How to Call Intentional Miscue Fouls

[Patrick Johnson]

According to WPA rules, a "clean" miscue (that the tip hits only once) is a foul only if it's intentional - and whether or not it's intentional must usually (always?) be determined by the outcome: did it benefit the shooter more than a non-miscue would have?

So why is intent even mentioned? Why not simply make the default determination the actual rule: "If the miscue benefits the shooter more than a non-miscue would have, it's a foul." That also covers the rare unintentional miscue that benefits the shooter by dumb luck.

I think it might also eliminate the need for a ferrule-hit foul (which is mostly impossible to catch visually anyway).

pj
chgo

 

[BasementDweller]

I must be missing something here...

If a player unintentionally miscues but makes a winning shot -- by your new definition it would be a foul. Is that correct? I don't think I would like that since neither the player nor the opponent ever knows when a miscue is going to happen -- it's pretty much always a surprise. So sorting things out every time after a miscue would possibly be troublesome. I think I prefer the way the rule is now -- which eliminates illegal jump shots and probably other types of shots I can't think of at the moment. I do wonder about shots where players are going for a very delicate hit on a close ball safety and they just glance off the edge of the cue ball which moves it minutely at a 90 degree angle from the direction the cue is pointing. Are those types of shots technically purposeful miscues?

 

[ChrisinNC]

According to WPA rules, a "clean" miscue (that the tip hits only once) is a foul only if it's intentional - and whether or not it's intentional must usually (always?) be determined by the outcome: did it benefit the shooter more than a non-miscue would have?

So why is intent even mentioned? Why not simply make the default determination the actual rule: "If the miscue benefits the shooter more than a non-miscue would have, it's a foul." That also covers the rare unintentional miscue that benefits the shooter by dumb luck.

I think it might also eliminate the need for a ferrule-hit foul (which is mostly impossible to catch visually anyway).

pj
chgo

At the very least, if not automatic ball-in-hand for the opponent in the case of a miscue, a miscue even if it's not a foul (still hit a legal ball struck first and something to a rail) should result in the opponent having the option to pass the shot back to the shooter if they so desire, to cover instances where the player who miscues getting a lucky leave out of it. And in no circumstance should a player who miscues and lucks in a ball be able to keep shooting, even when playing traditional 9-ball rules with everything wild. That is just my personal opinion I'm sure most will not agree with.

 

[pt109]

According to WPA rules, a "clean" miscue (that the tip hits only once) is a foul only if it's intentional - and whether or not it's intentional must usually (always?) be determined by the outcome: did it benefit the shooter more than a non-miscue would have?

So why is intent even mentioned? Why not simply make the default determination the actual rule: "If the miscue benefits the shooter more than a non-miscue would have, it's a foul." That also covers the rare unintentional miscue that benefits the shooter by dumb luck.

I think it might also eliminate the need for a ferrule-hit foul (which is mostly impossible to catch visually anyway).

pj
chgo

It’s scary that people that have so much to say about the game could write that...
...it sounds like kids making up their own tules on a playground.

I wonder why a misce should be considered a foul anyways...if the conditions of a legal
Shot occurred....(hit a ball on and hit rail or pocket after contact)

I was a power player that also liked to spin...I must’ve miscued a zillion time...
....don’t recall hearing a ferrule contact ever...I even used to deliberately miscue to make a ball...
...either clowning around or trying to fool somebody...like make a color at snooker...
...leave the table and come back looking confused...aim at another color but miscue...
...and make a red ball.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It’s scary that people that have so much to say about the game could write that...
...it sounds like kids making up their own tules on a playground.

I wonder why a misce should be considered a foul anyways...if the conditions of a legal
Shot occurred....(hit a ball on and hit rail or pocket after contact)

I agree with you - the fewer rules the better if you ask me.

But since we have a rule that requires us to decide if a foul was intentional or not, wouldn't it be easier, more objective, to decide if it was beneficial rather than if it was intentional? That's the only question I'm asking.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I must be missing something here...

