TD's Responsibilities When Asked to Judge a Potential Double Hit Shot

[ChrisinNC]

The shooting player should have been made aware that you had been asked to watch the hit. Other than that all else seems fine by me. It didn't have to be explained to him before the shot,but he should have been made aware. Once both players know, the judgment of the nuetral party is final. Then you may expound as much or as little as you see fit. As I see it the call goes to the shooter unless it is clear to all the hit will be watched.

Although in hindsight, I agree I should have stopped the shooter to let him know I'd been called in by his opponent to judge the shot, I kind of see the point one other poster made - he either fouled or he didn't and what difference does it make whether or not he knows he's being judged by his opponent or by the TD asked to observe the shot? If he thinks he may be able to get away with a possible foul (double hit) because the opponent hasn't called in the TD to judge the shot, that certainly can play to the shooter's advantage if a conflict ensues after the shot. It's like if you know you're innocent, why would you mind taking a lie detector test? Why does it matter whether or not the shooter knows if the TD has been requested by the opponent to judge the shot - as long as the TD is able to get himself in to a position to be able to make the correct call, which in this case was not hard to do?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Have heard the 45° rule, also.

I assumed it was because at that angle, the follow through is so short, it would not be a double hit.

If the balls are a quarter-inch apart, it's very hard to avoid the foul even with a nearly vertical cue. If the cue ball penetrates the space previously occupied by the object ball on the shot, it is almost certainly a foul.

It is relatively easy to judge most close-ball situation if you know how the balls work. Most players don't. A couple of hours on Dr. Dave's website will help.

 

[cue4me]

From all the tournaments I have played in (small weekly, larger weekend and session ending league tournaments as well as APA and BCA nationals) the player asking for a referee or TD had to make that clear to his opponent and then stop play until the ref or TD arrived. During these tournaments and also during league play it is apparent that there are a large number of players who either don't know or care to know what constitutes a push. This is particularly prevalent during league play and many of the leagues seem to want to avoid the controversy and either don't address it or just state that jacking up to 45 degrees makes it OK to do whatever you want. Perhaps a brief comment during the players meeting would be in order if there are a significant number of lower skilled players participating.

 

[Maniac]

OK, got it... IMO Player C really should have been notified pre-shot that the hit was being watched, then if he questioned why, you can inform him of a potentiol double kiss.

IMO, all that the shooter needs to know is that he is being watched. He doesn't need a reason why. If he is told the reason why, he very well may opt to play the shot another way or even shoot at an entirely different ball altogether, thus robbing the sitting player of a chance to receive a ball-in-hand. He should simply be informed that the shot is being watched and it is the shooters responsibility to figure out why. There is no need for a third party to give a shooter information that could change the outcome of the shot taken.

Maniac

 

[jimmyco]

If the balls are a quarter-inch apart, it's very hard to avoid the foul even with a nearly vertical cue. If the cue ball penetrates the space previously occupied by the object ball on the shot, it is almost certainly a foul.

It is relatively easy to judge most close-ball situation if you know how the balls work. Most players don't. A couple of hours on Dr. Dave's website will help.

Thank you, Bob.

I really need to take better advantage of all these great resouces available.

 

[Maniac]

Okay, here are the facts we know thus far. 1.) The shooter was about to attempt a shot that was going to potentially result in a double-hit, and the opponent knew it. 2.) The TD (also the OP) was already, without be called, standing behind the shooter watching the match, and 3.) The TD saw the obvious double-hit.

Now...if the opponent had not of asked the TD to watch the shot, here is what would have transpired: 1.) The opponent would have called a foul after the double-hit, 2.) The shooter would have protested the foul call (whether he knew what a double-hit was or not), 3.) An argument would have ensued, 4.) the TD would have been summoned to make a ruling, and 5.) TD would have ruled that a foul had been committed because he saw the whole thing play out whether or not he had been called to watch the shot or not.

So...what took place in real time would have resulted in the same ruling no matter how it was handled.

I rest my case.

Maniac

 

[jimmyco]

IMO, I do not agree with 5.) above.

Referees will not rule unless requested.

YMMV

 

[sbpoolleague]

At the start of every season in our league we have a mandatory captains meeting. In addition to all the other league stuff that we talk about, I make it a point to spend 10 minutes talking about (and demonstrating) what to do and what to look for when the cue ball is very close to the object ball. Best 10 minutes spent.

 

[Maniac]

IMO, I do not agree with 5.) above.

Referees will not rule unless requested.

YMMV

We are not talking about a referee. There was no referee present. In a non-refereed tournament, the TD ultimately makes the final decisions on disputes.

