I assume you're kidding.
Question on Double Hit foul? Everyone is a physicist now?
- Thread starter Timkrieger
- Start date
I don't play with people like that more than once unless forced by a tournament or something. Life is too short.
That’s because the cue ball just hit the blocking ball with a glancing blow. Equivalent of a thin cut that also does not transfer much energy to the object ball.
Is that legal? Don't remember ever reading that you can tape something and review it in a league.
That's definitely a case where the cue ball can go faster than the object ball when shot straight at the object ball and not be a foul, but I'll guess that the OP was using a nearly level stroke.
I doubt that the APA national rules say anything about video recordings. I think they're a good idea, and evidently so do some local leagues. They aren't going to eliminate all disputes, but they can help make the right decision.
And here is an example. The player is on solids (or playing 9 ball) and shoots right between the 8 and 1. The cue ball comes off along the line indicated and the 1 ball is pocketed. It is much too close and quick to call by actually seeing the foul.
Any ref who does not call this shot a foul according to the action of the cue ball should not be a ref.
Even if that were true, the OP never hinted that was the case in this situation.
As long as they are not hovering over the table while I'm trying to shoot.
Many rules also say a simultaneous hit goes to the shooter.
I think Bob's showing what the balls' paths would look like with a non-simultaneous hit - hitting the 8 slightly before the 1. The CB and OBs' paths show that (especially where the 8 goes).
pj
chgo
Last edited:
What I've shown is very obviously not a simultaneous hit.
I agree with the OP’s opponent.
With 3” between balls, if the cue ball followed immediately behind the object ball, headed anywhere close to the same direction as the object ball, as fast or faster, without hesitation of the cue ball after contact for the topspin to take, sorry but it sounds like a double hit foul in my opinion. However, sounds like your opponent was out of position to make the call, which is his fault.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?
Last edited:
Timkrieger
Well-known member
Well my point is he wasn’t watching the shot or having someone watch it, from his chair suddenly he became a physicist and knew exactly how fast the balls were going and what angle
Timkrieger
Well-known member
Well my point is, I don’t think it’s good pool etiquette to call fouls like this. Call an observer to come watch the shot. Peoples’ eyes can be deceiving, who’s to say if the cue ball actually was traveling faster than the object ball. How close were they watching the 2 balls? That’s what I mean everybody suddenly becomes a physicist. Best practice is just to ask someone to come over and watch the shot if you suspect your opponent is going to foul.
Bob,
Don't the rules now state you have to clearly see someone be a double hit for it to be a foul? As far as I am concerned that basically means no longer a double hit foul as sound or cue ball movement are the giveaways almost every time. Very rare for me to get up and watch for a double hit especially with today's shape relying almost entirely on draw. Not unusual for today's local eight and nine ball players to ask me what I did when I use follow. I even had a local shortstop argue that only force follow was follow. I often use follow to get the cue ball rolling as soon as possible but I didn't argue the point!
When I swapped to a carbon fiber shaft I noticed far more double hits in my own play. Was I unable to feel the double hits with the maple shaft or did the maple shaft move out of the way better than the stiffer CF shaft? I don't know.
Bob, glanced at posts that weren't up when I started my post. While I trust physics, I very much distrust many people's application of physics! Perpetual motion is possible, it is physics! If you leave a lot of things out that is true. Lost a week of work facing a hard deadline and ten thousand or so off of a tight budget when the president of the company insisted I go down a path I had looked at and dismissed months before. Other entities had tried it a half-dozen times I could document, no telling how many times I couldn't document. The same as perpetual motion, the parasite forces prevented the idea from working. I told my boss that, I was overruled.
He was not only president of the company, he had a PhD in engineering. Considerably above my pay grade on all counts, I was a simple designer. As in every other time I disagreed with a PE I was right though. I wasn't that smart, but I was smart enough to cross my T's and dot my I's before disagreeing with a PE!
Hu
To the OP: My experience makes me curious. Are you using a wood or CF shaft?
Hu