alright the rules for a scoop jump shot is illegal we all know this. so my question is if a player goes to do a draw shot on a ball and miscues with the results being a scoop jump which he makes the shot. there was no ball in the way and the ball didn't jump over another ball is this a foul. even though he didn't mean to scoop it. in my opinion this would be a foul because what is to stop people from scooping and saying they meant to Masse and it was a miscue.
scoop shot is it legal???
- Thread starter chazz
- Start date
Unintentional isn't a foul. Unless its being watch by a TD or ref in a tournament, it isn't a foul. If the player could only accomplish what was needed in order to make the shot then it could be considered intentional and a foul.
This falls under the category of a purposefully illegal stroke.
I was thinking that unless you got a ref to watch the draw shot which in most cases you would not then it would be up to the shooter to make the final decision.
No it isn't if it isn't A) intentional or B) the shot isn't watched.
my thoughts was a scoop shot is a scoop shot either done accidently or on purpose. there is a definition on what a scoop shot is and it defiantly says its illegal.... hmmm
I believe Oldzilla to be correct.
I think a miscue would almost always be a double contact foul.
To address Rock, letter A -
I can't think of a time that a double contact would be intentional.
However, as Rock says (B), "the shot isn't watched..." particularly in league play, I can't think of a time that a miscue has actually been called a foul without a referee present.
I think it's doubtful that most players would call it on themselves anyway in just about any situation at any level. But a miscue would almost always be a double contact foul.
Last edited:
I'll let a ref take over and answer because I don't have time to cite the rule but an unintentional miscue that results in a good good hit or shot made is not a foul.
You don't have to cite it, but where can I look it up.
I'm not trying to challenge you on this or anything like that, I didn't know that there was such a rule.
I've always understood that a double hit is a foul, like when two balls are real close together - that double hit would also not be intentional but it would be a foul.
I'm wondering what the distinction would be
Speaking of intentional double hits.......is this a double hit or a legal hit on the cue ball?
https://youtu.be/VtP_aa2kO8w?t=28m22s
At first glance it looks like a double hit. But after reviewing it numerous times, it seems like he used inside english to make sure his shaft would ricochet away from the cue ball.
https://youtu.be/VtP_aa2kO8w?t=28m22s
At first glance it looks like a double hit. But after reviewing it numerous times, it seems like he used inside english to make sure his shaft would ricochet away from the cue ball.
I don't know why people don't actually look at the rules.
An unintentional miscue is not a foul unless contact with the cue stick is "clearly visible", otherwise such contact is "deemed not to occur" and there is no foul. Intentional miscues (i.e., to scoop jump) are a foul.
In the example given, with no intervening ball it is hard to see how anyone could say it was intentional. The issue of a player claiming he intended a masse shot is, in my view, easy to resolve - as the cue action for a masse shot is so different than for a scoop shot, I can't imagine a competent referee not knowing the difference.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play#8.2
8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
An unintentional miscue is not a foul unless contact with the cue stick is "clearly visible", otherwise such contact is "deemed not to occur" and there is no foul. Intentional miscues (i.e., to scoop jump) are a foul.
In the example given, with no intervening ball it is hard to see how anyone could say it was intentional. The issue of a player claiming he intended a masse shot is, in my view, easy to resolve - as the cue action for a masse shot is so different than for a scoop shot, I can't imagine a competent referee not knowing the difference.
http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/the_rules_of_play#8.2
8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
Last edited:
pages 28 and 78
http://www.qtimepool.com/2008_BCA_Rules.pdf
couldn't find the most recent rule book but as far as I know it remains unchanged.
http://www.qtimepool.com/2008_BCA_Rules.pdf
couldn't find the most recent rule book but as far as I know it remains unchanged.
That's not true at all. I personally wouldn't call it a foul on my opponent unless I clearly heard a double hit or I though it was intentional.
WPA (world-standardized) rule on this:
8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
8.18 Miscue
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or to insufficient chalk on the tip. It is usually accompanied by a sharp sound and evidenced by a discoloration of the tip. Although some miscues involve contact of the side of the cue stick with the cue ball, unless such contact is clearly visible, it is assumed not to have occurred. A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
Foul. The stroke required for this shot involves extreme English and a quick cuing.
I linked the rule in another post and WPA rules have been posted as well.
Here is the line with the double hit rule. If the double hit occurred because of the cue ball's proximity to an object ball or rail its a foul. Otherwise unless its obvious the cue ball came in contact with the shaft, its a miscue and not a foul. In other words the double hit is almost only called if the cue ball is coming in direct contact with a rail or object ball.
Where it gets tricky is miscuing in order to avoid a double hit. This is where the intentional part gets tricky but a ref or TD has to be watching to make the call.
I believe you are correct.
My proof is just this past year, on ESPN, Alison Fisher and Shane in separate matches with ref both miscued causing the ball to go airborne, make contact with the object ball and successfully pocket the ball - and they both kept shooting. Neither of their opponents nor the referee/commentators ever called foul.
In each case they were trying to draw the ball back.
It's a double hit. Notice how the cb takes off the same speed as the ob does. the cb then slows down rapidly due to the draw on it, but it is very easy to see the initial speed the same as the ob.
And, that's not even to mention the fact that he used draw, and the cb shouldn't have gone forward at all.
Whether or not the rules call it a foul isnt that awful sound a scoop shot makes the cue ball contacting the shaft????
I had a situation a few weeks ago where a foul was called on me. BCA rules, 8 ball slightly less than a cube of chalk away from cue ball. Straight in shot, I made the 8 but cue ball rolled too far forward. BCA allows the cue ball to roll to the spot 8 ball occupied but not past that location, my cue ball went a half ball to a full ball past the spot the 8 occupied. I commented that it was a shitty rule because one can easily shoot this shot without committing a foul, yet BCA lets you shoot straight thru frozen balls.:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:
I had a situation a few weeks ago where a foul was called on me. BCA rules, 8 ball slightly less than a cube of chalk away from cue ball. Straight in shot, I made the 8 but cue ball rolled too far forward. BCA allows the cue ball to roll to the spot 8 ball occupied but not past that location, my cue ball went a half ball to a full ball past the spot the 8 occupied. I commented that it was a shitty rule because one can easily shoot this shot without committing a foul, yet BCA lets you shoot straight thru frozen balls.:angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry::angry:
If the balls are frozen together, you will not have a double hit. I suggest you look at Dr. Daves site that proves this fact so you will have a better understanding of just what is actually happening on balls close together and balls frozen together.