Is this jump shot illegal?

whitey2 said:
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).
Click to expand...

As long as they are legal in the rule set you are playing with (as they should be) people are going to shoot them regardless of the house rules. I'm grow bored of people complaining about jump shots, they're a part of life, They're somewhat fun to do so get over it.
 
Last edited:
Da Poet said:
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. :( :)
Click to expand...



Here is an example of the shot without the rail. You'll have to wait until the end of the video to see it, but I'm sure you'll find the rest of the shots kind of entertaining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crYEns9nFhU&mode=related&search=
 
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...
Let's answer it this way:

Draw two balls on paper, put them 1mm apart. What angle and to what height does the cueball have to go to clear the impeding ball on the way up, and land on the other side? There is an angle and height that makes it possible, right?

The cueball jumps at an angle because of squirt. In fact, Larry is usually pointing the cuestick not straight down, but actually angled away from the pair of balls.

I"ve seen a half dozen people perform this shot, and I guess it would have been obvious if the cueball actually hit the cuestick again. Never seemed to be a question of its legality.

Fred
 
Da Poet said:
Yep, no rail needed! Theory busted!

However, if you manage to freeze the video at the right moment on this one, you can tell it's a double hit. Check it out.
Click to expand...



Still didn't see a double hit. There didn't seem to be enough frames in the video to confirm a bad hit. In both this video and the Nevel video, I see the cue stick elevated at a steep angle, striking the cue ball slightly off center. Because of the force of the shot, the cue tip immediately side steps back, away from the rebounding cue ball.

Early on, I was convinced these shots were double hits but I've been swayed. Still, I am on a constant search for higher truth.
 
Cornerman said:
Let's answer it this way:

Draw two balls on paper, put them 1mm apart. What angle and to what height does the cueball have to go to clear the impeding ball on the way up, and land on the other side? There is an angle and height that makes it possible, right? ...
Click to expand...
I agree that this is the way to analyze what happens on the shot but my guess is that 1mm requires more height than is observed to get as far forward as observed. The ball goes up about 12 inches and forward about 10 inches (it lands right on top of the ball by the pocket). It's not that hard a geometry problem ...

grind, grind, grind ...

Well, the answer is that with a 1mm separation the geometry just fits, so my guess was wrong. If you place two balls 1mm apart, their common tangent in the plane of the shot has a slope close to the slope of the observed parabola of the cue ball. There might also be the effect I mentioned earlier of the cue ball rolling away from the object ball during the start of tip-to-ball contact, which would give more clearance.

So it is geometrically possible to do such shots according to a very simple phyical model, but I'd still like to see it on high-speed video.
 
wow that youtube video has some outrageous shots. I want to learn how to jump like that guy. Talk about being impossible to 3 foul.
 
Goto the X-Breaker web site. He has this shot posted on there along with quite a few others. The one that gets to me is the variation of this shot where he actually missed the object ball and the cue ball landed on the rail, it fell forward; then backup a bit then fell off. MAN THAT THING HAD TO HAVE SO MUCH MOJO ON IT TO DO THAT!!
 
While I would call this shot good if I was the referee, I can't claim to any certainty if Bob Jewett isn't certain. However, I know that when a ball hits a shaft or ferrule, it adds a unique sound to the shot (the miscue sound). I've seen this shot performed and I definitely didn't hear that sound.
 
8ballEinstein said:
Still didn't see a double hit. There didn't seem to be enough frames in the video to confirm a bad hit. In both this video and the Nevel video, I see the cue stick elevated at a steep angle, striking the cue ball slightly off center. Because of the force of the shot, the cue tip immediately side steps back, away from the rebounding cue ball.

Early on, I was convinced these shots were double hits but I've been swayed. Still, I am on a constant search for higher truth.
Click to expand...


It's a pain to hit the pause just right, but there is a frame that has an overlapped image of the cue ball and cue just before being struck with a second image of the cue ball rising vertically placing the origin of the trajectory maybe a 1/2" or more away from the original spot.

I wish I could freeze it and post it here because it definitely convinced me that it was a double hit.

Still, a very very cool shot though! :D
 
To be physically possible, this jump shot has to be performed like this...

the cue ball is struck as such so it has tremendous backspin and vertical lift, although its beginning angle of trajectory could not allow it to move forward so much as to clear an impeding ball AND travel forward 10" or so (not a big enough gap, this can be done with frozen balls as well) it will travel forward due to the fact that the cue ball is in contact with the shaft long enough to reach a certain height. After the cueball has reached a certain height, it travels forward due to the angle of the shaft, which has to be angled forward to give the cueball the force it needs to move in that direction.

Somebody disprove this theory please. If so, I will go back and retake the 65 hours or so of Physics and Dynamics classes I have taken.
 
