I think this is the shot in The Hustler:
I'm pretty sure it's a foul.
pj
chgo
Is this a legal shot in the video?
- Thread starter cuetable
- Start date
I think this is the shot in The Hustler:
I'm pretty sure it's a foul.
pj
chgo
You are correct, the shot on my page 2 was from The Color of Money
Is that a foul?
Dave,
However, the shot as described (if set up on a carom table) would be illegal in all carom games. You may not shoot into a cushion to which you are frozen, just as you may not shoot into a ball to which you are frozen.
Here is the appropriate rule (although the "English" transation is cumbersome, at best):
"8. If the player plays directly with the cue-ball the cushion with which it would be in contact, without having detached it by means of a detached massé stroke in advance, [it is a foul] (indicated by "ball in contact)"
I know from experience that many carom players are not aware of this rule.
Mark
There is a common trick shot based on this, forget the nickname it has... "the great escape" maybe.
You kick into the rail, the cue ball never touches the ball it's frozen to because the rubber compresses enough to let the CB get out of the way. With the right amount of running english, it travels 3 rails and comes back to its original position, caroming off the back of that ball to hit the hanger.
Not a foul.
You kick into the rail, the cue ball never touches the ball it's frozen to because the rubber compresses enough to let the CB get out of the way. With the right amount of running english, it travels 3 rails and comes back to its original position, caroming off the back of that ball to hit the hanger.
Not a foul.
Since the CB is driven more or less straight into the rail for this shot it's probably a double hit or a push, unless the foul is avoided with a "fouette" cueing technique - using maximum english so the tip "caroms" off the cue ball without double hitting it.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Unless you can see/hear that it is a foul--I don't think anyone should be able to call "foul".
Last edited:
First things' first. As an instructional video, I would rate it subpar at best. If for no other reason than the vagueness of his description of how to hit the shot. "The only thing that you have to do is shoot the cue ball into the rail. And, shoot it with a moderate stroke, and that should make the 9-ball go into this pocket." If it were truly that high percentage of a shot, he wouldn't have had to use the video clip of him missing the shot in the final cut. In my opinion, this is a trick/proposition/showboat shot with little value in an actual game of 9-ball.
I wholeheartedly disagree. There are plenty of times when you can't physically see or hear the second hit, or some other form of foul occuring. Most of them deal with close hits and/or double contacts of the cue ball. Often times, by watching the resulting paths of the balls, it's fairly easy to determine whether a foul has occurred or not. In those cases, I think it's absolutely correct to call the foul.
The shot in question is likely not a foul, but I don't know if we really have enough visual evidence one way or another without watching the path of the cueball.
I wholeheartedly disagree. There are plenty of times when you can't physically see or hear the second hit, or some other form of foul occuring. Most of them deal with close hits and/or double contacts of the cue ball. Often times, by watching the resulting paths of the balls, it's fairly easy to determine whether a foul has occurred or not. In those cases, I think it's absolutely correct to call the foul.
The shot in question is likely not a foul, but I don't know if we really have enough visual evidence one way or another without watching the path of the cueball.
With out a doubt, it is a foul.............
It's very hard to tell from the view of the camera.
It's definitely correct. Tournament referees are taught to judge hits by the paths of the balls, referees' instructions for official rules describe how to do it, and most of the shots in Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett's "Pool Rules Quiz " video are judged that way (link here -> Pool rules quiz for referees and players, with Bob Jewett).
Knowing how to call fouls this way also helps you learn to avoid those tricky fouls.
A word to the wise though: even though calling fouls this way is correct, correct may have a slightly different meaning to the guys at the Brew 'n Cue. In fact it might have a different meaning to each of them.
pj
chgo
1) it is a foul to hit the cue ball twice.
2) this shot does not hit the cue ball twice.
There is no foul. [Why do you think the cue ball was hit twice?]
If you shoot this with outside english it's very difficult to even double hit the cue ball. In fact, aiming far enough away, you can completely miss hitting the object ball.
-td
dave sutton
Banned
well said pj. thats how a foul should be judged. by the path the balls take. the balls dont lie...
