Is This a Legal Shot?

boogeyman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I ran across this short instructional video. He says he jacks up to avoid the double hit yet the cb follows the ob down the table. Looked like a double hit to me. What do you think?

http://www.billiardgods.com/pv-throw-ball-theyre-frozen/

Definitely a double kiss/push shot.
I don't think that was an essential part of the shot however.

I have seen this chap before giving lessons from this same (his?) showroom. IMO he gives
the impression that he is a business owner first and a pool player second.
He definitely leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to instruction.

But hey, he took the time to post a pool video so props go to him.
 
Last edited:

boogeyman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
He jacked up into the cue ball, but he didn't hit the backside of the cue ball. He hit above center of the cue ball which added the top to force the cue ball down table. The left used to throw the ball into the pocket causes enough squirt with the downward angle to avoid the double hit. The tell tale sign of a double hit is the third click of contact for the foul. The video is either very carefully edited to remove that blip of sound, or he didn't double hit.

Hits 'em Hard.
Jacked up, left English, or video editing have nothing to do if one double hits a cue ball.
Look at the path of the cue ball after contact. There's your answer in and of itself.

ON A SIDE NOTE: (not directed at you, Hits 'em Hard)

No wonder we get into arguments about bad hits. Some of us don't even know how to
judge bad hits properly! If someone doesn't see this as a bad hit, then they're lacking some
pool acumen.
 
Last edited:

RBC

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

Ok, so now I'm more confused.

From his elevated position, if he were to hit below the "horizontal equator", then it would most definitely be a miss cue and would most likely not even contact the object ball.

Now, if you take the work "horizontal" out of it, then everything changes. If he hits below equator relative to the aiming plane, which is what I believe he did, then it most certainly will have back spin, and it most certainly will be a double hit. This is evidenced by the cue ball showing a distinct "check" after it has traveled some distance down the table. It is also evidenced by the fact that the cue ball traveled at essentially the same speed as the object ball immediately after contact.

To me, the "character" of the cue ball is just more evidence that the cue ball was hit more then once.

The physics just don't lie.


Royce
 

StraightPoolIU

Brent
Silver Member
This is a good thread. I now have knowledge that I did not have earlier and realize that this would indeed be a foul. We're lucky to have people like Bob Jewett posting on this forum.
 

3andstop

Focus
Silver Member
Ok, so now I'm more confused.

From his elevated position, if he were to hit below the "horizontal equator", then it would most definitely be a miss cue and would most likely not even contact the object ball.

Now, if you take the work "horizontal" out of it, then everything changes. If he hits below equator relative to the aiming plane, which is what I believe he did, then it most certainly will have back spin, and it most certainly will be a double hit. This is evidenced by the cue ball showing a distinct "check" after it has traveled some distance down the table. It is also evidenced by the fact that the cue ball traveled at essentially the same speed as the object ball immediately after contact.

To me, the "character" of the cue ball is just more evidence that the cue ball was hit more then once.

The physics just don't lie.


Royce

What has you confused is you're still thinking a double hit is a foul in this hypothetical revamping of the rule. I'm saying Grady's concept, and I like it, basically only calls for the cb to display some independent rotational action. The double hit would no longer be relevant.

I can't put it into words well, but as an example, picture the cb and ob frozen and you are shooting straight into them with some amount of draw. As you "push" into the shot, the cb follows the ob for a short distance, then slows on its own reverse rotation while the ob continues on.

This is what Grady referred to as cb character. While by current rules its a push, even this would be ok.
 

zpele

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Definitely a foul in that instance. The forward speed of the cueball is too fast for it to be anything but. He is also not jacked up enough to produce the correct tip placement. This is why the 45 degree rule exists in some leagues. Because too many players don't know how to call a shot like this and it often leads to arguments because both sides are adamant they know the correct ruling.

That being said I have a question... Is it possible to do a fouetté with the cue at more than a 45 degree angle? Is that even a fouetté anymore?
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... Is it possible to do a fouetté with the cue at more than a 45 degree angle (of elevation)? Is that even a fouetté anymore?
That's a little higher than usual, but I don't see that there is any real dividing line. I don't think the shooter in the video is elevated to 45 degrees. A real 45 degrees is quite a bit higher than most players ever get. That's another aspect of the goofy 45-degree rule that makes it worse than nothing.
 

jtompilot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Anyone that thinks that shot wasn't a foul is like an alcoholic that thinks he doesn't have a drinking problem
 
Last edited:

nobcitypool

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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

Randy, I'd say you're lucky if 3 in 100 apa players understand this rule correctly. Not many more in VNEA. Often very frustrating.

