Is This a Legal Shot?

Bob Jewett said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bob, and then there referees who know it, watch the shot and don't call it because they are afraid to face the controversy.

This I'm sure was part of Grady's argument and why I said I agree with totally forgetting about double hits if Grady's idea was followed.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts that I asked about in an earlier post, and no one touched with a 10 foot pole, on balls scooped under by accident, they jump up, the shot is made and the player is allowed to continue. To me this is the same kind of grey line. Its a foul no one wants to call.
 
3andstop said:
... I'm interested to hear your thoughts that I asked about in an earlier post, and no one touched with a 10 foot pole, on balls scooped under by accident, they jump up, the shot is made and the player is allowed to continue. To me this is the same kind of grey line. Its a foul no one wants to call.
Click to expand...

This is covered in the WPA (world-standardized) rules:

8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).

 
3andstop said:
Bob, and then there referees who know it, watch the shot and don't call it because they are afraid to face the controversy.

This I'm sure was part of Grady's argument and why I said I agree with totally forgetting about double hits if Grady's idea was followed.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts that I asked about in an earlier post, and no one touched with a 10 foot pole, on balls scooped under by accident, they jump up, the shot is made and the player is allowed to continue. To me this is the same kind of grey line. Its a foul no one wants to call.
Click to expand...

Grady was a one pocket specialist, and always tried or had you frozen to another ball. During Gradys earlier days here in town (1973) when he opened a pool room, if the cue ball and the object ball were frozen together he logically came up with a reason that you were NOT allowed to shoot forward, because since both balls went the same speed it had to be illegal. I found out just a few years ago (I quit playing for a long time) it was a legal shot if you didn't dbl hit the cue ball. He made this rule and Many followed his thinking for years on this aspect of play. Nowadays that has been proven wrong when a ball is frozen to the cue ball, but still anyone can make a bad hit on Any shot at anytime.

Here is a rule of thumb that many beginners can conceptualize. If your shooting straight into and object ball and the cue ball is two inches away, you better have a nip type bridge and a swing ''less than two inches'' to NOT dbl hit the object ball. It's physics plain and simple. How could one follow thru four or three inches, shooting straight into and object ball only two inches away and not push it???? Try it, let us all know how it goes.
 
Island Drive said:
Grady was a one pocket specialist, and always tried or had you frozen to another ball. During Gradys earlier days here in town (1973) when he opened a pool room, if the cue ball and the object ball were frozen together he logically came up with a reason that you were NOT allowed to shoot forward, because since both balls went the same speed it had to be illegal. I found out just a few years ago (I quit playing for a long time) it was a legal shot if you didn't dbl hit the cue ball. He made this rule and Many followed his thinking for years on this aspect of play. Nowadays that has been proven wrong when a ball is frozen to the cue ball, but still anyone can make a bad hit on Any shot at anytime.

Here is a rule of thumb that many beginners can conceptualize. If your shooting straight into and object ball and the cue ball is two inches away, you better have a nip type bridge and a swing ''less than two inches'' to NOT dbl hit the object ball. It's physics plain and simple. How could one follow thru four or three inches, shooting straight into and object ball only two inches away and not push it???? Try it, let us all know how it goes.
Click to expand...

Why am I having such a hard time getting my thought across. I know what a foul is by the current rule. You are asking me to try something that I understand.

What you don't seem to understand is I'm suggesting something different. OK, let me put it this way make double hits legal so long as the cb displays some independent character.

Character was Grady's word, I wish I could articulate this with a different word since it seems its not descriptive enough for some.

Once again I'd like to hear reasoning on what I think is another illegal hit that no one calls. That is inadvertently scooping under the cb while shooting a shot causing the cb to jump off the table surface and then making t h e shot.

This is not uncommon, it happened just recently on the tv table at the us open, and the player continued shooting. Why isnt this an illegal jump? Suppose a third ball was near enough to the shot where it would be questionable the ob could be seen? Then is it a foul? When is it a foul?

If you can't scoop under a the cb to jump why isn't this called? Not to mention, as I pointed out before, while doing this the cb had to have been hit with the ferrule, so...... what gives with that shot?
 
3andstop said:
Why am I having such a hard time getting my thought across. I know what a foul is by the current rule. You are asking me to try something that I understand.

What you don't seem to understand is I'm suggesting something different. OK, let me put it this way make double hits legal so long as the cb displays some independent character.

Character was Grady's word, I wish I could articulate this with a different word since it seems its not descriptive enough for some.

Once again I'd like to hear reasoning on what I think is another illegal hit that no one calls. That is inadvertently scooping under the cb while shooting a shot causing the cb to jump off the table surface and then making t h e shot.

This is not uncommon, it happened just recently on the tv table at the us open, and the player continued shooting. Why isnt this an illegal jump? Suppose a third ball was near enough to the shot where it would be questionable the ob could be seen? Then is it a foul? When is it a foul?

If you can't scoop under a the cb to jump why isn't this called? Not to mention, as I pointed out before, while doing this the cb had to have been hit with the ferrule, so...... what gives with that shot?
Click to expand...

Scooping is generally not done on purpose and so will almost never have a ref present to watch the hit. The problem with scooping is that the hit has to be watched so closely (in many cases with slow motion video) to perceive the contact.

While it can be a bad hit its one of those accepted things to allow play to continue. I personally would never call anyone on it and I can't think of anyone that would.

If you want to call that be my guest but be prepared to get beat depending on who you are playing.
 
randyg said:
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
Click to expand...

In the TAP league it's not a foul because he was "trying" to avoid a foul. That wording always amuses me. It does not matter if the shot was a foul, as long as you look like you were trying to avoid it being a foul on those close hits.
 
3andstop said:
Why am I having such a hard time getting my thought across. I know what a foul is by the current rule. You are asking me to try something that I understand.

