Elevated-Cue Shots ... Are They Legal?

[Patrick Johnson]

That's very specific to miscues, which are not normally fouls; it's the shaft contact that's a foul.

That's irrelevant to the question - whether it's "illegal" if we can't see it. That rule says if we can't see the ferrule hit the CB (presumably even if we can hear it do that), then it's a "legal" shot. It's not about ferrule vs. tip - it's about whether or not we can see it happen.

In a way this is just a semantic issue and I'd be happy if you guys instead said "it may or may not be a legal hit, but it's too hard to tell so in practice you can't call it." The way you state it is like saying "double hits are legal," and could be confusing to people.

"Legal" just means it's not a foul under the rules.

...you and Dr. Dave would call that legal, based on what you're saying here, because there's no evidence of the foul. But we know it couldn't have been a legal hit. I think every ref would call it a foul. That seems directly analogous to this elevated cue example. If a certain elevation produces a foul every time, it should be a foul and called a foul. It's just a matter of whether people know about it.

If it can be shown that it always occurs on shots like this, then I agree - that evidence is as good as seeing it in real time and it should be in the rules as a foul. But until it is in the rules as a foul, it's "legal".

pj
chgo

 

[BRussell]

That's irrelevant to the question - whether it's "illegal" if we can't see it. That rule says if we can't see the ferrule hit the CB (presumably even if we can hear it do that), then it's a "legal" shot. It's not about ferrule vs. tip - it's about whether or not we can see it happen.

OK I see that.

"Legal" just means it's not a foul under the rules.


If it can be shown that it always occurs on shots like this, then I agree - that evidence is as good as seeing it in real time and it should be in the rules as a foul. But until it is in the rules as a foul, it's "legal".

pj
chgo

Murder is illegal, but sometimes murderers get away with it due to lack of evidence. No one would say that murder was legal in those cases.

But at least you're putting "legal" in quotes now, so I'm going to consider that a victory.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Murder is illegal, but sometimes murderers get away with it due to lack of evidence. No one would say that murder was legal in those cases.

Of course murder isn't legal - but as far as the law is concerned the person didn't commit murderer unless we can prove it. In pool we have to be able to prove it at the table.

pj <- all semantics now...
chgo

 

[BRussell]

I agree completely - my only problem is with the use of the term 'legal' in reference to this elevated double hit. It's imprecise and inaccurate and could cause confusion, as it did for me in an earlier post. Rules are all about semantics, after all.

Anyway I'm done - interesting find by you and Dr. Dave.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Rules are all about semantics, after all.

Well, this part is anyway. And "legal" only means "not an infraction of the rules as they stand" (in pool rules and in the law) - not "should be an infraction of the rules". This kind of "invisible multiple hit" may some day be illegal, but until then it's just a loophole.

pj <- "illegal" and "wrong" aren't always synonymous
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

- interesting find by you and Dr. Dave.

Very interesting, but I didn't help find it - that was all Dave. We just talked about it some.

Interesting talking to you about the semantics too. It's not a trivial topic IMO.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

That's very specific to miscues, which are not normally fouls; it's the shaft contact that's a foul.

Miscues pretty much always involve multiple hits and secondary contact, but they are still allowed.

In a way this is just a semantic issue and I'd be happy if you guys instead said "it may or may not be a legal hit, but it's too hard to tell so in practice you can't call it." The way you state it is like saying "double hits are legal," and could be confusing to people.

A shot is illegal only if a foul is clear based on the action of the shot. This applies to miscues and many other shots. For example, in some potential double-hit shots and some "which ball was hit first?" scenarios, sometimes the shot is strictly a foul; but if there is no way to tell based on the action of the shot (e.g., where and how the CB and OBs move), then the shot is legal (i.e., not considered a foul). I think this logic also applies to the elevated follow shots in this thread.

If a certain elevation produces a foul every time, it should be a foul and called a foul. It's just a matter of whether people know about it.

I disagree, but I am curious to see what some of the rules experts out there say. What you are suggesting would definitely require a specific rule re-write or addition in the next revision.

Again, I think it is like miscues. Pretty much every miscue involves multiple hits or secondary contact, but there is no way to tell for sure (unless the evidence is clear like with the miscue in the video). It is the same here. At some elevations, speeds, tip offsets, strokes, and equipment, an elevated-cue follow shot results in multiple hits, but there is no way to tell for sure while watching the shot. Therefore, the shot is legal (under the current rules).

