Question on Double Hit foul? Everyone is a physicist now?

Timkrieger

Timkrieger

Well-known member
Playing a game for money with a friend yesterday. I was left in a safety. Cue was 3” from object ball. Made an amazing shot to pocket the ball and get position. My opponent who was sitting in his chair 8’ away at an angle jumps up and says “that’s a double hit! The cue ball was rolling faster than the object ball!” So he didn’t actually see a double hit, he saw what he believed was the evidence of a double hit based on ball reaction. Now, this isn’t the first time of course that I’ve heard this. People judge a double hit based on the ball reaction. Personally I think this is wrong and bad for the game. I think there are too many pool room professors who are too fast to call fouls without actually seeing a foul. There are a lot of factors that effect cue ball speed. Generally I never call this kind of foul, just not worth it to provoke the argument. Ultimately I lost that game but won the set. But, still always been a pet peeve of mine. 😊

Any opinions or explanations of calling this foul based on cue reaction?
 
Timkrieger said:
Playing a game for money with a friend yesterday. I was left in a safety. Cue was 3” from object ball. Made an amazing shot to pocket the ball and get position. My opponent who was sitting in his chair 8’ away at an angle jumps up and says “that’s a double hit! The cue ball was rolling faster than the object ball!” So he didn’t actually see a double hit, he saw what he believed was the evidence of a double hit based on ball reaction. Now, this isn’t the first time of course that I’ve heard this. People judge a double hit based on the ball reaction. Personally I think this is wrong and bad for the game. I think there are too many pool room professors who are too fast to call fouls without actually seeing a foul. There are a lot of factors that effect cue ball speed. Generally I never call this kind of foul, just not worth it to provoke the argument. Ultimately I lost that game but won the set. But, still always been a pet peeve of mine. 😊

Any opinions or explanations of calling this foul based on cue reaction?
Click to expand...
if the cb is that far way from ob its kinda hard to get a double hit. maybe not impossible but unlikely.
 
Timkrieger said:
Playing a game for money with a friend yesterday. I was left in a safety. Cue was 3” from object ball. Made an amazing shot to pocket the ball and get position. My opponent who was sitting in his chair 8’ away at an angle jumps up and says “that’s a double hit! The cue ball was rolling faster than the object ball!” So he didn’t actually see a double hit, he saw what he believed was the evidence of a double hit based on ball reaction. Now, this isn’t the first time of course that I’ve heard this. People judge a double hit based on the ball reaction. Personally I think this is wrong and bad for the game. I think there are too many pool room professors who are too fast to call fouls without actually seeing a foul. There are a lot of factors that effect cue ball speed. Generally I never call this kind of foul, just not worth it to provoke the argument. Ultimately I lost that game but won the set. But, still always been a pet peeve of mine. 😊

Any opinions or explanations of calling this foul based on cue reaction?
Click to expand...

Good referees will absolutely use the cue ball reaction as an indicator of any number of possible fouls.
 
Timkrieger said:
Playing a game for money with a friend yesterday. I was left in a safety. Cue was 3” from object ball. Made an amazing shot to pocket the ball and get position. My opponent who was sitting in his chair 8’ away at an angle jumps up and says “that’s a double hit! The cue ball was rolling faster than the object ball!” So he didn’t actually see a double hit, he saw what he believed was the evidence of a double hit based on ball reaction. Now, this isn’t the first time of course that I’ve heard this. People judge a double hit based on the ball reaction. Personally I think this is wrong and bad for the game. I think there are too many pool room professors who are too fast to call fouls without actually seeing a foul. There are a lot of factors that effect cue ball speed. Generally I never call this kind of foul, just not worth it to provoke the argument. Ultimately I lost that game but won the set. But, still always been a pet peeve of mine. 😊

Any opinions or explanations of calling this foul based on cue reaction?
Click to expand...
What cut angle was the shot? Or was it pretty straight in?
 
My apa 8ball team tapes any shot that may result in a foul.

As to the OP's situation, the opponent is wrong if he was given a chance to watch the hit at the table and stayed in his chair. If he has called a double hit from the chair before, you need to control the situation
 
Timkrieger said:
Any opinions or explanations of calling this foul based on cue reaction?
Click to expand...
David in FL said:
Good referees will absolutely use the cue ball reaction as an indicator of any number of possible fouls.
Click to expand...
What David said. If the cut angle is straighter than ~30°, CB going faster than OB is a pretty clear sign even for non-physicists.

pj
chgo
 
cookie man said:
W

Wouldn’t it also be hard to get the cue ball going faster then the OB
Click to expand...
With a several inch distance you can put follow on the cueball to speed it up and not double hit. Without seeing the shot executed though it's all a guess if the shot was actually a foul or just a possible foul.
 
The distance of the object ball from the cue ball definitely made a double hit impossible in my mind. He couldn’t see the distance because he was sitting. I know it was not a double hit in this case. Clean stroke, clean hit. I know it for a fact. I didn’t argue when he called a foul because not worth it and I do not believe myself in judging fouls based purely on the science of cue ball reaction and speed. Also, from his chair I don’t believe he could be an accurate judge of cue ball speed vs object ball speed. What was he watching, the ball being pocketed? The cue ball? My stroke?

This is why I believe that you should not call a foul based on ball reaction alone if you did not see the double hit. We have all seen the cue ball do some crazy things on the table—cloth, debris, humidity, temperature, English, stroke, the cue can do some crazy things. I think it’s better to let players in that situation call a foul on themselves if they know they double hit the cue, just rely on good pool etiquette if you don’t have a referee or someone watching the shot.
 
hang-the-9 said:
With a several inch distance you can put follow on the cueball to speed it up and not double hit. Without seeing the shot executed though it's all a guess if the shot was actually a foul or just a possible foul.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly what I did in this case, put extreme follow and English with a strong stroke, came off the cushion.
 
Timkrieger said:
The distance of the object ball from the cue ball definitely made a double hit impossible in my mind. ...
Click to expand...
I've seen double hits with the balls six inches apart, so it is possible. What was the cut angle of the shot? Was it a straight shot? That's a very important part of the puzzle.

What would really help is if you could reenact the shot and post a video.
 
Bob Jewett said:
I've seen double hits with the balls six inches apart, so it is possible. What was the cut angle of the shot? Was it a straight shot? That's a very important part of the puzzle.

What would really help is if you could reenact the shot and post a video.
Click to expand...

That is why the actual shot has to be seen. Just because the setup is so a foul is not likely does not mean that someone did not actually foul. There is a silly rule in TAP that states if you shoot at such and such an angle, it's not a foul, which is pretty dumb since just looking like you won't foul does not mean the reality of the shot is not a foul. The simple act of trying to avoid a foul does not equate to not fouling.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I fail to understand it...?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
As an example...have you ever seen a jump ball attempt but the cue ball does not get high enough to get over the blocking balls. The cue ball tops the blocking ball and the cue ball then goes faster the the blocking ball. This the same action. I hope this helps.
 
I do not believe myself in judging fouls based purely on the science of cue ball reaction and speed.
Click to expand...
You should never trust science and physics...because they can be manipulated by your opponent's mind. This is most likely what happened in your case. You know for a fact that you didn't foul, so no matter what the balls did, there is no foul.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top