If a player unintentionally miscues but makes a winning shot -- by your new definition it would be a foul. Is that correct?

How do we know the miscue was unintentional (especially if it makes a winning shot)? Isn't it nonsensical to base the ruling on something that's inherently unknowable: the shooter's intent?

Like I said to PT, I'd just as soon have no miscue fouls - but while we're stuck with it wouldn't it be more objective to judge it on the outcome rather than our guess about the intent?

pj
chgo

 

[Bob Jewett]

Miscues are a big problem as far as the rules are concerned, as noted above.

Many miscues involve the ferrule slapping the cue ball as a second or even a third hit. Should that be a foul?

It is possible to make some very remarkable shots with an intentional miscue, as shown in Byrne's 350 shots book. Should such shots be fouls?

Is there any rule that keeps people from doing bad things without judging intention?

Some miscues do not have a second hit. Should those be fouls?

 

[Bob Jewett]

I agree with you - the fewer rules the better if you ask me.

But since we have a rule that requires us to decide if a foul was intentional or not, wouldn't it be easier, more objective, to decide if it was beneficial rather than if it was intentional? That's the only question I'm asking.

pj
chgo

I'm wondering how you're going to define "beneficial". A player is shooting straight at an object ball. He is trying for draw to a very small window for position on a ball. He would be much better off just stopping the cue ball for a sure shot but a longer shot. Also, position will be easier to play from the stop shot.

He shoots and miscues, pocketing the object ball, jumping forward a little and drawing back to the equivalent of the stop shot.

Did the miscue "benefit" the shooter?

 

[DynoDan]

I agree with you - the fewer rules the better if you ask me.

But since we have a rule that requires us to decide if a foul was intentional or not, wouldn't it be easier, more objective, to decide if it was beneficial rather than if it was intentional? That's the only question I'm asking.

pj
chgo

So, you’re saying if a player intentionally miscues low in an obvious attempt to jump an obstructing ball, but the object ball he contacts misses the pocket, a foul shouldn’t be called?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm wondering how you're going to define "beneficial".

Yep, that's the relevant question. So is its counterpart: how do we define "intentional"? Which is easier? Are they functionally the same?

Personally, I think the solution is probably to ignore miscues altogether, based on the presumption that they're almost always negative for the shooter.

It is possible to make some very remarkable shots with an intentional miscue, as shown in Byrne's 350 shots book. Should such shots be fouls?

Sounds like they take some skill...?

pj
chgo

 

[ChrisinNC]

I'm wondering how you're going to define "beneficial". A player is shooting straight at an object ball. He is trying for draw to a very small window for position on a ball. He would be much better off just stopping the cue ball for a sure shot but a longer shot. Also, position will be easier to play from the stop shot.

He shoots and miscues, pocketing the object ball, jumping forward a little and drawing back to the equivalent of the stop shot.

Did the miscue "benefit" the shooter?

The issue of the question of whether the result of the miscue was beneficial to the shooter or not could easily be solved by giving the opponent the option to shoot the next shot or pass it back, in the case of a miscue. However, if in the course of the miscue the object ball was still hit and the object ball was still made in the intended pocket, I think the player should be allowed to keep shooting - no foul. Otherwise there might be too much controversy over whether a successfully executed shot that sounded unusual was or wasn't a miscue.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The issue of the question of whether the result of the miscue was beneficial to the shooter or not could easily be solved by giving the opponent the option to shoot the next shot or pass it back, in the case of a miscue.

I like that. Miscue = pushout.

pj
chgo

 

[nine o nine]

So...just yesterday I intended to do a power follow shot but I miscued over the top of the cueball. (Lousy fundamentals since the shaft rose) My object ball dropped in the intended pocket and as I smirked about my miscue my opponent also smirked and I kept shooting the inning as though it never happened. Was the ferrule involved? I don't know as the cueball only crept forward.
Mitch

 

[jrctherake]

It’s scary that people that have so much to say about the game could write that...
...it sounds like kids making up their own tules on a playground.

