Rule on miscuing.... I had to withdraw from a tournament

[Kickin' Chicken]

The best thing we can do is to learn from our mistakes. And, clearly, this was a mistake. Once you announced your intention to miscue, anything remotely resembling a miscue was going to be called by the ref.

You didn't know there is a rule that states, intentional miscuing is considered unsportsmanlike, and is a foul. Now you do. No big deal. Move on with this newfound knowledge.

I like what Bob Jewett suggested, get a rule book and read it. This will give you an edge, going forward.

I do agree with the others who suggested that you should not have withdrawn from this tourney. It would have been good experience to have challenged yourself to see how far you could have advanced despite the loss on this foul.

Best,
Brian kc

 

[mosconiac]

That's like saying during a football game that a face mask penalty doesn't count if the guy didn't try it.

Such a distinction IS made...the ref prescribes a larger penalty (in yards) if it was deemed "intentional".

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)?

Such a distinction IS made...the ref prescribes a larger penalty (ejection of the pitcher) if it was deemed "intentional".

Same story here...the guy intended to miscue, did miscue, & was penalized according to the rules. End of story...wonder where the OP went?!?!?

 

[GADawg]

Such a distinction IS made...the ref prescribes a larger penalty (in yards) if it was deemed "intentional".


Such a distinction IS made...the ref prescribes a larger penalty (ejection of the pitcher) if it was deemed "intentional".

Same story here...the guy intended to miscue, did miscue, & was penalized according to the rules. End of story...wonder where the OP went?!?!?

Had the same thought. Hope he is taking this time to read the rules.

I doubt we will get a "mea culpa" from him.

 

[Masayoshi]

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.

Shooter has the benefit of the doubt. If it comes down to opinion, the shooter stays on the table. In this case, the shooter obviously intended to miscue, so there was no ambiguity.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Shooter has the benefit of the doubt. If it comes down to opinion, the shooter stays on the table. In this case, the shooter obviously intended to miscue, so there was no ambiguity.

To me, this is like moving balls by accident and having arguments follow regarding where the balls were, etc. The way to solve that is "all ball fouls". The way to solve this entire situation and all future situations is "all miscues are fouls."

My point in my earlier post wasn't the difference in penalties in football and baseball--- it was a point that even UNINTENTIONAL situations are STILL penalties. Unintentional face masks STILL result in a flag being thrown. It's still a "bad thing."

The way the pool rules are written is "unintentional" (whatever that means) miscues are no penalty whatsoever. Any intelligent player can use that to his/her advantage (just as the OP COULD HAVE, if he knew). He could have won the game versus giving up BIH.

Now, if all miscues were fouls.... prob solved. Someone doesn't like it--- well, chalk your cue next time cry baby Prob solved.

 

[Island Drive]

Here is the situation....

The 9-ball is nearly frozen to the endrail, and the cueball is nearly frozen to the 9-ball.

I announce to the referee that I am going to miscue, and barely hit the cueball, but enough to make the 9-ball hit the rail. I wipe the chalk off the tip, and then make the shot. It was a legal hit. I hit the cueball only once, and the 9-ball hit the rail.

The ref then starts going through the rulebook for about 15 minutes. He then says that my shot was unsportsmanlike conduct, and that my opponent would get ball in hand.

I shook my opponent's hand and withdrew from the tournament.

Several people have told me that I cannot vocally announce that I am going to miscue on purpose, but I don't believe the rule.

What do you think?

If you asked first, then you would of gotten your answer before pulling the trigger.

 

[Bob Jewett]

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. ...

A miscue is defined in the rules. The definition in the rules seems to be different from the definition you are using.

Also, the rules specify that a shot must be done with a forward motion of the stick (technically that would be motion mostly parallel to its axis). I suspect the OP was shooting with a lifting motion, but maybe not.

 

[ShootingArts]

this shot is executed at a right angle to the path of the cue ball

A miscue is defined in the rules. The definition in the rules seems to be different from the definition you are using.

Also, the rules specify that a shot must be done with a forward motion of the stick (technically that would be motion mostly parallel to its axis). I suspect the OP was shooting with a lifting motion, but maybe not.

Bob,

Most of the discussion in this thread is focused on "miscue". To execute this shot the shooter sets up at a right angle to the path of the cue ball and using a forward motion of the cue stick, a standard stroke, barely touches the back of the cue ball in passing. There is no real need to remove chalk from the tip, no miscue either in my opinion. Depends on the wording of the definition you are using but I could execute this shot brushing past the cue ball or going to the centerline of the cue ball and drawing the cue back. It wouldn't matter. The cue stick doesn't glance off of the cue ball and if brushing is an issue a shooter can simply stop a cue or draw it back when it reaches centerline of the cue ball.

Hu

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So would that mean a descending stroke is a foul since an ascending stroke is?

A masse is allowed by hitting the top of a ball and so is a jump shot....but if you hit the same part of the cb for a safe...it's unsportmanlike. The more I read the rules...the more ambiguous they read. Fouls should be determined by cb/cue contact only.

