New videos from Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett

cigardave said:
I'm confused... Roy, are you posting from Joey's account?... or Joey, are you C&P-ing a response from Roy in a response to my post. :confused:
Click to expand...

Uh- oh, you caught me, posting under the wrong account. Dang, I hate when that happens. I will just send AZ Housepro a little cash via paypal and he will forget about it as long as no one mentions it in this thread again.

Nevermind, it's over now. Sorry for the confusion CD. My bad.
JoeyA
 
woody_968 said:
I scored 90, but I think I had 5 wrong because I was going off the rule that when a ball was frozen to a rail you had to drive a ball to another rail. When did that rule change? (Ive been away from pool for a couple years)
Click to expand...
woody... I believe the distinction is... unless pocketing a ball on a legal hit, you have to have a ball contact a cushion after contacting an object ball... and there are two cushions to a long rail... one above the side pocket and one below it.

Someone pls correct me if I am wrong.

tia, cd.
 
woody_968 said:
... I was going off the rule that when a ball was frozen to a rail you had to drive a ball to another rail. When did that rule change? (Ive been away from pool for a couple years)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure when the rule changed. Maybe Bob (if he is out there listening) or somebody else can let us know. I thought the rule has been the same for about 7 years or so, but I could be wrong. Something has to contact a rail (any rail ... even the same rail), or enter a pocket, after OB contact. If the OB is frozen to the rail and if nothing else hits a rail or gets pocketed after ball contact, then the OB must leave the rail and then contact any rail (even the same rail) after ball contact.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
I know some people have often had heated debates in the past about the appropriate type of spin for squatting the CB. I think the answer is fairly clear now. Also, wasn't there a debate about spin transfer lately? ;) Here's more evidence.
Click to expand...
Hi Dave-- I'm not sure I deduced which break caused the squat. Is it the slight draw, above the equator break?

Thanks~ Doc
 
gulfportdoc said:
Hi Dave-- I'm not sure I deduced which break caused the squat. Is it the slight draw, above the equator break?
Click to expand...
Slight follow is required (e.g., see the last shot in HSV B.43). Any draw causes the CB to continue up table after bouncing off the rack (e.g., see the shot starting at the 0.50 point in HSV B.43).

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
Some leagues disallow frozen CB shots, but these shots are allowed under World Standardized Rules. As PJ has pointed out, there is no prolonged contact with a normal stroke into a frozen CB. Here is an example:


Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Dear Dave, I have to disagree here. I was at a meeting with WPA officials in Europe about rules, and for this kind of shots the ruling is a foul. I recall we where instructed that if the cue ball is frozen or almost frozen to the OB, and after the shot the CB follows the OB path, this is clearelly a foul.
Imagine no referee has a hi speed camera to check this type of shots that normally are considered a foul.
 
madfox said:
Dear Dave, I have to disagree here. I was at a meeting with WPA officials in Europe about rules, and for this kind of shots the ruling is a foul. I recall we where instructed that if the cue ball is frozen or almost frozen to the OB, and after the shot the CB follows the OB path, this is clearelly a foul.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the purpose of the meeting was, or who was there, but the written rules are quite clear on this topic. Here's a quote from Section 6.7:

if the cue ball is touching an object ball at the start of the shot, it is legal to shoot towards or partly into that ball​

madfox said:
Imagine no referee has a hi speed camera to check this type of shots that normally are considered a foul.
Click to expand...
According to WPA World Standardized Rules, hitting into a frozen CB with a normal stroke is not a foul. No high-speed camera is required to judge a good hit on this type of shot.

Regards,
Dave

PS: If you still don't believe me, contact Bob Jewett. He was largely responsible for the last re-write of the rules.
 
The meeting was in 2006. Anyway, the instruction given where what I just told you.
Anyway, I still think is a push shot, but that's just me.
I know Bob was involved.
 
madfox said:
The meeting was in 2006. Anyway, the instruction given where what I just told you.
Anyway, I still think is a push shot, but that's just me.
I know Bob was involved.
Click to expand...
The latest rules have a revision date of 1/1/08, so maybe things were being discussed (but no finalized) at the 2006 meeting you remember. Again, the current rules clearly allow a normal stroke into a frozen CB in pool. And high-speed video clearly shows that such a shot is not a "push" or a double hit.

Regards,
Dave
 
madfox said:
... I recall we where instructed that if the cue ball is frozen or almost frozen to the OB, and after the shot the CB follows the OB path, this is clearly a foul. ...
Click to expand...
The situations of frozen to the object ball and almost frozen to the object ball are very, very different under the World Standardized Rules. I believe the current rules are fairly clear on this. Would you please take a look at them and see if they make sense and if they don't, how they could be clarified?
 
dr_dave said:
...
Here's the quiz answer summary sheet with all of the correct rulings (we think).
...
Here is a video that also contains all of the answers:
...
Click to expand...
FYI, I just found another error (while working on the instructional videos, which I hope to post soon). There are now two errors posted on the NV B.62 website (under the "Part 2 (30-69)" title):
NOTE: the answer for shot 35 is wrong in the video
(it should be: FAIR - legal shot into frozen CB).
Also, in shot 61, the rail is hit first (not the ball),
so the shot is a FOUL, as reported.​

These errors are now fixed in the quiz answer summary sheet. At some point (when I'm sure there are no more errors), I will also post the revised video on YouTube, and delete the old one.

Regards,
Dave
 
Bob Jewett said:
The situations of frozen to the object ball and almost frozen to the object ball are very, very different under the World Standardized Rules. I believe the current rules are fairly clear on this. Would you please take a look at them and see if they make sense and if they don't, how they could be clarified?
Click to expand...

I have read again the rules again and they indeed say that you can use a normal stroke when CB is frozen to the OB.
I was under the impression that this is a foul, and I guess it means they are considered as a single one, being stacked together ?
I think I confused the situation with the almost frozen situation in which if CB follows the OB is clearly a foul.
 
Last edited:
I thought it might be good to bump this up again for those who aren't aware of the rules quiz, in particular. I got 22 of the calls wrong.

Jim
 
Jal said:
... I got 22 of the calls wrong.

Jim
Click to expand...
It would be really interesting to have the results from a test of a large group of certified referees. I'm guessing that pro players would be about 85%.
 
Bob Jewett said:
It would be really interesting to have the results from a test of a large group of certified referees. I'm guessing that pro players would be about 85%.
Click to expand...

Your saying that the pros would get 85% correct or 85% wrong?

From my experience with the pros, it would surprise me if 50% of them would even know there was a difference between Pro Express and WSR let alone be able to make 50% of these calls correctly.

Referees? The ones that have gone through the BCAPL ref school should be able to pass with a 70% or better score rather easily after their class. IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top