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

Bob Jewett said:
We have a hard to impossible time now getting people to understand what a normal double hit is. The proposed change is not practical.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but if you've been playing pool for a long time, you know there's kind of a half miscue. I call it a tip slip. It's where you don't hear that sharp sound of the miscue, but on a soft shot, the tip definitely slips off the cue ball a bit.

No way to call any of these things fouls.

All the best,
WW
 
I believe most miscues are likely technical fouls, but I also think they're not likely to give the shooter unfair advantages (more likely the opposite), and I think "less is more" when it comes to rules.

It's an interesting question, well presented as usual by Dave, but I don't think it's broke enough to fix.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I believe most miscues are likely technical fouls, but I also think they're not likely to give the shooter unfair advantages (more likely the opposite), and I think "less is more" when it comes to rules.

It's an interesting question, well presented as usual by Dave, but I don't think it's broke enough to fix.
Click to expand...

I don’t like allowing shots that are known to be sliding-tip pushes and double hits, but the cons seem to be outweighing the pros. Rule changes should not be made unless there is strong consensus.
 
JPB2 said:
View it as tolerating rather than allowing.😇
Click to expand...

Now I wonder if we should also “tolerate” other types of push shots and double hits, in addition to miscue shots. Double hits are often much more difficult to detect than clear miscues, which are usually blatantly obvious, even when they are unexpected. And non-miscue double-hit calls often involve misunderstanding and result in arguments and bad feelings. And many bad calls have been made over the years, even by top referees in pro tournaments. See:

And in league settings (even in the national tournaments in Vegas), the accuracy of double hit calls, even by “trained” referees, is abysmal.
 
I saw an old video of Efren playing a match, he did a slight scoop jump shot over the obj. ball to make a ball down table.
It was the only time I ever saw him ''cheeeeet''.
No one caught it.
He was shooting from the head of the table, left side as your looking at him, towards a shot on the foot rail towards the left side.
I was Very surprised he did this.
It was an Early on in his career match play in the states.
 
Island Drive said:
I saw an old video of Efren playing a match, he did a slight scoop jump shot over the obj. ball to make a ball down table.
It was the only time I ever saw him ''cheeeeet''.
No one caught it.
He was shooting from the head of the table, left side as your looking at him, towards a shot on the foot rail towards the left side.
I was Very surprised he did this.
It was an Early on in his career match play in the states.
Click to expand...

What game was he playing? If it was 8-ball, the “intention” might not have been obvious (jump vs. combo). It still bothers me that the rules allow sliding-tip pushes and secondary hits on miscues and scoop shots if the player didn’t “intend” to do it, even though these things are normally illegal (regardless of player intent). We don’t “intend” to miss shots, or double-hit the CB, or hit the wrong ball first, but sometimes these things happen, in which case fouls are called. But we get a “free pass” with “unintentional” sliding-tip-push and secondary-hit miscues and scoops. This honestly seems ridiculous to me. I guess I’m too logical. 🤓
 
Island Drive said:
No Dave it was intentional, the shot speed was good. A Very slight hop it was.
Click to expand...

Understood. But if it is possible the shot could be construed as “unintentional,” then the foul would not officially be a foul. I know … this sounds ridiculous … doesn’t it? 🤓
 
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...
Countless stories , tell one then

Steaming bowl of word salad
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ACL
dr_dave said:
What game was he playing? If it was 8-ball, the “intention” might not have been obvious (jump vs. combo). It still bothers me that the rules allow sliding-tip pushes and secondary hits on miscues and scoop shots if the player didn’t “intend” to do it, even though these things are normally illegal (regardless of player intent). We don’t “intend” to miss shots, or double-hit the CB, or hit the wrong ball first, but sometimes these things happen, in which case fouls are called. But we get a “free pass” with “unintentional” sliding-tip-push and secondary-hit miscues and scoops. This honestly seems ridiculous to me. I guess I’m too logical. 🤓
Click to expand...
Once again I see a parallel to golf.

I know they're different games, but I'm often fascinated by the similarity in rules and some of the reasoning behind those rules.

It used to be that if you unintentionally struck the ball multiple times with the same stroke of the club it was deemed a penalty.

With the last change in rules, that is no longer the case. Intentionally hitting a moving ball remains a penalty, but doing so unintentionally with the same stroke no longer is.

Like pool, there are very few places within the rules of golf where "intent" matters. But that's one of them.
 
