laying your cue on the table and lifting up the shaft to strike the cue ball....

Excuse my ignorance but

What exactly is the purpose of this shot? Where are the balls lying to make this a clever move? Just want to make sure I'm clear on what's trying to be accomplished with it.
 
What exactly is the purpose of this shot? Where are the balls lying to make this a clever move? Just want to make sure I'm clear on what's trying to be accomplished with it.
A standard place that it is shown is where the object ball is almost frozen to the cushion and the cue ball is almost frozen to the object ball. It is hard for most people to play a safe on that ball and not foul. The "stick lift" "shot" avoids the double hit.
 
metmot...That's a much better option...and always legal. I believe there are only a limited number of times you can play that shot, before you must make one of the two balls strike another rail after contact.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I don't think you can be forced to hit another rail but the game can be declared a stalemate which, depending on whose break it is may be ok. At least thats the BCA ruling.
 
I have to disagree, Scott. That is obviously an intentional miscue. There are ways to hit it legal, but I wouldn't call that one of them.

It looked like an intentional miscue to me too...
 
OFFICIAL RULES OF THE BCA POOL LEAGUE
Diagram 5 – Illegal Stroke by Lifting or Brushing with the Cue Tip
Any lifting, sideways, or other brushing motion of the cue, such that the force that propels the cue ball does not result primarily from a forward motion of the cue as defined under “Legal Stroke”, is a foul. Without applying a substantial forward stroke motion, the player lifts the cue vertically or moves it sideways or at an angle, propelling the cue ball with a brushing motion.

http://www.playbca.com/Leagues/Rules/GeneralRules.aspx page 18 clearly defines this action.
 
It looked like an intentional miscue to me too...

I don't think he is hitting the ball any further to the side in that video than you would hit a shot low to draw it on most of the shots. It's just that the stroke is short and soft so there is no spin applied to the ball, just straight deflection in the direction of the curvature of the tip. Use a stripe as the cue ball and place the stripe vertically then practice this shot hitting the edge of the color to prove this point. This is not a miscue. And a miscue isn't a foul anyway. Any BCA refs here who could comment?
 

No, that's also a foul. It is an intentional miscue. It is also a standard shot at snooker (I'm told) but at snooker it is not a foul to miscue intentionally.

Edit: it sure looks to me like the shot is played so far from center that a miscue is guaranteed. It would be much better to have a shot from overhead. I do know that some people play shots that look just like the one in the video with the intention of miscuing. The way I saw it demonstrated (by a snooker champion) is that the shot is lined up with part of the tip outside the arc of the cue ball.
 
Last edited:
No, that's also a foul. It is an intentional miscue. It is also a standard shot at snooker (I'm told) but at snooker it is not a foul to miscue intentionally.

Edit: it sure looks to me like the shot is played so far from center that a miscue is guaranteed. It would be much better to have a shot from overhead. I do know that some people play shots that look just like the one in the video with the intention of miscuing. The way I saw it demonstrated (by a snooker champion) is that the shot is lined up with part of the tip outside the arc of the cue ball.

I can't seem to find any language in the current BCA rule book that indicates that this type of a hit is a foul. It is neither double nor extended contact with the tip (push shot) nor does it hit any other part of the cue other than the tip. The stoke is forward and the tip hits the cue ball no further to the edge horizontally than many masse shot attempts do vertically. I can't seem to find a definitive guideline for what part of the cue ball you are allowed to hit with your tip on a forward stroke, just that it can't be a double hit or push shot. Since the tip is very curved at the edge by stroking slow the cue ball is leaving the curved part of the tip instantly in a direction perpendicular to the rounded surface of the tip contact point, guided by the friction of the chalk. Maybe I can slow the original video down frame by frame to calculate if the tip is in contact with the cue ball longer on the side shots than the little nip shot he did in the middle of the clip at about the same speed. It was shot at 30 frames per second I believe so it may be fast enough to be revealing frame by frame.
 
I'll have to check that out, but, in reference to your last statement, an intentional miscue is a serious foul. (unsportsmanlike conduct)

Can you quote the source of the rule making an intentional miscue unsportsmanlike conduct? I'm not being a smart ass, I just can't find any reference to an intentional miscue at all or a definition of it in the BCA rule book. Maybe you're not quoting BCA rules?
 
