Should all micues be fouls?

[dr_dave]

In the current rules, a miscue is a foul only if it is intentional.

HSV 2.1 shows a good example of a typical miscue. HSV A.13-A.20 and A.98-A.109 show many more examples under different conditions. With most miscues, the tip slides along the cue ball, and the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft make secondary contact with the cue ball. The secondary contacts might partially explain the slapping sound you hear with a miscue. Normally, multiple hits on the cue ball results in a foul; but in case of a miscue, the multiple hits are not considered a foul under the current rules (unless the miscue is judged as "intentional").

One case where a miscue should probably be called a foul is when secondary contact clearly affects the shot. Here's a good example where the miscue might not be "intentional," but it should be ruled as a foul:

HSV B.28 - frozen-ball kiss, miscue, and push shots and fouls​

Actually, an argument can be made that all miscues should be called as fouls. The current rules require a single, non-prolonged, forward-stroke hit of the tip on the cue ball. All miscues involve the tip sliding along the cue ball, and most miscues involve secondary contact with the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft. Maybe all miscues should be called as fouls, because they are a result of either player error or intentional, unsportsmanlike play.

So what do you think? Should all miscues be called as fouls?

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Cornerman]

Actually, an argument can be made that all miscues should be called as fouls. The current rules require a single, non-prolonged, forward-stroke hit of the tip on the cue ball.

I like to take the extreme opposite stance and say that I don't think push shots or double hits (on a single stroke) should be called fouls. But, I'd be in the minority.


Fred

 

[dr_dave]

pool libertarians

I like to take the extreme opposite stance and say that I don't think push shots or double hits (on a single stroke) should be called fouls. But, I'd be in the minority.

Fred,

Here's how I responded to Colin in the other miscue thread when he proposed the same thing:

Generally, I'm with you on not limiting things ... the fewer rules, the better. I guess we are both pool-rule libertarians. However, if you allow too much, you open the door for too many abuses and judgment calls, IMO. For example, if you allow double hits, how do you prevent somebody from intentionally using a double hit to easily get position, cheat a shot, or correct an errant 1st hit (all with a single "stroke")?

Regards,
Dave

 

[vagabond]

I like to take the extreme opposite stance and say that I don't think push shots or double hits (on a single stroke) should be called fouls. But, I'd be in the minority.


Fred

I am with u on this.

 

[stuckart]

At the BCAPL in Vegas this year the rule stated that any miscue on a jump or masse shot would be a foul.

Personally I like that rule!

 

[ne14tennis]

Not All Types Of Shots

In the current rules, a miscue is a foul only if it is intentional.

HSV 2.1 shows a good example of a typical miscue. HSV A.13-A.20 and A.98-A.109 show many more examples under different conditions. With most miscues, the tip slides along the cue ball, and the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft make secondary contact with the cue ball. The secondary contacts might partially explain the slapping sound you hear with a miscue. Normally, multiple hits on the cue ball results in a foul; but in case of a miscue, the multiple hits are not considered a foul under the current rules (unless the miscue is judged as "intentional").

One case where a miscue should probably be called a foul is when secondary contact clearly affects the shot. Here's a good example where the miscue might not be "intentional," but it should be ruled as a foul:

HSV B.28 - frozen-ball kiss, miscue, and push shots and fouls​

Actually, an argument can be made that all miscues should be called as fouls. The current rules require a single, non-prolonged, forward-stroke hit of the tip on the cue ball. All miscues involve the tip sliding along the cue ball, and most miscues involve secondary contact with the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft. Maybe all miscues should be called as fouls, because they are a result of either player error or intentional, unsportsmanlike play.

So what do you think? Should all miscues be called as fouls?

Thanks,
Dave

I would venture to say that if it's a masse or jump attempt, than "most" miscues are fouls. On a regular shot you really have to look and listen for it

 

[Patrick Johnson]

No Harm, No Foul

Even though most miscues involve something other than the tip hitting the CB, I don't see the obvious advantage to the shooter in that. In fact, the vast majority of miscues already punish the shooter by making him miss the shot and give up the table.

I also don't see the obvious disadvantage to the opponent even if the shooter intentionally miscues, assuming he doesn't commit another obvious foul like prolonged contact with the CB (such as we saw in Dr. Dave's video example). If the shooter can get the CB to do something advantageous by intentionally miscueing without committing another obvious foul, I say more power to him.

There's also the problem that (I believe) many miscues can't be unambiguously called, so the rule might cause more disputes than it settles.