What's really frustrating is when you see an opponent set up for a shot that you can see is going to be a double hit. You so them, get someone to watch and they change the shot. In other words, they thought or knew it was going to be illegal but were going to do it anyway.

Thanks to Bob Jewitt for weighing in with fact.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Sorry didn't read all the comments. I'd bet my house that shot is a called a foul by a competent referee following WPA rules.
 

BRKNRUN

Showin some A$$
Silver Member
Ummmm foul......nice gimmick though.......but the CB path was a dead give away..

Funny thing is.....since I have a table sitting right behind me....I decided to put on my Mythbusters hat........ I tried setting this up so I could reproduce the shot....I actually could make it per his method but my CB (of course) took a very predictable (based on the jacked up left hand english) left turn toward the side pocket....often scratching in the side pocket.

For the life of me I could not get the CB to follow straight down table toward the corner pocket......(using his method of course)....This of course was my goal....couldn't do it even when I tried to double hit it

I moved on to try and make it legally .....Since I am left handed the shot set up for me....The only time I could make it where I thought it may be a legal hit was by using a open bridge and letting the tip bounce off the side of the CB and snatch it away..(no forward follow through)....(almost a miscue on purpose)....the OB had barely enough speed to make it to the pocket and the cue ball just kind of spun straight to the left to about the center of the table (if it moved at all).....It felt legal...have no idea without slow mo camera if it was actually a foul....and have no idea how it would have been called

Results of that shot on video though.....Myth busted....It was a foul.
 

chevybob20

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.

Absolutely since he hit below the center line and the CB never left the bed, the CB will never roll forward on a clean hit. It either stops or stops and then draws back.

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:

It's absolutely maddening to be in a pool hall with good players and the majority of them think jacking up at 45 degrees absolves them from a foul. I've even had them tell me that this is what the BCA said to do. :mad:

The tell tale sign is the CB response. The CB will stall briefly before going forward especially on a full ball or near full ball hit. It's the spin of the CB that carries it forward.

So, in this case when the CB came out in a race with the OB, it's either a foul or the video wasn't filmed in this universe. So that guy in the video could be a gray alien in disguise. If so, this thread may be moved to the NPR section. :thumbup:
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
... You so (ask) them, get someone to watch and they change the shot. In other words, they thought or knew it was going to be illegal but were going to do it anyway. ...
I think they know it but they want to see if you know it -- they can't be sure until they try. And then there are the players who know it will be a foul but shoot before you can ask for someone to watch.
 

Poolmanis

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Right way to shoot this layout is jack up about 80 degrees. Use 08.00 spin and aim towards right corner pocket...

Edit: if you aim to left and use left spin cueball will get hit second time almost certainty. Even if you jack up more.
 
Last edited:
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?

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.

Unfortunately, many idiots started playing by the "character" rule on fouls, at least when gambling. I never went for it though. A foul is a foul and players that can play know what they can shoot and what they can't shoot.

ONB
 

PoolBum

Ace in the side.
Silver Member
I say it's a F +
 

Attachments

  • bp_eagle_owl_1_111208_450.jpg
    bp_eagle_owl_1_111208_450.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 167

4onthebreak

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes, it's a foul. You can see it and you can hear it. Of course the problem is that the majority of pool players don't know what to listen for and look for.

I hate this "45 degree" nonsense. It's an arbitrary angle that means nothing.

Nothing.

I've seen guys double hit at 80 degrees.

The cue ball doesn't lie.

Being "jacked up" is a smoke screen move wither they know it or not.

The cue ball can NEVER go on the SAME PATH with the SAME or GREATER SPEED on a legal hit.

Can you move the cue ball forward with top? Yes. Of course, yes. But it can't CATCH UP or OVERTAKE.

In what world would we have to live in that you could "jack up", shoot down hard, and have the cue ball move forward a matter of FEET?

Can the cue ball move forward with draw? Sure, slow low is a common term. Right? What about hard low? Maybe if you time it right from the other end of the table. Even then it would be a matter of inches. Not FEET.

That cue ball went forward about what...6 or 6 and a half feet? Without using flat top spin?

Are you kidding me?
 
Top