I think it would be easier to avoid a double hit/illegal contact by using inside (in this case, left) english. In fact, it might be nearly impossible to avoid a bad hit using outside (right) english on this shot. Is that what you meant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennesseejoe
Unless you can see/hear that it is a foul--I don't think anyone should be able to call "foul".
I think we really agree. If you can't see the double hit, the paths of the balls, etc. indicating a foul---then you shouldn't call a foul. Or did I miss something?
Originally Posted by Tennesseejoe
Unless you can see/hear that it is a foul--I don't think anyone should be able to call "foul".
I think we really agree. If you can't see the double hit, the paths of the balls, etc. indicating a foul---then you shouldn't call a foul. Or did I miss something?
Last edited:
Thanks for all your great ideas.
After thinking about this for a few days, I realize why I got the foul shot idea from. And a lot of this came from my own assumption.
1, The cue ball and the object ball are lined up to the first diamond
2, The balls are froze to each other and the cue ball is frozen to the rail (Note: the video never shows this; this comes out of my initial impression)
3, In order for the object ball to go into the pocket, it has to be hit at a different contact point
4, As the cue ball gets compressed into the cushion, there will be a tiny gap between balls
5, As the cue ball is bounced back from the cushion to hit a different contact point on the object ball.
6, The cue tip remains in touch with the cue ball between the time the cue ball leaves the initial position to the time it hits a new contact point.
Since the initial contact does not count, the cue ball hit the object ball only once. So this should be a legal hit!
I don't mean to discredit the video or to disrespect for Joe in any way. As a matter of fact, I envy Joe for making a great effort in delivering great online billiard instructional videos. I wish there are more people who'd share ideas to help new pool players.
I have watched most of his videos and added them to the tip section of pool video screening room. At a later time, I will try to make a catalog listings for all the great youtube pool videos, including videos from Joe Nichols, Dr Dave, Mike Page, Tom Rossman, Buddy Hall, Marcus (forcefollow) and others. To help the sport effectively we should try to reach out more..
After thinking about this for a few days, I realize why I got the foul shot idea from. And a lot of this came from my own assumption.
1, The cue ball and the object ball are lined up to the first diamond
2, The balls are froze to each other and the cue ball is frozen to the rail (Note: the video never shows this; this comes out of my initial impression)
3, In order for the object ball to go into the pocket, it has to be hit at a different contact point
4, As the cue ball gets compressed into the cushion, there will be a tiny gap between balls
5, As the cue ball is bounced back from the cushion to hit a different contact point on the object ball.
6, The cue tip remains in touch with the cue ball between the time the cue ball leaves the initial position to the time it hits a new contact point.
Since the initial contact does not count, the cue ball hit the object ball only once. So this should be a legal hit!
I don't mean to discredit the video or to disrespect for Joe in any way. As a matter of fact, I envy Joe for making a great effort in delivering great online billiard instructional videos. I wish there are more people who'd share ideas to help new pool players.
I have watched most of his videos and added them to the tip section of pool video screening room. At a later time, I will try to make a catalog listings for all the great youtube pool videos, including videos from Joe Nichols, Dr Dave, Mike Page, Tom Rossman, Buddy Hall, Marcus (forcefollow) and others. To help the sport effectively we should try to reach out more..
It's a foul for the cue tip to be touching the CB when the CB contacts an OB (except while they're initially frozen). But I don't think that happens on this shot.
Since the initial contact does not count, the cue ball hit the object ball only once. So this should be a legal hit!
The cue ball can hit an object ball any number of times - that's not a foul.
pj
chgo
You're mistaken that wasn't the shot in the "Hustler." The shot Eddie Felson shot was a bank shot where the balls were frozen to each other.
It sounds like we do agree, and it's just a case of message board interpretation gone slightly awry. Glad to be on your side
I saw the video, and I thought that he didn't hit the cueball twice, he kind of shot it legally and then from there the Cueball actually in a very fast split second went and hit the object ball serveral times, It was really fast. but with physics that what really happened, a normal humanoid eye cannot see this, its very very quick. Then after the contact from the CB + OB serveral times, it went off to the pocket & and CB went really fast, but he not hit the CB twice with his cue, Therefore it's not a foul.