Then there's tradition to consider. Simple miscues have not been fouls in the past, so there's precedence for leaving them as exceptions to the "nothing but the tip can hit the CB" rule even if we think that usually occurs. A new rule for an old situation is likely to be controversial.

I'm also a rules libertarian who doesn't like imposing new rules just because we can imagine a technical justification for them.

I think the guiding principles should be "keep it simple", "don't fix what ain't broke" and most importantly "no harm no foul". I vote no.

pj
chgo

[EDIT: Added "dis" to "advantage" to correct the meaning.]

 

[dr_dave]

Excellent summary!

Even though most miscues involve something other than the tip hitting the CB, I don't see the obvious advantage to the shooter in that. In fact, the vast majority of miscues already punish the shooter by making him miss the shot and give up the table.

I also don't see the obvious advantage to the opponent even if the shooter intentionally miscues, assuming he doesn't commit another obvious foul like prolonged contact with the CB (such as we saw in Dr. Dave's video example). If the shooter can get the CB to do something advantageous by intentionally miscueing without committing another obvious foul, I say more power to him.

There's also the problem that (I believe) many miscues can't be unambiguously called, so the rule might cause more disputes than it settles.

Then there's tradition to consider. Simple miscues have not been fouls in the past, so there's precedence for leaving them as exceptions to the "nothing but the tip can hit the CB" rule even if we think that usually occurs. A new rule for an old situation is likely to be controversial.

I'm also a rules libertarian who doesn't like imposing new rules just because we can imagine a technical justification for them.

I think the guiding principles should be "keep it simple", "don't fix what ain't broke" and most importantly "no harm no foul". I vote no.

Excellent post!!! I've been thinking more about this the last 30 minutes, and I think I agree with you. Let's not change the current rules, but let's make them more clear concerning miscues. I like your language above. Hopefully Bob is listening (or reading).

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Da Poet]

The main problem with calling miscues a foul to me is that conditions change from place to place. I was playing a tournament not so long ago where for whatever reason, I saw a ton of uncharacteristic miscues. A foul is a harsh penalty for not being aclimated to local conditions.

 

[Bob Jewett]

The main problem with calling miscues a foul to me is that conditions change from place to place. I was playing a tournament not so long ago where for whatever reason, I saw a ton of uncharacteristic miscues. A foul is a harsh penalty for not being aclimated to local conditions.

Some places have lousy chalk -- it's better to carry your own, if you can remember to.

 

[Jule]

I'm missing the option "hell NO!"

 

[Da Poet]

Some places have lousy chalk -- it's better to carry your own, if you can remember to.

Yeah, it wasn't the chaulk (Masters, a Chicago company) and btw I do keep a couple cubes in the bag just in case.

(Actually an old band of mine used to rent rehersal space just next to Tweeten. lol)

It was the way or the product they were using cleaning/waxing the balls.

 

[enzo]

i once had a fruitful discussion with somebody about how the majority can be, and in fact many times are, wrong. i have seen the sentiment of that discussion hold true time and time again. look at whos serving their second term for more evidence.

 

[Cornerman]

Fred,

Here's how I responded to Colin in the other miscue thread when he proposed the same thing:

Generally, I'm with you on not limiting things ... the fewer rules, the better. I guess we are both pool-rule libertarians. However, if you allow too much, you open the door for too many abuses and judgment calls, IMO. For example, if you allow double hits, how do you prevent somebody from intentionally using a double hit to easily get position, cheat a shot, or correct an errant 1st hit (all with a single "stroke")?

Regards,
Dave

If someone during a single stroke can actually figure out how to be advantageous and control hitting the cueball twice, then IMO, more power to him. Even if it's the non-frozen pair, shooting straight at it. That's my opinion.

I think it's like sand shots in golf. Every decent golfer when flopping out of the sand is hitting the sand behind the ball, not the ball. To me on the surface, that seems like it shouldn't be legal, but it is.

Of course, as I say that, double hits in a single stroke in golf is a stroke penalty...

Fred

 

[dr_dave]

GWB miscues a lot

i once had a fruitful discussion with somebody about how the majority can be, and in fact many times are, wrong. i have seen the sentiment of that discussion hold true time and time again. look at whos serving their second term for more evidence.

I bet Bush would miscue a lot if he played pool; therefore, it should probably be legal.

