Intentional foul situation (straight pool)

[Vahmurka]

my posting failed due to some server problems. Will post it anyway.

yes, Steve, Cuebacca is absolutely right supposing you didn't get it the way I tried to put, shame on me
If it is with Steve's shot it perfectly suits the conditions Bob Jewett is talking about: forward movement of the cuestick. Whereas in that particular situation it was just striking the cueball on top with the nod of a cuestick.

 

[cmssuits]

I'd play the 10, the 13's sittin on the 6 just right.

After the shot flys in, I believe the correct move is turn to your oppnent and laugh. Then a nice 50 or 60 & out.

 

[Bob Jewett]

> did I understand it right that these are future changes/additions to current WPA rules?

Yes.

> Bob, could you also share your opinion on my described situaton? The cue was
> not moving along it's axis, my partner just touched the top of cb with the
> edge of his tip. I wonder if it is present in rules of play already (striking forward
> or along cue's axis) or is intended to be included; can't check the rules myself
> now.[/QUOTE]]

I think it's not clear in the present rules, except maybe if you read the definitions in the definitions section as they were intended to be read by the person who wrote them.

It is nearly always possible to take a foul in a way that's plainly legal. Your opponent should have played the safe like a masse shot directly down on the top of the cue ball. He could have gone for a very, very light contact, and if he makes no cantact, of course he gets to try again. It is dangerous (Beware the Strict Referee!!) to take a foul the way he did. What penalty should be applied is sort of up to the ref. Efren got a 15-point penalty as you noted above for something that lots of ignorant players do. And before people get mad at me for calling Efren ignorant, let me point out the obvious: Efren did not know what rules were in force in that tournament. He was ignorant of them. I'm not saying he was or is a bad person. I'm saying that he lacked specific (and useful) knowledge.

 

[Vahmurka]

Thanks for clarifying it, Bob. I'm trying to always be as much precise in regard with rules as possible (especially having done official translation for local federation ). It is important to be aware of any aspect like that one discussed, for instance.
I'll just warn my opponent from repeating such move and explain the way he should have done it.

I'd play the 10, the 13's sittin on the 6 just right.

Of course I couldn't reproduce the position exactly like it was. I just tried to shuffle the rack a bit. The only balls that matter in the position are 1, and two free ones (showing no good reply to the safety I played). Nothing dead-on. I considered not to mention that. Apparently I should have done it

 

[Jimmy M.]

My "misuse" of the term? Heh. I'm well aware of what a miscue is and, yes, it can be done intentionally. I didn't use the wrong term. I did mean "miscue". Do you even know the shot I was describing? If that isn't a miscue, then nothing is.

Unfortunately, what a TD might call is an unknown, and varies from TD to TD.




Bob,

What about Jimmy M's shot makes it a miscue? (other than his misuse of the term) Is there a definition for miscue which would include this type of stroke?