Getting the Tip Out of the Way

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know in fouette shots you can get the tip out of the way of a double hit thanks to the tip offset, maybe a little cueball deflection, shaft flex, and an tip redirection off the curved ball. And the key is that it is not a miscue.

However for shots like this, is it possible to get the tip out of the way without it being an intentional miscue? I imagine it’s impossible to “swoop up” after contact as the space and timing it too tight and the initial trajectory is too downward. I imagine at best you can attempt it like a fouetté shot with a lot of tip offset to the side but is the rail compression enough space to get the tip out of the way without intentionally miscuing?

IMG_1421.jpeg


IMG_1422.jpeg


I feel like this is a famous and familiar trick shot. And often trick shots are given some latitude on the rules. And the more familiar the public is with a shot the more likely they are to just consider it good because they’ve seen it before. But would this pretty much guarantee to be a foul even if in video it looks or sounds clean?
 
Dr. Dave has shown that hitting over another ball, even with no rail nearby, causes almost unavoidable miscues/multiple hits. He has a video demonstrating it, but I can't find it right now.

pj
chgo
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
Super interesting because any response I give why general elevated shots shouldn't be treated as fouls would also apply to my original "elevated into rail" example, e.g. the common practice has embraced it, the affect of the additional contact isn't blatant, etc.
 
I’d like to see slow-mo video of the same setup using a jump cue or shaft only (super light grip/short stroke also). Since shooting over a ball requires extreme elevation angle, likely the league 45 degree rule would void any foul, technically (?).
 
I’d like to see slow-mo video of the same setup using a jump cue or shaft only (super light grip/short stroke also). Since shooting over a ball requires extreme elevation angle, likely the league 45 degree rule would void any foul, technically (?).
What leagues even have a 45-degree rule anymore? I don't think BCA does. VNEA got rid of it just last year. I don't believe APA has that rule. And it's certainly not part of the world standardized rules for professional play.
 
Lik
What leagues even have a 45-degree rule anymore? I don't think BCA does. VNEA got rid of it just last year. I don't believe APA has that rule. And it's certainly not part of the world standardized rules for professional play.
Likely true. But, I’ve come to realize it may be a logical change the BCA should consider. I’m sick of educating less knowledgeable players that shooting into a close ball is a technical foul. Easier to automatically elevate than measure the distance, or generate conflict re: a perceived failure to admit to an obvious double hit. I generally avoid close shots for that very reason (unless I can naturally ‘shoot away’). The controversy re: miscues or shooting over a ball, etc. being technically foul, only generates disagreement & ill feelings. If ‘jacking up’ could excuse a double hit, the game would be simplified (IMHO).
 
Back
Top