What you don't seem to understand is I'm suggesting something different. OK, let me put it this way make double hits legal so long as the cb displays some independent character.

Character was Grady's word, I wish I could articulate this with a different word since it seems its not descriptive enough for some.

Once again I'd like to hear reasoning on what I think is another illegal hit that no one calls. That is inadvertently scooping under the cb while shooting a shot causing the cb to jump off the table surface and then making t h e shot.
This is not uncommon, it happened just recently on the tv table at the us open, and the player continued shooting. Why isnt this an illegal jump? Suppose a third ball was near enough to the shot where it would be questionable the ob could be seen? Then is it a foul? When is it a foul?

If you can't scoop under a the cb to jump why isn't this called? Not to mention, as I pointed out before, while doing this the cb had to have been hit with the ferrule, so...... what gives with that shot?
Click to expand...

What you describe is not an illegal hit. If you miscue and accidentally hop the ball, that is not counted like the illegal jump shot when you hit under the ball on purpose.

I think the whole hitting the ball with the ferrule thing has never been called during a miscue in all my years of watching pool, it's about as likely to be called on someone as the chance of the police breaking down your door to arrest you because you were using some illegal sexual position that is still on the books from 100 years ago.
 
hang-the-9 said:
In the TAP league it's not a foul because he was "trying" to avoid a foul. That wording always amuses me. It does not matter if the shot was a foul, as long as you look like you were trying to avoid it being a foul on those close hits.
Click to expand...

That's amazing!

randyg
 
hang-the-9 said:
In the TAP league it's not a foul because he was "trying" to avoid a foul. That wording always amuses me. It does not matter if the shot was a foul, as long as you look like you were trying to avoid it being a foul on those close hits.
Click to expand...

Is that documented in the TAP guidelines or rule book or is it a local rule? What constitutes trying to avoid a foul? If I understand it correctly, the universal rule is you're only allowed to hit the cb once per stroke. Why there is any need to augment or modify it is a mystery to me.
 
Hits 'em Hard said:
All you people screaming double hit and foul need to realize that the speed of the cue is also telling that it's not a bad hit. Watch this http://youtu.be/xqg5ZJyD0G4 and learn. The squirt cause by the left English forces the cue ball out of the way of the double hit.



Ignorance. Jacking up on the ball does not mean hitting the backside of the cue ball. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Ignorance? Did you enjoy the bowl of crow feathers for breakfast?
 
zpele said:
Scooping is generally not done on purpose and so will almost never have a ref present to watch the hit. The problem with scooping is that the hit has to be watched so closely (in many cases with slow motion video) to perceive the contact.

While it can be a bad hit its one of those accepted things to allow play to continue. I personally would never call anyone on it and I can't think of anyone that would.

If you want to call that be my guest but be prepared to get beat depending on who you are playing.
Click to expand...

And basically this IS the point. Forget the double hit and just let it go, so long as what Grady called character is displayed by the cb.
 
3andstop said:
And basically this IS the point. Forget the double hit and just let it go, so long as what Grady called character is displayed by the cb.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and good but as great as he was, nobody ever appointed Grady as the Rules Commissioner or officially adopted his rule. It is totally irrelevant to the debate at hand as the rule is quite clear, you're only allowed to hit the CB once per stroke regardless of what the CB does afterwards.
 
3andstop said:
And basically this IS the point. Forget the double hit and just let it go, so long as what Grady called character is displayed by the cb.
Click to expand...

Grady was a great player but 'character' is not something to base a rule on. Anytime you open something up to personal interpretation you are inviting arguments. That is why the rules are based on fact.

You missed the point of my post about the scooping. While it may be a foul it is impossible to tell in a real game. The foul this thread is about is very well known and easy to call. It is very easy to tell when a foul is going to occur before the shot happens as well which is a huge difference.

But maybe I am misunderstanding. Explain what you mean by 'character' as I think it's a bad word for what you are trying to communicate. For one the ball always shows character whenever it moves. That doesn't mean it moved in a way that is within the defined rules...
 
Bob Jewett said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree ... that shot is an obvious foul ... without even a shred of doubt.

The person who created that video (and anybody who believes him) should watch all of the videos on the double-hit-foul resource page, especially this one:

HSV B.6 - Double hit detection and avoidance

Enjoy,
Dave
 
AtLarge said:
3andstop said:
... I'm interested to hear your thoughts that I asked about in an earlier post, and no one touched with a 10 foot pole, on balls scooped under by accident, they jump up, the shot is made and the player is allowed to continue. To me this is the same kind of grey line. Its a foul no one wants to call.
Click to expand...
This is covered in the WPA (world-standardized) rules:

8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
Click to expand...
For those interested in these topics, they are covered in detail, with several videos and instructional articles, here:

illegal "scoop" jump shot resource page

miscue foul resource page

Enjoy,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
I agree ... that shot is an obvious foul ... without even a shred of doubt.

The person who created that video (and anybody who believes him) should watch all of the videos on the double-hit-foul resource page, especially this one:

HSV B.6 - Double hit detection and avoidance

Enjoy,
Dave
Click to expand...

All league members across the country should be required to participate in an orientation and the video(s) at Dr. Dave's site should be required viewing. It would resolve a lot of disputes.
 
It was a foul. No way you jack up and follow that ball without pushing the cue ball.

That's the kind of shot which starts fist fights in bars.
 
nobcitypool said:
That's all fine and good but as great as he was, nobody ever appointed Grady as the Rules Commissioner or officially adopted his rule. It is totally irrelevant to the debate at hand as the rule is quite clear, you're only allowed to hit the CB once per stroke regardless of what the CB does afterwards.
Click to expand...

No shit, that's the rule? I was merely throwing out a suggestion .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top