If you call for a referee to watch a hit, and he sees the cue ball hit the object ball and the ball next to it at exactly the same time (at least in his mind, that is what he saw) how should he rule?
Rule Question?
- Thread starter TwinkleToes
- Start date
+1^^^^^^^^^
tie goes the runner
If it is true that the tie goes to the runner, then couldn't we draw this conclusion:
The object ball does not need to be hit first. As long as the other ball is not hit first, the hit is good!
The object ball does not need to be hit first. As long as the other ball is not hit first, the hit is good!
It's called a split hit. Without a referee calling the shot, the shooter gets credit if his object ball is pocketed.
Some split hits are very difficult to judge. Unless slo-mo video is available, I think the shooter should always be given the benefit of the hit.
Shoot Safe.
John
Some split hits are very difficult to judge. Unless slo-mo video is available, I think the shooter should always be given the benefit of the hit.
Shoot Safe.
John
Yes, ties to the shooter
Which rule set are you using? In case it is the World Standardized Rules, the following regulation applies to the call:
27. Split Hits
If the cue ball strikes a legal object ball and a non-legal object ball at approximately the same instant, and it cannot be determined which ball was hit first, it will be assumed that the legal target was struck first.
If the cue ball strikes a legal object ball and a non-legal object ball at approximately the same instant, and it cannot be determined which ball was hit first, it will be assumed that the legal target was struck first.
You missed a good opportunity to point out the videos showing how to tell which ball was hit first.
In cases where it is impossible to tell which ball was hit first, it just gets assumed that the object ball is hit first. No need to change the wording of the rules to make it more difficult to understand.
I'd call foul. "Hit the lowest numbered object ball first." It doesn't say hit two balls at once.
The giveaway to a foul is which direction did the balls move? A bad hit by my opponent will not help him win anyway.
I find pool referees just as ignorant as many pool streaming match commentators. They don't know what they're looking at and have no clue about what to say.
The giveaway to a foul is which direction did the balls move? A bad hit by my opponent will not help him win anyway.
I find pool referees just as ignorant as many pool streaming match commentators. They don't know what they're looking at and have no clue about what to say.
I think the chances of a "split-hit" are so minuscule I have a hard time even saying it. If it's too close to tell I find that it's very likely it would be a foul and I have no problem calling it that way, so if it's not a good hit then it's a bad hit.
I understand (from an earlier thread) that some referees have begun to use a slo-mo app and they defer to the app and video replay to make close calls. As an APA referee I am told that by the APA "higher ups" The APA forbids the use of video replay. Nothing is infallible, it's the human factor. If it's too close to tell, my thought is it's probably bad
I understand (from an earlier thread) that some referees have begun to use a slo-mo app and they defer to the app and video replay to make close calls. As an APA referee I am told that by the APA "higher ups" The APA forbids the use of video replay. Nothing is infallible, it's the human factor. If it's too close to tell, my thought is it's probably bad
And yet you would be wrong.
You do realize the rules are there for a reason, right? They are there to guide you in your decision making for the game you are playing. You don't get to just make crap up as you go.
None the less, if you call over a referee their decision is final whether you like it or not.
Well I guess I am not so negative or such a poor sport and I say if it is too close to tell then it was probably a good hit.
But who cares what we think as the rules say if it is too close to tell it is a good hit.
The rules state it benefits the shooter. I believe the reasoning is that:
1. This rule is just mainly to prevent "obvious" fouls.
2. If every close call is against the shooter, how annoying would this game become. It does not progress the game. Example: Snooker (even though I know its not the normal game we're applying it to in this case). The non-shooter can require to have the balls placed back in their original positions and have the shooter attempt the shot again, and again, and again. (assuming each try was a split hit).
So long as a referee, in his best judgement, could not declare it an obvious bad hit, then to progress the game, it would be make sense to give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. Remember, it works both ways! When this shot comes up for you, this should be beneficial.
1. This rule is just mainly to prevent "obvious" fouls.
2. If every close call is against the shooter, how annoying would this game become. It does not progress the game. Example: Snooker (even though I know its not the normal game we're applying it to in this case). The non-shooter can require to have the balls placed back in their original positions and have the shooter attempt the shot again, and again, and again. (assuming each try was a split hit).
So long as a referee, in his best judgement, could not declare it an obvious bad hit, then to progress the game, it would be make sense to give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. Remember, it works both ways! When this shot comes up for you, this should be beneficial.
I get the feeling that you'd throw at your kid in a father/son softball game.
You just like to start shit, don't you
Celophanewrap;5515990[COLOR="Red" said:
I tend to lean the other way. It seems like most of the time in a situation like this you need to cut the object ball more sharply but a "wrong" ball is in the way. I would guess most of you solve this by using "outside" spin to throw the object ball. The use of "outside" spin also throws the cue ball and it can make it appear that you hit both balls at about the same time when it was actually a good hit. I always tell the ref what I am doing before I shoot when a shot like this comes up.
As was posted earlier - The tie would go to the runner, or in this case the shooter.
I don't have the experience of some of you guys, but I've watched a few and to be honest I have never seen one that was to close to call. People have disagreed with me, but as a referee you get that sort of thing regardless of the call
If you go to Dr. Dave's site and view the section on being a referee, which includes a test with video examples, you will understand this more clearly. This understanding will give you confidence in discussing this in a game situation.