop dead before going forward. So, since the cb stopped dead, it has to be still frozen to the rail. The cb never left the rail he shoot into.
The ob now leaves the cb as it compresses it's rail. Never leaving it's rail, it now comes back and collides with the cb which is still frozen to it's rail. And the same thing happens to the ob that happened to the cb.
The only change, is that now there is a slight angle to the balls, so this time, which is after being collided with by the ob, the cb compresses the rail at a slightly different angle than before, and this time does leave the rail after contact with the ob, and goes out into the table area.
At no time did the cb leave the associated rail, make contact with the ob, and return to it's rail.
So, the way I see it, there were two fouls committed on the shot.
edit: The reason I state it is an intentional miscue, is that one can not hit that high on the cb without there being a miscue. It just is not possible. That the shooter is a world champ, and a trick shot champ at that, there is no way that he does not know that hitting at the extreme edge of the cb will cause a miscue. Therefore, by him hitting the extreme edge to clear the shaft from trapping the cb, he knew he had to miscue to do so.
Last edited: