Elevated-Cue Shots ... Are They Legal?

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
I just posted the following video dealing with elevated-cue shots, showing how they often involve multiple hits and prolonged tip contact. Some people might think these shots are fouls, even though they seem perfectly normal. Check out the video to see what you think. Here it is:

NV H.1 - Elevated-Cue Pool and Billiards Shots ... Are They Legal?

I look forward to hearing what you think about my conclusions and perspectives.

Enjoy,
Dave
 
It seemed like it was easier for you to shape on the 2 ball by "pushing" the cue ball rather than using a clean stroke shot.

On some shots like that one when I am shooting over a ball I hit the cue ball hard with top to roll forward and shape on another ball, but when I do the cue ball usually leaves the table and then takes the spin. Is this a wrong way to shoot the shot or a right way?
 
in a match, should be considered legal because unless using a perfectly clean cueball no way to bring attention to multiple chalk marks. Never saw anyone call for a ref to observe this, but correct me if I'm wrong. The miscue was an obvious foul though.
 
I can't remember where I got this idea , but at some point I was told that the only way not to foul on those types of shots, was to only allow the tip to go into the cueball about a quarter of an inch ,{that wouldn't allow for much position play though.} anything after that was probably a foul.
I am always amazed at the discrepancies in the rules, anybody that has hit thousands of balls knows in their heart those shots are all hitting the cueball more than once.
Yet the only time it is a foul is when it is an {obvious? what does that even mean?}multiple hit? also who determines that ?
A lot of people only think some types of shots are fouls, when their opponents are shooting them.
Thanks for the video, I really like the slow motion stuff .
 
It would seem to me that with technology, there are a lot of shots used in pool would become illegal, so most draw, over a ball,or jump shots. As you pointed out in the video, only the very obvious shout with the ferrule contact would be called a foul, the others will still remain as being a normal shot, unless the sound was very obvious to being a double hit. Interesting all the same.
 
Interesting video Dr. Dave. No, I would not rule that a foul, but also think that the rule books need to clarify this type of shot as not a foul to avoid the rule nitpickers.

Your video made me think of another shot, a level cue with max topspin. I wonder if that also is a foul. I'm thinking that the force hitting the near edge of the cb is what causes the dbl. hits. If so, then it seems a max topspin shot might also. ??? Might not because the cb is going straight forward and the forward speed is not retarded by going down first, but would be interesting to check.
 
I can see the arguments in APA leagues this coming week.

Is it a double hit in tennis because the ball hits more than one string or rolls up or down the strings when spin is applied or hits the frame & the strings?

One needs to have common sense regarding what the intentions are, but all one has is the language & the wording when it comes down to a dispute.

I can see an APA member calling foul & then pulling out some Kamui or Blue Diamond chalk to prove their point.
 
Last edited:
jwh1942 said:
in a match, should be considered legal because unless using a perfectly clean cueball no way to bring attention to multiple chalk marks. Never saw anyone call for a ref to observe this, but correct me if I'm wrong. The miscue was an obvious foul though.
Click to expand...

I was playing Matt Krah a couple of months ago in a tournament, and he called the ref to observe me shoot one of these...and the OB and CB were VERY close together, too. One of those shots that some folks think are impossible to hit legally. I got the call my way, clean hit. I was nearly vertical, and had to hit the ball with a very quick stroke. You can hit them clean if the cue line is such that the tip can clear the CB on initial contact. USUALLY you can hear the multiple contacts, making it an illegal shot; but this video showed at least one multiple hit that didn't sound like one. I called Dr. Dave's first two attempts illegal, since I could hear it. That said, I wouldn't have called a ref to watch on that set up in the first place, since I know you can hit this legal and would have let it go to the shooter as a result. Cool video!
 
Another Great Post!

Well I hear the sound of a double hit often, but if its close I just ask "was that a good hit" so far no one has ever told me that it wasn't!

I have had a few guys say "I think so" and based on my experience I never really bother with this call unless the action on the cue ball is really strange, a clear push.

I hope you do the same type of video for the cue ball being close to the object ball or frozen to the object ball, your insight is always appreciated.

Thanks again!
 
Funny how the game has existed over several decades and this is the only time that this has been discussed and seen :)

For me a double hit is a double hit, regardless of intention and is technically a foul, the problem is proving it in an actual game..... I can see it now in some leagues where a ref with a camera would be needed. I heard some leagues has a ONE cue rule.....
 
Ron Swanson said:
Am i alone in finding push rule in all forms of pool to be a complete mess?
Click to expand...

No you'e not.

As to the shot, as west point said, the shot can be shot & the key is 'clearing the cue'... or the tip at the end of the cue.

Dave, you might want to shoot the shot with the same cue alignment, but let the cue & tip 'clear', that is, come up off the ball & the cue off your bridge hand.

Then you may want to go back & redo your swiping 'tests' the same way in the horizontal direction.

Best Wishes to All.
 