Not trying to be a devils advocate...but the rules aren't the answer as you point out....many times they're the problem (hence this thread).

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk

 

[Tennesseejoe]

Declaring a miscue before shooting should have no bearing on the referees decision. The referee sees the shot and then makes a decision.

 

[JolietJames]

I don't think the rule is written very clearly. What, do you think, was the rules intent? A deliberate miscue may have just been referring to tapping the CB with the ferral like some do when stuck to the rack in straight pool. You take a foul, slide the bead, hope to shuffle the balls a bit, and give your opponent an opportunity to play a legal safe out of it. That's a miscue and a foul due to the fact it was not a legal hit. I doubt the people who wrote the rule had the OP's shot in mind. It's definitely not unsportsmanlike and the ref is just an idiot. You really have to spell things out to those who lack the ability to think on their own.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

I'm not sure who you think is an idiot.

Rule states intentional miscues are 'unsportsmanlike' conduct and a foul is assesed by the referee. All the Ref did was follow the rules.

The OP announced his INTENTIONAL act of miscuing. This would more likely fall into the IDIOT condition if I were the judge.

Intentional miscues are against the rules.

And in your example a foul was assesed, just as in the OP's action.

Rule are rewritten all the time. If you know who is on the rules committee you could have an acutal hand in rewritting the rules. If you know how to word the rules so that no IDIOTS would miss read them.

I don't think the rule is written very clearly. What, do you think, was the rules intent? A deliberate miscue may have just been referring to tapping the CB with the ferral like some do when stuck to the rack in straight pool. You take a foul, slide the bead, hope to shuffle the balls a bit, and give your opponent an opportunity to play a legal safe out of it. That's a miscue and a foul due to the fact it was not a legal hit. I doubt the people who wrote the rule had the OP's shot in mind. It's definitely not unsportsmanlike and the ref is just an idiot. You really have to spell things out to those who lack the ability to think on their own.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'm not sure who you think is an idiot.

Rule states intentional miscues are 'unsportsmanlike' conduct and a foul is assesed by the referee. All the Ref did was follow the rules.

The OP announced his INTENTIONAL act of miscuing. This would more likely fall into the IDIOT condition if I were the judge.

Intentional miscues are against the rules.

And in your example a foul was assesed, just as in the OP's action.

Rule are rewritten all the time. If you know who is on the rules committee you could have an acutal hand in rewritting the rules. If you know how to word the rules so that no IDIOTS would miss read them.

Just being curious....

Hypothetically....

If the OP had not announced his intention and approached the shot as if he were "trying to do something" but whiffed the CB and acting disgusted--- like it didn't work out and "he hit it bad," what would the ruling be at that point in time? I think this is an important point in this discussion.

I'm sure the ruling would be "no foul" because no one could judge the shooter's intention but himself. Who is anyone else to say otherwise, right?

It's for that reason alone I think intention should be removed from rulebooks on whether something is a foul or not.

 

[The Kiss]

HMMM all this jibber jabber could have been avoided easily.

You never should have announced your intention to miscue.

As nike used to say "Just Do it " and if you hit the ball and a rail its a legal shot and of story:thumbup:

 

[Luxury]

Looks like the op unscrewed and had to withdraw from his thread.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Removed? IMO that would be a mistake. If anything, maybe the wording could be improved.

Please go back and read Bob Jewett's comments about being able to 'intentionally' miscue to make a shot.

IMO, most players only care about pocketing balls and/or making a good hit, learning the rules is not high on most players list of things to do.

Hypothetically, yes.. If I were ref'ing I wouldn't have called a FOUL

Just being curious....

Hypothetically....

If the OP had not announced his intention and approached the shot as if he were "trying to do something" but whiffed the CB and acting disgusted--- like it didn't work out and "he hit it bad," what would the ruling be at that point in time? I think this is an important point in this discussion.

I'm sure the ruling would be "no foul" because no one could judge the shooter's intention but himself. Who is anyone else to say otherwise, right?

It's for that reason alone I think intention should be removed from rulebooks on whether something is a foul or not.

 

[TheNewSharkster]

I have to wonder if the topics creator opponent was on the hill when he gave him the BIH and withdrew :grin-square:

 

[Thecoats]

Looks like the op unscrewed and had to withdraw from his thread.

I read this entire thread and my only thoughts are the original poster showed a lack of heart and commitment by withdrawing from a tournament over a single call.

-don

 

[JolietJames]

Hi Tom. I was just saying the OP's situation was probably not what the rule was written to prevent. I could be wrong but I believe I'm right. If I were the ref I would have said "Good hit, play on". If he had to pull out a rule book to find out if it was a foul at all, he surely has no idea why the rule was written. I'd have been pissed too, but admittedly, I'm an a$$hole.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I ... I doubt the people who wrote the rule had the OP's shot in mind. ...

And I'm certain that they did. See: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=124&pagetype=archived_news_details&newsid=68

And if anyone here thinks a rule is badly worded or just plain wrong, he should get his suggestion to his national pool federation so that the change can be considered for the next revision of the rules which should occur in January, 2013. Of course the draft version of that revision has to be completed in 2012.