Is this jump shot illegal?

Tennesseejoe

Tennesseejoe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This video of Larry Nevel shooting a jump shot which is 1mm between the cue ball and the jumped ball either defies the laws of physics or is an illegal shot IMO. I think the cue ball jumps up and then is propelled forward by the cue stick. Wouldn't this be a double hit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8rvRHZ1sZo
 
Looks good to me, the one ball never moved and I think if he double hit it the ball would not have gone forward like that.
 
I believe that he only uses a shaft to do that jump shot which is illegal, but I'm not sure.
 
Tennesseejoe said:
This video of Larry Nevel shooting a jump shot which is 1mm between the cue ball and the jumped ball either defies the laws of physics or is an illegal shot IMO. I think the cue ball jumps up and then is propelled forward by the cue stick. Wouldn't this be a double hit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8rvRHZ1sZo
Click to expand...


i looks leagal to me...wow that cue ball jumped really high really fast
 
Tennesseejoe said:
This video of Larry Nevel shooting a jump shot which is 1mm between the cue ball and the jumped ball either defies the laws of physics or is an illegal shot IMO. I think the cue ball jumps up and then is propelled forward by the cue stick. Wouldn't this be a double hit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8rvRHZ1sZo
Click to expand...
When I first saw this kind of shot, I came to the conclusion that the ball probably came up and off the shaft. That would be a foul. Another possibility is that the cue ball rolls back some from the object ball due to the "draw" and pressure from the cue stick and then goes up and over. At least that would allow some clearance. If that is the way the shot works, it might be possible to do it even with a frozen ball.

I think we won't really know until it's captured on high-speed video, and the focus and framing will have to be just right.

Does a miscue occur on this shot?
 
9baller said:
I believe that he only uses a shaft to do that jump shot which is illegal, but I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

No he has preformed the shot using an X-Breaker, speaking of, where is X-breaker he can confirm this as a legal shot, as both him and I have seen Larry do it in person.
 
All I know is that shot is pretty sick! Don't know how he did it but it is impressive.:confused:
 
Not high speed photo-analysis, but might be helpful

It took many tries, but I managed to pause the video at just
the right spot, and it almost looks as if the cue ball might
be bouncing off the cue stick. I say might, because it is not
100% clear at all.
 

Attachments

  • closejump.jpg
    closejump.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 771
I think Bob Jewett is correct. To verify if this shot is legal ---we need a clear high speed video. I just do not see how a cue ball can go straight up in the air and then go forward unless something pushes it forward.
 
Nevel jump shot

If I were the ref on this one , I'd have to get it to him. My bet is that a high speed camera will show that it is legal. The cue ball doesn't have to hit the shaft on the way up to go forward. Imagine being able to hit the cue ball from underneath. Could the cue ball go forward with the interfering ball 1 mm away? You bet it could.
 
by the way, there are some other posts on this

Just an FYI, there are some posts on this in the "monster
stroke" thread. And, I would have to say it would currently
be a legal shot. I suspect that the shot will be getting slightly
popular now that so many folks can see it being done. If
the ref can't prove it was illegal, is it legal? I just wish they'd
ban jump shots altogether. Ever since "the Color of Money"
came out, so many (mostly novice) folks were trying them,
the main room I play in banned them. (No masse's there either
unfortunately, even in tournaments).
 
Without the high speed video, you could test it by putting something on the first few inches on the shaft of the cue that would leave a mark on the cueball if contact was made. Maybe put some tape around it to protect the wood, then coat it with lipstick etc (something that will rub off onto the cueball).
Then, if the cueball shows a transfer mark from the shaft........ there is contact with the shaft and the shot is a foul.
Chuck
 
It seems to me that it would be difficult to have any sort of control if the ball hit the cue stick hard enough to make it go forward here. They are both round, so the ball would probably go to one side or the other, not straight forward.
 
arsenius said:
It seems to me that it would be difficult to have any sort of control if the ball hit the cue stick hard enough to make it go forward here. They are both round, so the ball would probably go to one side or the other, not straight forward.
Click to expand...

OK, why does this not apply to a regular old pool shot ? My tip is round (about the radius of a nickle) and the cueball is round. How the heck do I ever pocket a ball ? No my friend, it is absolutely possible to control this to a sufficient degree.

If the trajectory changes in mid-flight, the cue ball must have been hit a second time. While high-speed video would be required to actually see any second hit, analysing the trajectory of the cueball might be possible with lesser video.

Dave
 
Jump shot

He performed it with the shaft of the XBreaker which makes it illegal, but it is just to show what can be done. The shot itself looks good to me.
The forward momentum takes over after the cue ball rebounds off the cloth because of the angle he has on the cue ball.

Much like a masse shot goes straight a ways then curves, except it is for a forward motion in lieu of a side motion.

That jump shot rivals the 1/2" jump shot with a full cue that I saw David Matlock make against Jr. Brown before there were phenolic tips.
 
Snapshot9 said:
The forward momentum takes over after the cue ball rebounds off the cloth because of the angle he has on the cue ball.

Much like a masse shot goes straight a ways then curves, except it is for a forward motion in lieu of a side motion.
Click to expand...

A masse shot curves due to the friction between the spinning ball and the cloth. The only thing the ball is in contact with "after the cue ball rebounds off the cloth " is air. It is hard to imagine anyone applying enough spin to a cue ball such that it will suck forward in thin air (or even thick heavy humid air, for that matter). Maybe you have been watching too much of the Australian Open ?

Dave
 
I wonder if this shot could have been done without the rail? Just a theory, but he might be pinching the cueball up like a pumpkin seed a little off the rail?

Of course, if someone has seen this shot away from the rail, then my theory would be wrong. :( :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top