MISCUES … Should the Rules be Changed to Make Them FOULS?

dr_dave said:
I don't think it is necessary. Everybody can easily recognize a blatant miscue shot (involving a sliding-tip push and secondary hits, based on sound and the motion of the CB).
Click to expand...

Its easy enough to see when you have a camera set up.

How easy is that to implement for a team of volunteer refs and a full capacity tournament field?

Its nice to keep a tradition of mathematics by identifying special case situations.

The mathematical reasoning ends when you assume everybody will recognize the blatant table events. That is why a technology aided referee could be useful. However which technology is ready and works consistently?

There are countless stories of IOC judges/refs that make questionable calls. Technology is the alternative to human interpretation, however it works in limited situations.
 
justnum said:
Its easy enough to see when you have a camera set up.

How easy is that to implement for a team of volunteer refs and a full capacity tournament field?

Its nice to keep a tradition of mathematics by identifying special case situations.

The mathematical reasoning ends when you assume everybody will recognize the blatant table events. That is why a technology aided referee could be useful. However which technology is ready and works consistently?

There are countless stories of IOC judges/refs that make questionable calls. Technology is the alternative to human interpretation, however it works in limited situations.
Click to expand...

If every match in every tournament had convenient instant video replay (with audio) available on every table, disputed miscues would be trivial to judge. But having a camera (or any technology) at every table is probably asking a lot (at most tournaments).
 
This guy’s drunk with power at this point…

Scientifically proving his own points by testing with his own stroke 😂

While hocking his pyramid scheme of instruction he made a decade ago in a basement with a camcorder.
 
dr_dave said:
If every match in every tournament had convenient instant video replay (with audio) available on every table, disputed miscues would be trivial to judge. But having a camera (or any technology) at every table is probably asking a lot (at most tournaments).
Click to expand...

If you asked its possible someone might say yes.

How often would a call like this get made in a 128 or 256 field?

Chess always had chess clocks. There is high tech and low tech.

Pool is great at both. There is no lack of will or knowledge to try technology in the pool world.

I could imagine players at the table use their phone to submit a picture of the shot they want a ref for. Then they have virtual ref make the call.

How do you feel about refs that work sanctioned WPA events and non-sanctioned WPA events?
 
dr_dave said:
Check out this video:


Even the top pro refs don't seem to agree on how some miscues should be called.
Click to expand...
I've done miscues and not intentionally.
The shot created a noticeable (to me) dbl hit but never called it on myself.
I expected the same from my opponent.
Now if the bar/banger/drinking crowd got ahold of this info, it could/would be a problem.
Obvious miscues, with cue ball steering are very obvious to a good player.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
Yes, this is exactly what pool needs, something to generate more arguments at the table.
Click to expand...
We could instead decide to allow all pushes, double hits, scoops, cue lifts, etc. Then there would be nothing to argue about. But then the game would be different.
 
Not every single miscue caused a foul, so without being able to guarantee its a foul, no assumption can be made IMO.

The sound could be a tell tale sign, except to those with poor hearing, which is a significant amount of people. More arguments will ensue....

Very interesting topic though and great video!
 
Ģüśţāṿ said:
Not every single miscue caused a foul, so without being able to guarantee its a foul, no assumption can be made IMO.

The sound could be a tell tale sign, except to those with poor hearing, which is a significant amount of people. More arguments will ensue....
Click to expand...

Some people might even be deaf. Regardless, I agree that sounds alone is not a reliable indicator. The call would need to based mostly on the motion of the CB. If the shot is a suspected miscue (maybe from the sound or CB motion) and the CB motion clearly indicates a sliding-tip push or secondary contact, based on the motion being very different from what would be expected for the shot being played, then the shot would be called a foul (if the miscue exception rule is eliminated). As the video clearly shows, the errant CB motion with miscues is due to a sliding-tip push or secondary hits, both of which are fouls.


Ģüśţāṿ said:
Very interesting topic though and great video!
Click to expand...

Thanks. I know not everybody likes videos like this, but I think it is good to ask questions like these. Sometimes the discussions lead to changes (even if the changes might be uncomfortable for some people at first).
 
dr_dave said:
Thanks. I know not everybody likes videos like this, but I think it is good to ask questions like these. Sometimes the discussions lead to changes (even if the changes might be uncomfortable for some people at first).
Click to expand...

Whether people like it or not, it's good to move outside your comfort zone and ask the difficult questions. This is the only we as a society can move forward and make advancements.

Complacency is comforting to most, but also causes one to stagnate. It becomes necessary to challenge the status quo. A few of your most recent videos do just that and make for interesting conversations. 👍
 
The video within the opening post shows what we don't see in real-time, and for that I commend the post.

The rules of 8, 9 and 10 ball pool will most likely mean that a miscue results in a foul for other reasons (failure to hit a rail after contact, failure to hit lowest ball/solid or stripe, a scratch etc...) and so only in minimal cases will a miscue result in a called pot or a legal snooker. If a player gets a lucky roll from a miscue then so be it. Tournaments at the highest level have been decided by golden breaks or hit-and-hope banks or escapes so why should a miscue be any different.

Pointless have miscue detection tech deployed at every tournament table. Why go to the expenses for such infrequent use. Technology such as Hawk-eye (in tennis), pylon cams (NFL) or ultra-edge (cricket) are used frequently to ensure the correct decision is made at elite level sport. To spend thousands to roll out miscue detectors will mean an increase in entry fees so promotors can recoup their costs.
 
dr_dave said:
I don't think it is necessary. Everybody can easily recognize a blatant miscue shot (involving a sliding-tip push and secondary hits, based on sound....
Click to expand...

Would you like to retract that, or would you like to confer with SVB.

Yes, I know I only partially quoted you, but the point remains that a heart deficiency will potty a person at a disadvantage.
 
Matt_H said:
The video within the opening post shows what we don't see in real-time, and for that I commend the post.

The rules of 8, 9 and 10 ball pool will most likely mean that a miscue results in a foul for other reasons (failure to hit a rail after contact, failure to hit lowest ball/solid or stripe, a scratch etc...) and so only in minimal cases will a miscue result in a called pot or a legal snooker. If a player gets a lucky roll from a miscue then so be it. Tournaments at the highest level have been decided by golden breaks or hit-and-hope banks or escapes so why should a miscue be any different.

Pointless have miscue detection tech deployed at every tournament table. Why go to the expenses for such infrequent use. Technology such as Hawk-eye (in tennis), pylon cams (NFL) or ultra-edge (cricket) are used frequently to ensure the correct decision is made at elite level sport. To spend thousands to roll out miscue detectors will mean an increase in entry fees so promotors can recoup their costs.
Click to expand...

It's also worth noting that the rules of pool apply to (or at least should) all pool. League play, casual play, gambling… There will never be something like "miscue detectors" available on every pool table under every circumstance.

Additionally, it's worth noting that less skilled players, especially newer players are far more likely to miscue as they learn to use English and control cue ball movement. While I don't believe in dumbing down the game simply to accommodate newer players, nor do I feel that it's necessary to make it more difficult, penal, or complicated than it needs to be.

Interestingly, golf recently made a decision stating that if a penalty could only be assessed because the rule violated was only evident with high definition/slow motion video, but not the naked eye, it wasn't a penalty.

I found that to be refreshing.
 
No. The ugliest scenes in a pool hall is when heated arguments occur over technicalities in a heated match. Not 1 in 100 recreational players would know of this proposed rule or agree with it guaranteeing arguments. Pool would become uglier and that is the last thing our sport needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top