I tried to find the video, been a long time, he had a darker shirt/I think it was an 8 ball match.
But I just gave it a go looking, too many vids on him. I did focus on the Accu Stats productions, the quality of the shoot at the time was not the best. I know he wasn't playing Varner, nicky would of caught that. I gave up looking.

bm
 
Hijacking this thread to ask @dr_dave a question.

Regarding miscues, TP_2.1 neglects frictional forces between the cue ball and the cloth.

In my divorced ways I find myself in 3 leagues, two of which are played primarily on 7’ Diamonds with new Championship cloth, also my home table is an 8’ Olhausen with Simonis 860.

The third league is played on bar tables, which I believe to be outfitted with the shag carpeting from the back of a 1974 VW van

(TBD: either way I’d wake up with a rash if I had a pillow case made out of this stuff - it’s the type of cloth that would give you the chills if you ran your hand across it).

Regardless, I’ve been working on being more annoyingly pocket-speed robotic in my play, using more bottom English to compensate for speed on stop shots, etc…

After getting this pretty well dialed in on the Diamonds, I miscued 3 straight times on similar shots on the rougher cloth using medium to slow speed (but more bottom) to execute some longer distance stop shots.

Intuitively it makes sense that rougher felt may bring the miscue limits tighter to centerline (in the extreme case, the cue ball is glued to the table with a coefficient of friction (COF) of infinity, and anything outside of dead center impact would result in a miscue).

Also intuitively, I’m a mid-to-high range APA 5 who would be dead money at an AZB tournament, so it can’t be dismissed that I was just out of stroke, and as a desperate act of ego preservation I chose to blame the table conditions.

So is it plausible that the COF between the cue ball and the felt is non-negligible in certain conditions? And if so, would it cause an asymmetric effect in terms of miscue limits (e.g. not impacting the top English impact limit as much as the draw impact limit, as top isn’t “fighting” the cloth friction in the same way as the bottom).
 
Great i see it now, Some APA D-bag SL4 sees a miscue and now they think they get ball in hand everytime.
 
Zerksies said:
Great i see it now, Some APA D-bag SL4 sees a miscue and now they think they get ball in hand everytime.
Click to expand...

Have you ever met a pool player,. It's common knowledge that pool players are highly respectable gentlemen who never get into arguments, aren't violent, never drink too excess, shun all kinds and mood altering drugs, ..

There is no way that advocating this role will cause a trillion problems.

Seriously, though, this would be the single most damaging rule to a game in all of sports.
 
Justaneng said:
Hijacking this thread to ask @dr_dave a question.

Regarding miscues, TP_2.1 neglects frictional forces between the cue ball and the cloth.
Click to expand...

Friction between the CB and cloth has no effect at all in that analysis. When the CB is struck at the "coefficient of percussion" height, there is no sliding motion at the bottom of the ball.


Justaneng said:
I’ve been working on being more annoyingly pocket-speed robotic in my play, using more bottom English to compensate for speed on stop shots, etc…

After getting this pretty well dialed in on the Diamonds, I miscued 3 straight times on similar shots on the rougher cloth using medium to slow speed (but more bottom) to execute some longer distance stop shots.
Click to expand...

On the "rougher cloth," you need to use a lower tip position or more speed to get stop/draw, so it would make sense that you might miscue more (if you are pushing the limits).


Justaneng said:
Intuitively it makes sense that rougher felt may bring the miscue limits tighter to centerline (in the extreme case, the cue ball is glued to the table with a coefficient of friction (COF) of infinity, and anything outside of dead center impact would result in a miscue).
Click to expand...

The cloth friction has no direct impact on miscue limit.


Justaneng said:
Also intuitively, I’m a mid-to-high range APA 5 who would be dead money at an AZB tournament, so it can’t be dismissed that I was just out of stroke, and as a desperate act of ego preservation I chose to blame the table conditions.
Click to expand...

That's always a possibility.


Justaneng said:
So is it plausible that the COF between the cue ball and the felt is non-negligible in certain conditions?
Click to expand...

... not for miscue limit, but cloth condition has a huge effect on the drag action of stop and draw shots. For more info, see:

 
Zerksies said:
Great i see it now, Some APA D-bag SL4 sees a miscue and now they think they get ball in hand everytime.
Click to expand...

Even if the WPA rules were changed to penalize a miscue just like any other sliding-tip push or secondary-hit shot, I doubt the APA would ever change their rules to follow suit. Regardless, there is no need to worry because I doubt the WPA would consider such a change in the near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top