I can't seem to find any language in the current BCA rule book that indicates that this type of a hit is a foul.

The BCA has adopted the World Standardized rules. Miscues are covered under rule 8.18 of the World 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).
 
Last edited:
I can't seem to find any language in the current BCA rule book that indicates that this type of a hit is a foul. It is neither double nor extended contact with the tip (push shot) nor does it hit any other part of the cue other than the tip. The stoke is forward and the tip hits the cue ball no further to the edge horizontally than many masse shot attempts do vertically. I can't seem to find a definitive guideline for what part of the cue ball you are allowed to hit with your tip on a forward stroke, just that it can't be a double hit or push shot. Since the tip is very curved at the edge by stroking slow the cue ball is leaving the curved part of the tip instantly in a direction perpendicular to the rounded surface of the tip contact point, guided by the friction of the chalk. Maybe I can slow the original video down frame by frame to calculate if the tip is in contact with the cue ball longer on the side shots than the little nip shot he did in the middle of the clip at about the same speed. It was shot at 30 frames per second I believe so it may be fast enough to be revealing frame by frame.

the tip hits the cue no further than some masse shots do you have any more of that stuff ,never mind I forgot I stopped
 
... The stoke is forward and the tip hits the cue ball no further to the edge horizontally than many masse shot attempts do vertically. ...
This is false for the similar shots I've seen in person.

The goal of the shot is to make the cue ball move more or less perpendicular to the cue stick. That does not happen without a miscue, in my experience.

But it comes down to how the ref and TD rule. And while they are allowed to explain rules it's pretty much impossible for them to tell you if a shot in the future will be considered a miscue.
 
The BCA has adopted the World Standardized rules. Miscues are covered under rule 8.18 of the World Rules:

Thank you!

This is false for the similar shots I've seen in person.

The goal of the shot is to make the cue ball move more or less perpendicular to the cue stick. That does not happen without a miscue, in my experience.

But it comes down to how the ref and TD rule. And while they are allowed to explain rules it's pretty much impossible for them to tell you if a shot in the future will be considered a miscue.

I Don't think the cue ball is moving perpendicular to the cue stick, just the spot on the curvature of the tip where it strikes the cue ball. More like 45 degrees. I think you're right though, it's a time and place call. In the video clip it looks like there is a variety to choose from. Some may be a foul and others not. And they say ball in hand took the grey area out of the game?


Edit: Here's four shots from the clip in slow motion. http://youtu.be/bebs9kqmHYg

Each shot was 15 frames of video in real time which makes it a half second total. You can see it skip from frame to frame, each frame representing 1/30 of a second in real time. So how long does the tip contact the ball? Looks like just one frame to me in each shot before they are separated. In the first shot it does appear that he slightly moves his rear hand to the right making it a "swipe" shot rather than a true forward stroke.
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree, Scott. That is obviously an intentional miscue. There are ways to hit it legal, but I wouldn't call that one of them.

It is certainly a 'grey' area.
Some practice on 'nurse' caroms would help in these situations.
I don't play short rail billiards but I do practice the nurse and it
comes in handy once in a while.
Had a player roll up on a 9-ball once...he gave up pretty quick when
he saw I was more comfortable with close hits.....he rolled up table
and left me a makeable shot.

Here are a couple masters who you better not lock horns with.
First one is the great Walter Lindrum...
..http://www.google.ca/url?url=http:/...indrum&usg=AFQjCNGY_Ym6Z4OWd7EYFH4DctQm4QBc2Q

This one is on a carom table...
..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAuBqd3OG9I&feature=related
 
It is certainly a 'grey' area.
Some practice on 'nurse' caroms would help in these situations.
I don't play short rail billiards but I do practice the nurse and it
comes in handy once in a while.
Had a player roll up on a 9-ball once...he gave up pretty quick when
he saw I was more comfortable with close hits.....he rolled up table
and left me a makeable shot.

Here are a couple masters who you better not lock horns with.
First one is the great Walter Lindrum...
..http://www.google.ca/url?url=http:/...indrum&usg=AFQjCNGY_Ym6Z4OWd7EYFH4DctQm4QBc2Q

This one is on a carom table...
..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAuBqd3OG9I&feature=related

The first video of Lindrum still has me laughing. I wish we could see his opponents face half way through that beat down shit storm. Do you think he was becoming concerned about his chances in that game?
 
Back
Top