Is This a Legal Shot?

[BRussell]

I didn't. Shall we start a poll of who heard the double hit or not and examine the audio to see who's correct?

I couldn't hear a double hit, I just don't think that cue ball path is possible without hitting it again. I'm totally open to being proven wrong with some evidence however. We've got tons of slomo videos showing double hits; I'd just like to see one example of a cue ball path like that that isn't.

 

[Jaden]

because you're not coming at it straight on..

How does the CB go forward like in that video other than via a foul? I'm sure we've all seen Dr. Dave's and Bob Jewett's slo mo videos on this, and everything I've seen from those indicates the only way to do it is with a foul. Can you link to a video or something else that shows how you could do that without fouling?

I"m not aware of any vids showing an off center hit jacked up and close like that???

nope set it up again, it's not a foul. I had accidentally setup the opposite shot and was using the wrong english. This can absolutely be shot like that without being a foul


Jaden

 

[Allen Brown]

I didn't. Shall we start a poll of who heard the double hit or not and examine the audio to see who's correct?

Go ahead. I heard it too. It was clearly a foul like I said before. Let it go.

 

[xXGEARXx]

No foul observed here!

 

[Island Drive]

What's ironic, years ago, especially in a Biker bar, the scoop jump was legal. One things for sure, by each posters responses, we know ALLOT more about their skill level. :thumbup2:

 

[Bob Jewett]

Anyone who thinks that shot was not a foul should never, ever consider being a referee.

The shot in the video was very clearly a foul. The cue ball had forward speed immediately after full contact. The two ways to accomplish that are to jack up so far and shoot so hard that the cue ball skims the top of the object ball. He did not do that. The second way is for the cue tip to hit the cue ball twice (or continuously through ball-ball contact). That second way is a foul.

The video author should not be doing videos about close hits since he doesn't understand them.

 

[RBC]

I believe it was a double hit.

My reasoning is this. When the cue ball travels away from the contact at the same or very close to the speed of the object ball, then it must have been struck a second time by the cue.

If you look in the video, the initial travel of the cue ball is very similar to that of the object ball in speed. It's not until the cue ball travels for several inches that the slight back spin on the cue ball acts like a "brake" and slows it's travel down by scrubbing off some speed.

The cue ball also went to the right, even though he was aiming left. Even the left hand spin would cause it to turn left, but his went right because it most likely struck the side of the tip or ferrrule.


Just my thoughts

Royce

 

[Bob Jewett]

I"m not aware of any vids showing an off center hit jacked up and close like that???

nope set it up again, it's not a foul. I had accidentally setup the opposite shot and was using the wrong english. This can absolutely be shot like that without being a foul


Jaden

Of course it's a foul. You judge by the action of the cue ball immediately after the ball-ball contact.

 

[Tiddler]

1/8 of an inch gap leaves approximately 1/16 of an of forward tip movement before a double hit has to occur. Definitely a double hit here. A good rule of thumb is if the cue ball travels forward more than an inch or two a foul has occurred.

 

[3andstop]

By the existing rules that shot was clearly a double hit, however, I still LOVE Grady Mathews suggestion years ago, and that was ... forget all this microscopic examining of the shot and just go with .. " If the CB shows "character" it won't be called a foul. "

To me, this seems simple enough and would eliminate a lot of problems.

 

[Bob Jewett]

By the existing rules that shot was clearly a double hit, however, I still LOVE Grady Mathews suggestion years ago, and that was ... forget all this microscopic examining of the shot and just go with .. " If the CB shows "character" it won't be called a foul. "

To me, this seems simple enough and would eliminate a lot of problems.

One man's "character" is another man's "sociopath". I think the rule "you are only allowed to hit the cue ball once on each shot" is better. Judging shots requires some knowledge and skill and is made harder by misinformation like the video in the OP.

But, 3andstop, if you're really serious about the "character" thing, what should the actual wording of the rule be?

 

[Bob Jewett]

1/8 of an inch gap leaves approximately 1/16 of an of forward tip movement before a double hit has to occur. Definitely a double hit here. A good rule of thumb is if the cue ball travels forward more than an inch or two a foul has occurred.

A better rule of thumb is that if the cue ball advances beyond where a stop shot would put it, a foul has probably occurred.

 

[BRussell]

Here's a video demonstrating a double hit. This is a quote from the video: "If the cue ball takes off at the same speed as the object ball, that's a foul. That cannot happen unless it's a foul. I don't care if you're the best player in the world, you can't do it. It's a guaranteed foul. If the balls take off at the same speed, just like that, that is a foul, it's called a double hit."

It's by Brandon, the same guy who did the first video, but a year later. :thumbup:

 

[3andstop]

One man's "character" is another man's "sociopath". I think the rule "you are only allowed to hit the cue ball once on each shot" is better. Judging shots requires some knowledge and skill and is made harder by misinformation like the video in the OP.

But, 3andstop, if you're really serious about the "character" thing, what should the actual wording of the rule be?

