Rule on miscuing.... I had to withdraw from a tournament
- Thread starter Camelot
- Start date
It is worse than a normal foul in the rules. It is unsportsmanlike conduct.
The opinions on this one will never end!!!
There is allot to think about on this,,,,But in the long run,,,,if legal contact was made,,safety or called the shot,,it should be good.
I know in some formats you cannot miscue during a masse or a jump shot,,its a automatic BIH.
But I don't think it applys here. (was it a masse?)
Same as everyone else though,,,why would you call a mis cue on a safety??
There is allot to think about on this,,,,But in the long run,,,,if legal contact was made,,safety or called the shot,,it should be good.
I know in some formats you cannot miscue during a masse or a jump shot,,its a automatic BIH.
But I don't think it applys here. (was it a masse?)
Same as everyone else though,,,why would you call a mis cue on a safety??
Just play the shot
When you announced that you were going to intentionally miscue you let the ref off the hook. If you had just played the shot you would have put the burden on the ref to determine if you miscued or not. Since it is possible to make a legal shot with no chalk on the tip, the ref would have had to actually make the call that you had miscued before he could apply the unsportsman conduct rule.
When you announced that you were going to intentionally miscue you let the ref off the hook. If you had just played the shot you would have put the burden on the ref to determine if you miscued or not. Since it is possible to make a legal shot with no chalk on the tip, the ref would have had to actually make the call that you had miscued before he could apply the unsportsman conduct rule.
Somethings are better off not saying!
If the rule says unsportsmanlike conduct can include intentional
miscueing, then this rule is very bad-
1. You tell the ref you're go to intentionally miscue-Foul
2. You don't tell the ref- then it is up to the ref to determine if you
did it intentionally or not- gonna be a big problem at some point.
3. If you accidently miscue but make a legal hit (obviously hitting a rail
also) then the ref has to decide if it was really accidental. No good
4. On many shots you can miscue on purpose and make it look
accidental and vice-versa- many many players can do it.
miscueing, then this rule is very bad-
1. You tell the ref you're go to intentionally miscue-Foul
2. You don't tell the ref- then it is up to the ref to determine if you
did it intentionally or not- gonna be a big problem at some point.
3. If you accidently miscue but make a legal hit (obviously hitting a rail
also) then the ref has to decide if it was really accidental. No good
4. On many shots you can miscue on purpose and make it look
accidental and vice-versa- many many players can do it.
On any shots where there is ambiguity, the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately for the OP, he removed the ambiguity by announcing that he was going to miscue before hand.
I have a different take on all of this. It appears that the whole issue is a matter of nomenclature. IF you hit the CB once and only once, and did so only with the leather tip and not with the ferrule - then it is NOT a miscue. Using that term (as well as announcing it in advance) is how you shot yourself in the foot.
It doesn't matter how or even if the tip grips the ball. What makes a miscue a foul is the fact that there is a double hit of the CB and/or the ferrule touches the CB (or some part of the cue other than the leather tip).
By calling this a miscue, you admitted to attempting an illegal shot when the shot you attempted wasn't a miscue at all, nor illegal. That right there is the problem. To add more to that, there is a rule about doing it intentionally too (premeditation). That rule, which has become the focus of the thread - is actually a secondary or tertiary issue here.
Your fault is calling a legal shot illegal even before it happened. Next time, do not do that. Execute the shot and let the ref or others contest the legality of it. If you want to avoid controversy, you bring the ref and explain to the ref NOT using the term "miscue" (as it's a misnomer), and tell them you are going to glance the CB but you are intending on hitting the CB once and only once using the leather tip and only the tip. Let them decide if you executed it well or not.
If you're really miscuing and it's you who wrongly things it's a legal hit, then you're obviously wrong and your shot is illegal, and moreover, your intent to execute an illegal shot is also unsportsmanlike conduct despite the fact that you may be ignorant of the reality that the shot you are attempting is in fact illegal. Not knowing what is truly legal or not is not an excuse to avoid an unsportsmanlike conduct charge. You have to know the game and how it is played and officiated.
As far as I am concerned, this all comes down to whether or not the shot was genuinely legal. However, that is being put on the backburner because the shooter, based on his claims of the legality of the shot - mislabeled what the shot actually was and thus admitted fouling without actually fouling and doing so in a premeditated way by declaring it in advance bringing all the unsportsmanlike conduct issues into play.
Yup. Bola Ocho hit the nail on the head.
I can kind of see the OP's intentions of trying to be as forthcoming as possible with the type of shot he was going to execute, but as soon as OP used the word MISCUE, the ref really had no choice.
I can kind of see the OP's intentions of trying to be as forthcoming as possible with the type of shot he was going to execute, but as soon as OP used the word MISCUE, the ref really had no choice.
Where in the rule book does it define "intention?"
That's where the book breaks down into pieces.
There wouldn't be these arguments if gray areas like "intention" were removed from rules. If this guy "acted" like he was going to shoot a "normal" shot and did what he described anyways, it wouldn't be an issue and we wouldn't be discussing it.
That's how retarded those rules are. AZB has argued this topic to death in past years. It's simple, they should make all miscues fouls or not make them fouls ever, even if intentional. Either they are or aren't--- adding "intention" to the mix only causes controversy because an ADVANCED player who knows the rules can take advantage of someone who doesn't.
The only thing the original poster did wrong was announce it. Otherwise, it wasn't a foul. Crazy, if you ask me.
That's like saying during a football game that a face mask penalty doesn't count if the guy didn't try it. Could you imagine how crazy games would get? Or, what if during a baseball game, the batter didn't advance to 1st if hit by the pitcher (as long as it was accidental and the pitcher didn't try it)? Could you imagine how that would alter the outcome of a game? Pool is no different -- but, thems the rules-- as they say.
Last edited:
Seems to me that the term "miscue" could be better defined as well. It says that a miscue is a shot where the "cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip". To me that could be virtually any shot where the cue ball isn't struck in the center. Doesn't the cue tip always slide off the cue ball to a certain extent - more so with chalk, less so without, and more so the further from center? And they mention a sharp sound, but I can intentionally produce a miscue sound with an extreme draw stroke and still get the spin. I know that my tip slides off of the cueball, so are all of my draw shots intentional miscues?
I just feel that a player should be able to contact the very edge of the cue ball with his tip if he so desires. It is useful when you want to make the cueball travel a very small distance without double-hitting it, and personally I don't think there's enough difference between a miscue and a non-miscue, at least not as "miscue" is currently defined, for it to even be an issue.
Obviously a case where the ferrule contacts the cue ball would be a different story, but I'm not sure anyone could see that to make a definitive ruling on it.
Aaron
I just feel that a player should be able to contact the very edge of the cue ball with his tip if he so desires. It is useful when you want to make the cueball travel a very small distance without double-hitting it, and personally I don't think there's enough difference between a miscue and a non-miscue, at least not as "miscue" is currently defined, for it to even be an issue.
Obviously a case where the ferrule contacts the cue ball would be a different story, but I'm not sure anyone could see that to make a definitive ruling on it.
Aaron
Last edited:
Why would you tell the ref your are going to foul? It is not your job to make ruling calls.
THat said, a miscue is a foul, so your opponent gets BIH if you execute what you claimed.
I think you were being a bit bull-headed.
The OP made his declaration because he had not bothered to read the rules beforehand. No other possible excuse.
To not know the rules and then withdraw because you were caught in a violation is the height of arrogance I think.
I don't agree with all the rules either, but that does not give me license to ignore them at my will. They are what they are and the ref made a proper call.