Dave

 

[enzo]

Excellent post!!! I've been thinking more about this the last 30 minutes, and I think I agree with you. Let's not change the current rules, but let's make them more clear concerning miscues. I like your language above. Hopefully Bob is listening (or reading).

Thanks,
Dave

yes, that was a nice post by patrick, but the problem is this isn't a "technical justification." it has always been painfully clear both audibly and physically that one is hitting the cueball with the side of the ferrule on miscues, and in many cases even the side of the wooden shaft! one issue i do find interesting, and feel people should think about, is our obvious fear of any type of change as americans. if somebody from way back when described miscues as fouls and that was our rule, then the same people who are arguing fervently against this rule change in this thread would also be arguing against the rule change to make them not be fouls. it's all about a state of mind and comfortableness, but i think we should think "what is right," not "what makes me comfortable." this is why we can't (or shouldn't) listen to the majority many times.

truth is though, keep the rule the same, change it for the better, it's all the same in the end and the better player will win either way i guess. really no biggie.

 

[dr_dave]

double-hit abuse examples

If someone during a single stroke can actually figure out how to be advantageous and control hitting the cueball twice, then IMO, more power to him. Even if it's the non-frozen pair, shooting straight at it. That's my opinion.

Bob gave some examples in the other miscue thread:

So if the cue ball is ten inches from the object ball, and the player uses a single forward motion without an unusual acceleration sequence, it is fine to hit the cue ball twice ...? And if the cue ball is close to a stack of balls, you can shoot with great force towards the stack and hit the cue ball five or six times without penalty? While such shots may be amusing to cheat your friends with, I don't think they should be part of pool. ...

Also, a double hit can sometimes make it easy send the cueball up table for position or to break up a cluster. Maybe that's OK, as long as the rules are clear and accepted by various leagues, tournaments, and organizations.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

the straight dope

yes, that was a nice post by patrick, but the problem is this isn't a "technical justification." it has always been painfully clear both audibly and physically that one is hitting the cueball with the side of the ferrule on miscues, and in many cases even the side of the wooden shaft! one issue i do find interesting, and feel people should think about, is our obvious fear of any type of change as americans. if somebody from way back when described miscues as fouls and that was our rule, then the same people who are arguing fervently against this rule change in this thread would also be arguing against the rule change to make them not be fouls. it's all about a state of mind and comfortableness, but i think we should think "what is right," not "what makes me comfortable." this is why we can't (or shouldn't) listen to the majority many times.

truth is though, keep the rule the same, change it for the better, it's all the same in the end and the better player will win either way i guess. really no biggie.

Excellent post. I have been thinking along the same lines.

I should probably stop thinking about miscue rules now and do something more productive. :embarrassed2:

Regards,
Dave

 

[Cornerman]

i once had a fruitful discussion .

I can never have any kind of fruitful discussion when I'm staring at that photo of Salma Hayek, the sexiest woman on the planet.

Fred

 

[vagabond]

I should probably stop thinking about miscue rules now and do something more productive. :embarrassed2:

Regards,
Dave

Related to pool.
Till 1973 In the world / olympic weight lifting champion ships a winner was decided on the total weight lifted from 3 components-1.clean and press
2.Clean and snatch 3.Clean & Jerk.
In clean and press after you clean and then come to stand still postion then the referee gives green signal and you then have to press the weight vertically above the head with out bending the knees.To gain advantage some lifters were using some techniques by bending the body backwards at Hips and then give a deep thrust to push the weight up above the head(they used to do similar to catapult motion).In that process some lifters were cheating by bending the knees slightly.Judges were having tough time in deciding whether it was a good or bad lift.
Because it was difficult to judge the USA with it`s might, inspite of strong objections from USSR, got clean and press abolished from the olympics/world championships.

Now let us come to pool.Many times to figure out whether the cue tip has a sustained action on the cue ball or not is difficult.That has to be established to call the shot a foul.How many times the opponent will be able to see the shot executed.One of my practice partners is a very huge really very huge and from my chair I was many times not able to see the execution of the shot.

All I am saying is that it is very DIFFICULT to implement the rules on push etc. and just like they did away with clean and press we should do away with 'push' and other other fouls in the category of 'push'. But I am not disputing the physics in the push and other associated shots.

By the way ,out of the three components in weight lifting the clean and press is the real indicator of human strength.As a result of the removal of clean and press yours truly quit weightlifting.In 1972 I was working hard to equal the world junior record ( 230 lbs )in clean and press in feather weight ( 132 1/4 lbs ).