Allen Brown said:
It seemed like it was easier for you to shape on the 2 ball by "pushing" the cue ball rather than using a clean stroke shot.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. I used a normal (non pushing) stroke on all of those shots. With the shot where I elevated to get a "clean" (single tip contact) hit, I cheated the pocket, but that wasn't intentional. I just wasn't focusing very much on aiming carefully (since I was busy doing so many things while filming). I was just trying to demonstrate the different hits at different cue elevations (without trying to aim perfectly on every shot). If I were shooting this shot in a game, I would definitely use a much more level cue, where I know I can be more accurate (if I aim carefully).

Allen Brown said:
On some shots like that one when I am shooting over a ball I hit the cue ball hard with top to roll forward and shape on another ball, but when I do the cue ball usually leaves the table and then takes the spin. Is this a wrong way to shoot the shot or a right way?
Click to expand...
If you elevate more than you need to, you do need to use more cue speed to get more follow. And when you use more speed at higher cue elevations, there is no way to avoid the CB hop. However, it is easy to follow the CB forward a fairly large distance with little effort with a more-level cue (which will also result in better consistency and accuracy). You just need to be careful to not drop the elbow (and raise the tip) during the stroke into the ball; otherwise, you might miscue.

Regards,
Dave
 
jwh1942 said:
in a match, should be considered legal because unless using a perfectly clean cueball no way to bring attention to multiple chalk marks. Never saw anyone call for a ref to observe this, but correct me if I'm wrong. The miscue was an obvious foul though.
Click to expand...
Even if the CB were clean before a hit, it is probably still not appropriate to look at the CB after a shot to help judge what happened during the shot.

Whether a shot is legal or not must be judged by the action of the shot (unless the rules are re-written in the future to allow other sorts of evidence like CB inspection or slo-mo instant replay).

I agree with you that all of the shots in the video would be considered legal, except the miscue with obvious secondary contact with the shaft. That is clearly a foul.

Regards,
Dave
 
book collector said:
I can't remember where I got this idea , but at some point I was told that the only way not to foul on those types of shots, was to only allow the tip to go into the cueball about a quarter of an inch ,{that wouldn't allow for much position play though.} anything after that was probably a foul.
Click to expand...
Some things we are told don't always make sense. I think this is one of those examples.

Regardless of the type of stroke you use, and regardless of how much follow-through there is, the tip will skip on the CB during contact at lower cue elevations. But as the video points out, these shots are still legal since there is no clear evidence of a foul during the hit.


book collector said:
I am always amazed at the discrepancies in the rules, anybody that has hit thousands of balls knows in their heart those shots are all hitting the cueball more than once.
Click to expand...
... not if the cue is elevated enough.

book collector said:
Yet the only time it is a foul is when it is an {obvious? what does that even mean?}multiple hit? also who determines that ?
Click to expand...
Another similar example is a miscue. Most (practically all) of them involve multiple hits and secondary contact (see the miscue resource page for super slo-mo proof), but they are not considered fouls either (unless the secondary contact is clearly visible during the shot, as with the level-cue shot in the video). We can't expect to observe stuff that happens over a very short amount of time. A foul cannot be called unless there is a clear evidence of a rules violation.


book collector said:
A lot of people only think some types of shots are fouls, when their opponents are shooting them.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:

Regards,
Dave
 
conetip said:
It would seem to me that with technology, there are a lot of shots used in pool would become illegal, so most draw, over a ball,or jump shots. As you pointed out in the video, only the very obvious shout with the ferrule contact would be called a foul, the others will still remain as being a normal shot, unless the sound was very obvious to being a double hit. Interesting all the same.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

There are also some shots that are illegal for no obvious reason. For example, it is clear from slo-mo video evidence that a hit into a frozen CB creates a single, non-pushing hit (even though it doesn't feel that way); but in some games and under some rules, these shots aren't allowed. For more info, see the frozen-CB resource page.

Another good example is an illegal "scoop" jump shot. As shown on the "scoop" shot resource page, it is possible to hit a shot like this without a miscue and with a single, clean hit (with the tip sliding on the table when it hits the CB), but this shot is illegal.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. I used a normal (non pushing) stroke on all of those shots. With the shot where I elevated to get a "clean" (single tip contact) hit, I cheated the pocket, but that wasn't intentional. I just wasn't focusing very much on aiming carefully (since I was busy doing so many things while filming). I was just trying to demonstrate the different hits at different cue elevations (without trying to aim perfectly on every shot). If I were shooting this shot in a game, I would definitely use a much more level cue, where I know I can be more accurate (if I aim carefully).

If you elevate more than you need to, you do need to use more cue speed to get more follow. And when you use more speed at higher cue elevations, there is no way to avoid the CB hop. However, it is easy to follow the CB forward a fairly large distance with little effort with a more-level cue (which will also result in better consistency and accuracy). You just need to be careful to not drop the elbow (and raise the tip) during the stroke into the ball; otherwise, you might miscue.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Thanks for responding Dave. I've learned a lot just from this one thread of yours. I appreciate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top