Is this a foul?
- Thread starter something_pool
- Start date
Looked like they were intentionally scratching.
Like a couple of amateurs.
Control the cue ball...
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I couldn't see a chalk mark on the cloth that is typical when miscueing under the ball. I does look like he is hitting underneath the ball if you go frame by frame here (pause and use the ,. keys).
I think so, too. It's pretty funny that if he hadn't been shooting into the rail at that angle the cue ball wouldn't have hit the 1, resulting in a foul. Because I can't imagine that he would play the shot by jumping over the 1 to kick it straight back I have to agree with the unintentional miscue. I often miscue when stretched out like that. To me, with regard to the rules, this is the same as if he was loading up with the left English and miscued, sending the ball into the rail on the right and back into the 1. A mistake that luckily did not result in a foul.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
Both of these were tricky and unusual calls. And both lack the clear evidence of a foul and should therefore have not have been called. This referee seems to be a bit more strict. I feel like he's calibrated a bit too sensitive. This raises the question, "How much of a foul would you let slide if a ref erred towards not calling fouls? If the balls in SVB's "foul" were shifted 1/2" and it was difficult to tell if the cueball hit the rail or ball first, and possible to hit the rail and not recontact the rail with the cueball, would you let that slide?
The norm of course is the ball eventually made a good hit so it passes. I wouldn't give ignoring it a second thought. The issue as I see it though, is one of professional competence. Foul.
Nowhere in the WPA World Standardized Rules is a 45-degree angle mentioned. Many jump shots are played at less than 45 degrees.
I didn't know that. Does than mean I can take the protractor out of my cue case?
Last edited:
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I don't know, what aiming system do you use?
I only heard of it used at DCC. When close to a ball gets you out of trouble for a bad hit.
There it is, the "45 degree" rule
Used by DCC and others to police double hits. We did not adopt it for our rules but it is commonplace.
I reckon that's why all the new rule changes have generally tried to take the luck and intent out of the game. Hard to determine what's in someone's head versus the objective happenings on the table.
Should be able to video what happened and determine objectively what's good and bad.
I think there has been a huge misconception about the 45 deg rule....I only heard of it used at DCC. When close to a ball gets you out of trouble for a bad hit.
There it is, the "45 degree" rule
Used by DCC and others to police double hits. We did not adopt it for our rules but it is commonplace.onepocket.org
When it is used to avoid a double hit, I dont think it is supposed to be a 45 deg elevation. It is the 45deg CUT SHOT that is being referred to. A 45deg or greater cut shot would eliminate the foul.
I agree in general, but at DCC (and other tournaments in Sacramento I've been to) it's used to (by rule) to avoid a double hit (even if you technically make one). That is, even if you do double hit accidentally that can be shown on a recorded replay in slow motion, they don't want to have to have someone else making the call every time it occurs. Jack up enough and your good to go.
Was at DCC last year and a friend of mine jacked up and shot. The opponent called foul (double hit). A ref was called over and the opponent was told that they should have paid attention at the player's meeting. It's not in the official rules of pool but used in some tournaments to eliminate arguments especially when refs aren't always present at all games.
I guess it depends on your definition of “clearly visible” (it would be like the testimony of a ‘gunshot-murder‘ witness ruled inadmissible because he didn’t actually see the bullet that traveled from the gun to the victim).
6.6 Touched Ball
It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of any object ball except by the normal ball-toball
contacts during shots. It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except
when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot. The shooter is
responsible for the equipment he controls at the table, such as chalk, bridges, clothing, his
hair, parts of his body, and the cue ball when it is in hand, that may be involved in such fouls.
If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.17
Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of any object ball except by the normal ball-toball
contacts during shots. It is a foul to touch, move or change the path of the cue ball except
when it is in hand or by the normal tip-to-ball forward stroke contact of a shot. The shooter is
responsible for the equipment he controls at the table, such as chalk, bridges, clothing, his
hair, parts of his body, and the cue ball when it is in hand, that may be involved in such fouls.
If such a foul is accidental, it is a standard foul, but if it is intentional, it is 6.17
Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
Point being (I guess), is that you likely use too much draw at your own risk. Miscues with low english usually cause the CB to leave the playing surface, but still pass under the ‘clearly visible’ exception. But, enough loft to actually jump an OB is quite something else.
The DCC is not played by WPA (World Standardized) Rulles. It is played by Greg Sullivan's rules. His show, his rules.I only heard of it used at DCC. When close to a ball gets you out of trouble for a bad hit.
There it is, the "45 degree" rule
Used by DCC and others to police double hits. We did not adopt it for our rules but it is commonplace.
Well, not exactly. I can play at more than 45 on a close ball and still clearly foul it.
I believe at DCC 45 degrees of either elevation or cut makes it OK to hit the cue ball more than once.