I don't know, I'd have to really think about that, but seeing the character in the CB is certainly easy enough to recognize even from the bleachers and that would, in and of itself constitute a legal shot.

Something to the effect that if the CB doesn't pass the OB there is no foul. If the CB passes the OB it is a foul. On an angle shot, one full stroke of the cue is allowed whether they are kissing or not.

Those are very broad guidelines but they are intended to be. There doesn't seem to be a downside in my mind to adjusting this rule.

In the case of Grady's suggestion, the video in question wouldn't be a foul. Someone just mentioned jacking up would be an allowed technique, that certainly imparts some character to the CB.

On a related note, I've always wondered about this jump ball thing. Being a straight pool lover I've never paid those rules much attention. Anyway, (and it happened in the US Open), if you can't scoop under the CB to jump, then why isn't an accidental miscue under the CB an automatic foul?

The same fine lines of intent could be argued with that situation. I recall seeing a player make a shot accidentally getting under the CB and jumping the CB slightly in doing so, the shot went in, and he continued shooting.

Now for the sake of argument, lets say that in the shot that got scooped, there happened to be another OB that was so close to being in the way that it may or may not have been. Accidental miscue or some jumping move?

That, from a purely technical view was a foul IMO. Not to mention hitting the CB with a part of the cue other than the tip. No one calls that one and I think life on the pool table would be simpler if no one was hovering over the player looking to call double hits.

 

[td873]

Looks like a double hit to me. Just play at .25 speed on youtube. I did and and took these screen shots.






Stills.
.
.
.
.

 

[RBC]

I don't know, I'd have to really think about that, but seeing the character in the CB is certainly easy enough to recognize even from the bleachers and that would, in and of itself constitute a legal shot.

Something to the effect that if the CB doesn't pass the OB there is no foul. If the CB passes the OB it is a foul. On an angle shot, one full stroke of the cue is allowed whether they are kissing or not.

Those are very broad guidelines but they are intended to be. There doesn't seem to be a downside in my mind to adjusting this rule.

In the case of Grady's suggestion, the video in question wouldn't be a foul. Someone just mentioned jacking up would be an allowed technique, that certainly imparts some character to the CB.

On a related note, I've always wondered about this jump ball thing. Being a straight pool lover I've never paid those rules much attention. Anyway, (and it happened in the US Open), if you can't scoop under the CB to jump, then why isn't an accidental miscue under the CB an automatic foul?

The same fine lines of intent could be argued with that situation. I recall seeing a player make a shot accidentally getting under the CB and jumping the CB slightly in doing so, the shot went in, and he continued shooting.

Now for the sake of argument, lets say that in the shot that got scooped, there happened to be another OB that was so close to being in the way that it may or may not have been. Accidental miscue or some jumping move?

That, from a purely technical view was a foul IMO. Not to mention hitting the CB with a part of the cue other than the tip. No one calls that one and I think life on the pool table would be simpler if no one was hovering over the player looking to call double hits.

I'm not sure what "Character" on the cue ball is.

Does it have to do with purpose? What I mean is, does the cue ball seem to go and act the way the player intended it to act?

If so, then I would definitely think this shot was a foul. From my perception, he expected the cue ball to go to the left, and he expected it to stop, or at least not go very far forward. In reality, the cue ball went to the right, even after he aimed it to the left, and it went pretty far down the table before it checked up from the back spin. Well, actually it didn't really check up, but it did very clearly slow down from having back spin, and then continue to roll.

Maybe I don't understand what "character" on the cue ball is.


Royce

 

[Island Drive]

Only possible way this could be a good hit, is if the cue stick is in full masse' vertical mode, then it's still VERY difficult when balls are that close to each other. I call it a ''shovel shot''. I had to make a near identical call at Four Bears this past Spring, I refereed the 200 player event, shane won.... anyway....Foul came out of my mouth ''Instantly'',. The player looked at me and smiled nicely, older gentlemen like me and said, I know it was a good hit, but it doesn't matter. I just walked away....knowing anyone that said it was a ''good hit'' just didn't know and that's why I was there, to make good calls and create fair play.

 

[DoubleA]

That is def a foul.

 

[3andstop]

I'm not sure what "Character" on the cue ball is.

Does it have to do with purpose? What I mean is, does the cue ball seem to go and act the way the player intended it to act?

If so, then I would definitely think this shot was a foul. From my perception, he expected the cue ball to go to the left, and he expected it to stop, or at least not go very far forward. In reality, the cue ball went to the right, even after he aimed it to the left, and it went pretty far down the table before it checked up from the back spin. Well, actually it didn't really check up, but it did very clearly slow down from having back spin, and then continue to roll.

Maybe I don't understand what "character" on the cue ball is.


Royce

Or maybe just say a CB that displays some result of english below horizontal equator.

 

[randyg]

In the WPA and BCAPL this is a foul.
In the VNEA, this is a foul but never called.
In the APA, ???????

If Bob Jewett said it was a foul, then it was.

randyg