Is this a foul?

[something_pool]

At the 17 minute mark, Sanjin Pehlivanovic executes an unintentional scoop shot, jumping over the one ball. My understanding of the rule has always been: if it's an intentional scoop (i.e., you're trying to jump over an object ball with a scoop stroke), then that's a foul. But an unintentional scoop is treated just like a miscue, and is not a foul. Is this understanding correct? In the WPA rules of play, scoop shots are listed under section 8.18 as a miscue, unless it is intentional, in which case it is a foul for unsportsmanlike conduct.

So was this the wrong call by the ref here?

 

[Cuebuddy]

To me it looked like he hit it like a jump shot. It did not look like a scoop shot where the ferrule gets under the cue ball.

Cuebuddy>>>>using a phone to watch.

 

[something_pool]

To me it looked like he hit it like a jump shot. It did not look like a scoop shot where the ferrule gets under the cue ball.

Cuebuddy>>>>using a phone to watch.

I think he was just digging down on the ball to get more draw action, and he accidentally hit it too low. He was on the one, so there's no way he was trying to jump over the ball that he was shooting. Which makes me think it couldn't have been intentional.

 

[Cuebuddy]

I think he was just digging down on the ball to get more draw action, and he accidentally hit it too low. He was on the one, so there's no way he was trying to jump over the ball that he was shooting. Which makes me think it couldn't have been intentional.

I agree. Tough call for the ref unless he was really watching for it. Looked like all tip and no fowl.

 

[straightline]

Intent wasn't the question there. The miscue was the foul.

 

[something_pool]

Intent wasn't the question there. The miscue was the foul.

That's my question though: is a miscue in and of itself a foul? My reading of the rules is that it's not a foul, unless it's intentional. Can you point to somewhere in the rules that says that miscues are fouls?

 

[Bob Jewett]

That's my question though: is a miscue in and of itself a foul? My reading of the rules is that it's not a foul, unless it's intentional. Can you point to somewhere in the rules that says that miscues are fouls?

See rule 8.18 in the WPA rules. A miscue is generally not a foul by itself. Of course many miscues include contact of the side of the stick with the cue ball, but if it's not clearly visible it is assumed to not have happened. Some miscues do not have that second contact.

I think the ruling in the match was wrong.

 

[straightline]

That's my question though: is a miscue in and of itself a foul? My reading of the rules is that it's not a foul, unless it's intentional. Can you point to somewhere in the rules that says that miscues are fouls?

I should have quantified that with <AFAIC> but as far as rules go, contacting the cueball with anything other than the tip of the cue is a foul. Most fouls of this nature are unintentional and in some cases intentional "unintentional fouls" carry a stiffer "unsportsman like" stigma. So basically the rules guys have cornered themselves.

 

[L.S. Dennis]

See rule 8.18 in the WPA rules. A miscue is generally not a foul by itself. Of course many miscues include contact of the side of the stick with the cue ball, but if it's not clearly visible it is assumed to not have happened. Some miscues do not have that second contact.

I think the ruling in the match was wrong.

I agree with your assessment

 

[NINEBALLART]

See rule 8.18 in the WPA rules. A miscue is generally not a foul by itself. Of course many miscues include contact of the side of the stick with the cue ball, but if it's not clearly visible it is assumed to not have happened. Some miscues do not have that second contact.

I think the ruling in the match was wrong.

I agree with you...

 

[Fatboy]

See rule 8.18 in the WPA rules. A miscue is generally not a foul by itself. Of course many miscues include contact of the side of the stick with the cue ball, but if it's not clearly visible it is assumed to not have happened. Some miscues do not have that second contact.

I think the ruling in the match was wrong.

100% wrong

As is the purple 5

They need to get their act together

 

[something_pool]

See rule 8.18 in the WPA rules. A miscue is generally not a foul by itself. Of course many miscues include contact of the side of the stick with the cue ball, but if it's not clearly visible it is assumed to not have happened. Some miscues do not have that second contact.

I think the ruling in the match was wrong.

Thank you for weighing in! That was my thinking as well. If that's the case, this would be the second high profile call that this ref has (arguably) gotten wrong in two tournaments.

 

[straightline]

...this would be the second high profile call that this ref has (arguably) gotten wrong in two tournaments.

That seems more prominent than the call itself. Strange how the rolls go...

 

[skogstokig]

At the 17 minute mark, Sanjin Pehlivanovic executes an unintentional scoop shot, jumping over the one ball. My understanding of the rule has always been: if it's an intentional scoop (i.e., you're trying to jump over an object ball with a scoop stroke), then that's a foul. But an unintentional scoop is treated just like a miscue, and is not a foul. Is this understanding correct? In the WPA rules of play, scoop shots are listed under section 8.18 as a miscue, unless it is intentional, in which case it is a foul for unsportsmanlike conduct.

So was this the wrong call by the ref here?

wrong call. and it's fairly safe to say that noone in the final days line-up would ever intentionally scoop the ball. practice countless hours with a jump cue and make a scoop shot on the tv table in a quarter final? right...

 

[mista335]

Thank you for weighing in! That was my thinking as well. If that's the case, this would be the second high profile call that this ref has (arguably) gotten wrong in two tournaments.

What was the first?

 

[btal]

May be the worst call I've ever seen.

 

[mistamikel]

What was the first?

Foul call on SVB that was debated all over, and even DrDave did some videos on the foul/call.

 

[David in FL]

Intent wasn't the question there. The miscue was the foul.

Yes, intent is the question. Intent is easy to determine on this one, because there’s no reason whatsoever in the world for him to be trying to hop over that one ball.

An unintentional miscue is not a foul unless the stroke also resulted in some other action that would be a foul. A double hit or the cueball striking the shaft as examples…

He was simply trying to draw the ball and miscued. No foul. Horrible call.

 

[buckshotshoey]

I think he was just digging down on the ball to get more draw action, and he accidentally hit it too low. He was on the one, so there's no way he was trying to jump over the ball that he was shooting. Which makes me think it couldn't have been intentional.

This is the answer....
Why would a player want to jump over the 1 ball when it's the one ball you are shooting at? It was a miscue. No foul.

 

[realtor1618]

Horrible call. Not a foul. Absolutely terrible that this ref could make a call like that at this level of competition.