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Interesting talking to you about the semantics too. It's not a trivial topic IMO.

Agreed, IMO.

Thanks for all of the good discussion,
Dave

 

[white1]

This thread got me thinking

About the jumo shot....would bet that slow motion video would show the same on most jump shots? Thoughts.....forgive me if it has already been discussed.

 

[dr_dave]

About the jumo shot....would bet that slow motion video would show the same on most jump shots? Thoughts.....forgive me if it has already been discussed.

I've done lots of super-slow-motion video of many different types of jump shots, and most of them involve only a single hit. Many examples can be found on the following resource page (just search for "jump" on the page):

High-speed Pool and Billiards Video Clips

The only time I think a double hit is likely is with highly-elevated jump shots. The following video shows how this can happen:

HSV B.19 - Highly elevated cue jump shots

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[BRussell]

Miscues pretty much always involve multiple hits and secondary contact, but they are still allowed.


A shot is illegal only if a foul is clear based on the action of the shot. This applies to miscues and many other shots. For example, in some potential double-hit shots and some "which ball was hit first?" scenarios, sometimes the shot is strictly a foul; but if there is no way to tell based on the action of the shot (e.g., where and how the CB and OBs move), then the shot is legal (i.e., not considered a foul). I think this logic also applies to the elevated follow shots in this thread.


I disagree, but I am curious to see what some of the rules experts out there say. What you are suggesting would definitely require a specific rule re-write or addition in the next revision.

Again, I think it is like miscues. Pretty much every miscue involves multiple hits or secondary contact, but there is no way to tell for sure (unless the evidence is clear like with the miscue in the video). It is the same here. At some elevations, speeds, tip offsets, strokes, and equipment, an elevated-cue follow shot results in multiple hits, but there is no way to tell for sure while watching the shot. Therefore, the shot is legal (under the current rules).

Regards,
Dave

After hashing it out with PJ above, my only problem is your use of the term 'legal' in this context. Double hits are always illegal; the only question is whether they're unambiguous enough to be called in a real game setting. As anyone who plays league or bar pool knows, there's a huge gap between legality and "callability." Similarly, the miscue rule above is saying that if it's ambiguous, you can't call it, which is very different from saying it's a legal shot.

Maybe the distinction between "too ambiguous to call" and "legal" is pedantic, but it did confuse me when I saw you were calling it legal. I thought you were saying there was a substantive reason why it wasn't a double hit. You have a video camera and can examine the chalk marks and determine that the shot is illegal. In a real game setting you won't have the camera and can't inspect the cue ball, so the illegal shot can't be called.

That's how I see it, but I'm also curious to see Bob and the other rules experts' opinion on your discovery.

 

[dr_dave]

After hashing it out with PJ above, my only problem is your use of the term 'legal' in this context. Double hits are always illegal; the only question is whether they're unambiguous enough to be called in a real game setting. As anyone who plays league or bar pool knows, there's a huge gap between legality and "callability." Similarly, the miscue rule above is saying that if it's ambiguous, you can't call it, which is very different from saying it's a legal shot.

Maybe the distinction between "too ambiguous to call" and "legal" is pedantic, but it did confuse me when I saw you were calling it legal. I thought you were saying there was a substantive reason why it wasn't a double hit. You have a video camera and can examine the chalk marks and determine that the shot is illegal. In a real game setting you won't have the camera and can't inspect the cue ball, so the illegal shot can't be called.

That's how I see it, but I'm also curious to see Bob and the other rules experts' opinion on your discovery.

You make some good points, and I did read the exchange between you and PJ. As PJ mentioned, it is mostly a semantic argument. What is important is whether or not the shot is allowed in a game situation. If a foul cannot be proven, then the shot is allowed (AKA "legal" or "not a foul").

Regards,
Dave

 

[accustatsfan]

Serious question (I'm not trolling) I always wondered why the rules don't treat all miscues as a foul?

Example I can't "scoop" to make a legal jump shot, but I can "scoop" and make a ball. As in I tried to draw, but I unintentionally "scooped" the cueball. Both or neither should be fouls IMO

 

[ENGLISH!]

I've had many people try this shot, and the chalk marks have appeared for everybody, with different strokes, different cues, different tips, different bridges, different follow-throughs, etc.

