But the problem is, not every miscue is a double hit. Everything in that experiment was conducted to get results they wanted. As those new slo-mo videos show a miscue can happen without a double hit.
Proof of what causes miscues
- Thread starter jeffj2h
- Start date
But the problem is, not every miscue is a double hit. Everything in that experiment was conducted to get results they wanted. As those new slo-mo videos show a miscue can happen without a double hit.
That is correct. Not every miscue involves double or multiple hits from the tip, ferrule, or shaft, but most do. Also, the tip slides on the CB surface during a miscue, and that can be considered "prolonged contact" not resulting from a "single hit." Check out the following video:
HSV B.36 - Various miscues with double-hit rule interpretation
I actually make a fairly strong case for why miscues should be considered fouls on the miscue resource page. Check it out. Although, this would create a new "can of worms" because some shots are "partial miscues." Should they be fouls also?
Regardless of the strong arguments that can be made in favor of ruling miscues as fouls, I still like the current version of the rules concerning miscues. A miscue should be called a foul only if it is intentional or if there is clear evidence of secondary contact. Examples can be found here:
HSV B.28 - Frozen-ball kiss, miscue, and push shots and fouls
illegal "scoop" jump shots
Another example is where you miscue on a follow shot, and you trap the CB under the cue ... this embarrassing and unintentional miscue is a foul because there is visually-obvious "secondary contact."
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
Thanks, It's very kind of you
Can you show me which one showed a miscue without a multiple hit on the cue ball?
I looked through them and to me, going frame by frame, it looks like all the videos show multiple hits.
I don't have a high speed video of it, but I believe an extreme side-spin shot can miscue with a single hit.
With top the table bed keeps the ball from moving away from the cue, and with bottom the table bed keeps the cue from moving away from the ball, but with side I think the two can part ways after the initial glancing blow.
Interested to see if there's video proof of what I just said...
-Andrew
I don't think to. I think the whole thing with miscues is that the cue glances off at such a thin hit that the momentum of the stroke takes it back to the slow moving cueball every time.
Interestingly, I used to own a Predator P2 and it was the only cue which would hurt or rap my knuckles on a miscue. If I used a closed bridge I would feel pain in my hand and with an open bridge it would literally hit my knuckles.
The easiest way to create a single-hit miscue would be to remove the chalk from the tip and hit the CB with as little offset from center as possible, while still getting a miscue. This would impart ample speed to the CB to have it separate from the tip during shaft "recoil." I don't have any video proof, but I am very confident it is possible.
The only miscue I have on video that is probably a single-hit miscue is in this old clip:
HSV A.15 - Cue-tip reaction for a very large offset, fast speed, single-hit miscue shot
Unfortunately, it might not be viewable in all browsers and on all computers. If not, these instructions might help.
In the following video, I filmed 15 straight miscues, and every one of them was a foul (if super-slow-motion playback were accepted as evidence, which is not the case):
HSV B.36 - Various miscues with double-hit rule interpretation
Regards,
Dave
Here's another:
HSV A.17 - Cue-tip reaction for a large offset, medium-slow speed, near double-hit miscue shot
Enjoy,
Dave
It would also help to use a high-squirt (AKA "large cue ball deflection" or non LD) shaft, where the outward momentum of the tip could delay the tip's recoil back to the CB like the last shot in the following video (which should be viewable to more people):
HSV B.47 - Effect of shaft endmass and squirt on miscue limit
Catch you later,
Dave