Looks impressive but still not a fan of jump shots

Here is my opinion on this shot and all other jump shots for that matter. If a guy can get that good at jumping balls wouldn't you figure he could and should get that good at kicking at balls.

I am not a big fan of the jump shot period, let alone jumps shots like this that seem as if that over time could create damage to the table itself. I am sure that there is alot of force and pressure needed to achieve the feat of this jump shot.
 
Kevin Lindstrom said:
Here is my opinion on this shot and all other jump shots for that matter. If a guy can get that good at jumping balls wouldn't you figure he could and should get that good at kicking at balls.

I am not a big fan of the jump shot period, let alone jumps shots like this that seem as if that over time could create damage to the table itself. I am sure that there is alot of force and pressure needed to achieve the feat of this jump shot.
Click to expand...

I hate going somewhere where they ban jumpshots and masses. I think this is implemented to restrict beginners from tearing up the cloth (which I agree), but I get pissed when I am playing in a tourney and see an easy jump shot opportunity that I have to kick at and pray because Junior Wilson can't jump a ball to save his life.

This really restricts good players from shooting cool shots and is really a farse anyways, because if you think about it literally, ALL shots are masses unless your cue is exactly parallel to the playing surface and no sidespin is involved. Since this is impossible, I think they should implement a quarter in the can rule for knocking the ball off the table or something. Then maybe they can pay for that new cloth that is gonna be "torn by beginners shooting jump shots."

The jump is a skillful shot and should never be banned in any arena. I can understand banning phenolic tips and such, but not shorter cues and legal hits.
 
belmicah said:
To be physically possible, this jump shot has to be performed like this...

the cue ball is struck as such so it has tremendous backspin and vertical lift, although its beginning angle of trajectory could not allow it to move forward so much as to clear an impeding ball AND travel forward 10" or so (not a big enough gap, this can be done with frozen balls as well) it will travel forward due to the fact that the cue ball is in contact with the shaft long enough to reach a certain height. After the cueball has reached a certain height, it travels forward due to the angle of the shaft, which has to be angled forward to give the cueball the force it needs to move in that direction.

Somebody disprove this theory please. If so, I will go back and retake the 65 hours or so of Physics and Dynamics classes I have taken.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is a physics problem. The geometry suggests it indeed is possible. But, Larry and others make it look so easy that there's probably something else going on that a high-speed video could probably show. I'm sure I've seen this shot closer than 1mm, so either the shaft does touch the cueball, or the cueball "backs up" before jumping to create a bigger gap.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=595531&postcount=27

The other video (is that Eric Yow's site?), it looks like the cueball hits the shaft.

Fred
 
I'm not sure either wether this is legal or not, but I did dowload the Larry Nevel Youtube video and one thing I noticed is in the frame where he has just struck the cueball his bridgehand has moved to the right right an inch or so which might indicate he's using an extreme off-center hit, and it's not just the shaft deflecting away from the cueball. I certainly don't know if this would cause a double hit. Doctor Dave, are you reading this?

gr. Dave
 
My $.02 -
The shot can be performed with a regulation jump cue, though it's easier with just a shaft, regardless of legality. Pavel Pooler (the second youtube link posted) does it more easily on his table than I've ever seen, but that's because it's a hardwood table with tons of rebound. As to the shot, take a closer look at Larry's angle. When I execute this shot, as he does, I have my shaft at about 98 degrees. That means, it is elevated past vertical. You are technically shooting away from the obstructing ball. Our physics guys would tell you that it compresses the felt in the opposite direction before the rebound would propel it over the ball. So, in effect, a former poster is right in saying that it makes the gap bigger before getting up and over. But, the hit point is either 5:30 or 6:30 on the clock face. This allows the shaft to get out of the way of the quickly rising cue ball. So, in my opinion, when performed properly, it can be, and is legal. I espouse this theory but would love to see highspeed footage regardless, just to know for sure.

-yow!
 
I originally asked this question to determine if the shot is definitely illegal. With the current and latest information---I don't think we can make that determination.

Current rules suggest if it can not be clearly determined that the shot is illegal, the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter.

Should jump cues be banned? Only time will tell. At the DCC, jump cues were banned. At the Music City Open---they were allowed. In other sports many types of equipment are banned because they change the integrity of the sport ie., elastic golf balls, racing fuel, aluminum bats, etc. In some sports they have been welcomed ie., fiberglass poles for pole vaulting, etc.
 
Someone else has tried the 1mm jump with the X breaker shaft, and he ended up jumping way too high and far. Seriously, the ball would have landed on the next table if there was one.

This shot was done on a regular Diamond table, at the BCA. The shaft was 13mm at the tip.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QOm_Y7nYTM

Richard
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top