I wonder why a misce should be considered a foul anyways...if the conditions of a legal
Shot occurred....(hit a ball on and hit rail or pocket after contact)

I was a power player that also liked to spin...I must’ve miscued a zillion time...
....don’t recall hearing a ferrule contact ever...I even used to deliberately miscue to make a ball...
...either clowning around or trying to fool somebody...like make a color at snooker...
...leave the table and come back looking confused...aim at another color but miscue...
...and make a red ball.

I agree!!!

To me the miscues do not matter as long as tip/cueball contact was not repeated, cueball stays on table and object ball or cueball hits a rail after cb/ob contact or object ball is pocketed.

I keep hearing the saying "keep it simple stupid".

We need accountability in pool in general but at the same time, some people try to make things more complicated than need be.

To much nitpicking hurts "any" sport qs a whole. Sure, we need set rules to make it a level playing field but, carrying rules to far can/ will make the game boring to most all due to the added drama and added time it takes to make such rulings.

Bottom line:

In pool, "RULES" are like "PATTERNS", the simpler, the better.

Rake

 

[jrctherake]

I like that. Miscue = pushout.

pj
chgo

I don't. Sounds like a bad idea to me.

 

[dr_dave]

Pat and others,

FYI, I have lots of videos and information related to this topic on my miscue resource page. Here are some highlights:

- practically all miscue involve secondary contact with the tip, ferrule and/or shaft.
- shots made possible by intentional miscues go against the “spirit of the game.”
- a strong case can be made that all obvious miscues should be considered fouls.

Note - I included the word “obvious” in the last bullet because sometimes a “late” or “partial” miscue can occur. So even knowing if a shot is a miscue or not can be in question.

Rules are tough to make perfect.

Good thread,
Dave

 

[pt109]

Pat and others,

FYI, I have lots of videos and information related to this topic on my miscue resource page. Here are some highlights:

- practically all miscue involve secondary contact with the tip, ferrule and/or shaft.
- shots made possible by intentional miscues go against the “spirit of the game.”
- a strong case can be made that all obvious miscues should be considered fouls.

Note - I included the word “obvious” in the last bullet because sometimes a “late” or “partial” miscue can occur. So even knowing if a shot is a miscue or not can be in question.

Rules are tough to make perfect.

Good thread,
Dave

Your first example of a miscue is a blatant foul...I’ve seen players actually trap and stop
The cue ball on a hit like that.
But many miscues I’ve experienced are no more illegal than a masse shot....
...where the cue ball is trapped between the tip and the cloth.....
...we allow masse shots....I would like to see most miscues treated the same way.

 

[jrctherake]

Your first example of a miscue is a blatant foul...I’ve seen players actually trap and stop
The cue ball on a hit like that.
But many miscues I’ve experienced are no more illegal than a masse shot....
...where the cue ball is trapped between the tip and the cloth.....
...we allow masse shots....I would like to see most miscues treated the same way.

Again, I agree!

Masse shots if shot "correctly" are NOT the same as miscues but, the average player DOESN'T perform masse shot correctly. Which to me, make your point even stronger.

If I tried to call a foul everytime a lower level player incorrectly performed a masse shot....lol..... I would spend half my room time arguing.

The above ties to my comment about calling miscues a foul. Doing so will do nothing more than cause issues with a lower level player. Unfortunately, that would involve the bulk of the pool world.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Again, I agree!

Masse shots if shot "correctly" are NOT the same as miscues but, the average player DOESN'T perform masse shot correctly. Which to me, make your point even stronger.

If I tried to call a foul everytime a lower level player incorrectly performed a masse shot....lol..... I would spend half my room time arguing.

The above ties to my comment about calling miscues a foul. Doing so will do nothing more than cause issues with a lower level player. Unfortunately, that would involve the bulk of the pool world.

A bigger issue is how many players, even long time players, don't understand the double-hit foul rule, when the cue ball is within 2-3 inches of the object ball and they are playing it fairly straight on.