Give it a try. I'd be very surprised if you can find a stroke type that will prevent the multiple chalk marks on the CB. Let me know if you do, shooting the shot shown in the video at similar cue elevations and speeds.

Regards,
Dave

Well, the tip trapping the ball & 'squirting' it out as the tip travels downward toward the table bed is different than if the tip contacts the ball & then bounces up into the air.

I'll just leave at that should anyone else want to give it a try.

Best Wishes.

 

[JB Cases]

I've done lots of super-slow-motion video of many different types of jump shots, and most of them involve only a single hit. Many examples can be found on the following resource page (just search for "jump" on the page):

High-speed Pool and Billiards Video Clips

The only time I think a double hit is likely is with highly-elevated jump shots. The following video shows how this can happen:

HSV B.19 - Highly elevated cue jump shots

Enjoy,
Dave

My slo-mo vids on jump shots around 2001 confirmed that there are no double hits on most jump shots. Only when the tip traps the CB is there a double hit.

 

[JoeyA]

With your video, it is very clear that each elevated shot has multiple hits.

Unfortunately, under most playing conditions, we do not have high-speed cameras or even regular cameras.

It would be nice if you could prove that ALL elevated shots are multiple hits, then possibly a rule could be implemented. Otherwise, I don't think it is practical to try and make all elevated shots a foul.

Show the video proof that ALL elevated shots are multiple hits and yes a rule could be implemented.

REGARDLESS, your video scores two thumbs up from JoeyA

JoeyA

 

[Tennesseejoe]

I believe the double hit could be avoided by cueing the cue ball a little off center. If we had another view of the good shot by Dr Dave where he stated that his aim was off a little, I think that he contacted the cue ball with the cue tip a little off center.

Off center cueing makes the shot more difficult but with practice doable.

A similar example could be when shooting a shot with a level cue and the cue ball and object ball are very close. In this shot just using inside English helps avoid the double hit.

 

[dr_dave]

Serious question (I'm not trolling) I always wondered why the rules don't treat all miscues as a foul? Example I can't "scoop" to make a legal jump shot, but I can "scoop" and make a ball. As in I tried to draw, but I unintentionally "scooped" the cueball. Both or neither should be fouls IMO.

I also used to think miscues should be fouls, because miscues almost always involve multiple hits and/or secondary contact (as is clear in the high-speed videos on the miscue resource page). Also, they represent a bad mistake by the shooter, which seems reasonable to penalize.

However, I can understand why they are allowed ... because there must be obvious evidence of a double hit or secondary contact. Also, often the miscue is penalty enough. Also, sometimes miscues end up being fouls anyway (e.g., if the OB is missed, or if a ball doesn't make it to a rail, or if the miscue was intentional as with some of the examples on the miscue resource page). Although, there are times when a player miscues and leaves the opponent in a bad place, which sucks.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I've had many people try this shot, and the chalk marks have appeared for everybody, with different strokes, different cues, different tips, different bridges, different follow-throughs, etc.

Give it a try. I'd be very surprised if you can find a stroke type that will prevent the multiple chalk marks on the CB. Let me know if you do, shooting the shot shown in the video at similar cue elevations and speeds.

Well, the tip trapping the ball & 'squirting' it out as the tip travels downward toward the table bed is different than if the tip contacts the ball & then bounces up into the air.

Have you tried your suggested swooping-up follow-through stroke to see if you can prevent the multiple hits over a range of cue elevations? I've tried different strokes and different amounts and directions of follow through, and they still result in the multiple hits (over a certain range of cue elevations). This is because the multiple hits occur extremely fast immediately after initial contact and before the tip has a time or distance to follow through or lift up.

Again, give it a try before you pre-judge too much.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I've done lots of super-slow-motion video of many different types of jump shots, and most of them involve only a single hit. Many examples can be found on the following resource page (just search for "jump" on the page):

High-speed Pool and Billiards Video Clips

The only time I think a double hit is likely is with highly-elevated jump shots. The following video shows how this can happen:

HSV B.19 - Highly elevated cue jump shots

Enjoy,
Dave

My slo-mo vids on jump shots around 2001 confirmed that there are no double hits on most jump shots. Only when the tip traps the CB is there a double hit.

Agreed. Any non-jamming jump shot at a non-extreme cue elevation involves only a single hit.

Are your videos available online. If so, please post links.

Regards,
Dave