And this TD just happened to be there watching...even before being called on to watch. My point is, everything played out the same whether or not the TD had been called to watch. A foul is a foul and no arguing the point between the players is going to change that fact.

Maniac

 

[nine_ball6970]

We are not talking about a referee. There was no referee present. In a non-refereed tournament, the TD ultimately makes the final decisions on disputes.

And this TD just happened to be there watching...even before being called on to watch. My point is, everything played out the same whether or not the TD had been called to watch. A foul is a foul and no arguing the point between the players is going to change that fact.

Maniac

You may want to re-read the OP.

 

[Maniac]

You may want to re-read the OP.

In post #24, the OP made it sound like he was in close proximity to the action. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maniac (wouldn't be the first time)

 

[nine_ball6970]

In post #24, the OP made it sound like he was in close proximity to the action. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maniac (wouldn't be the first time)

I am not very good at multi-quoting but this is taken from the first post.

"The A player, from his chair, waves me down to judge what he figured could be a potential double-hit by his opponent, but doesn't say anything to his opponent requesting me to judge the shot, as he didn't want to interrupt him as he was getting ready to shoot it. I am behind the C player who is already set to play the shot."

I believe the TD should get more respect but I view the above as the same as just a random person in the crowd. Unless the shooter knows someone is watching the shot, it should be between him and the opponent only.

When in doubt, notify opponent that you would like someone to watch the hit. He probably will shoot it the same way if he doesn't know it will be a foul.

FWIW I call fouls on myself and will ask someone to watch a shot if I think it will be close even if I am shooting.

 

[easy-e]

Although in hindsight, I agree I should have stopped the shooter to let him know I'd been called in by his opponent to judge the shot, I kind of see the point one other poster made - he either fouled or he didn't and what difference does it make whether or not he knows he's being judged by his opponent or by the TD asked to observe the shot? If he thinks he may be able to get away with a possible foul (double hit) because the opponent hasn't called in the TD to judge the shot, that certainly can play to the shooter's advantage if a conflict ensues after the shot. It's like if you know you're innocent, why would you mind taking a lie detector test? Why does it matter whether or not the shooter knows if the TD has been requested by the opponent to judge the shot - as long as the TD is able to get himself in to a position to be able to make the correct call, which in this case was not hard to do?

My main argument for letting the shooter know he’s being watched is peace of mind. It’s a whole lot easier to take the bad news if you know the guy watching the shot has done his due dilligence. Stop the guy, let him know you’ve been asked to watch the shot, take a close look at the balls, and then watch the shot. I realize you know from ten feet away that he double hit the cue ball, but he may not understand that.

 

[Maniac]

I believe the TD should get more respect but I view the above as the same as just a random person in the crowd. Unless the shooter knows someone is watching the shot, it should be between him and the opponent only.

So, let's play the "what if" game.

What if nobody watched the shot, the shooter double-hits the cue ball, opponent cries "foul", and the shooter says no, good hit. Then what?

Does the call go to the shooter? If the answer is yes...then that's not fair to the opponent, If the answer is no, what happens next? I'll tell you what happens next. The dispute will be taken to the TD and both sides will state their case. Then, unless the shooter out-and-out lies about the cue ball "coming off a few more rails" (quoted from OP) and the opponent tells his side of the story, then the TD wouldn't have any choice about calling the foul.

That said, if the shooter does lie about the travel of the cue ball, he deserves the ruling that the TD handed out because he is a POS that doesn't need to ever come back to that tournament anyway.

It really doesn't matter what slant you look at this whole scenario from, the right call was made and the shooter who obviously fouled did NOT get to win the tournament. It would have been robbery to have went the other way.

Do you believe otherwise?

Maniac

 

[ChrisinNC]

In post #24, the OP made it sound like he was in close proximity to the action. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maniac (wouldn't be the first time)

I can't say with absolute certainty if the opponent had not waved me down from the chair if I would have gotten myself in a position to be able to fairly judge the hit, thus I can't say how I might have ruled in this situation if the two players disagreed on whether or not it was a double-hit. I'm just glad that it did not play out that way, as I don't really know how I would have ruled.

As I stated in an earlier response, I may have had no other choice but to go with the shooter, since the opponent had the opportunity to ask me to judge the shot and chose not to, or didn't do it in time for me to properly get myself in to position to observe the shot.

Not that I should have done it as I couldn't take that chance, but in a perfect world, to take me off the hook, if in this case I had ruled in favor of the shooter, I'm guessing there's a pretty good chance his guilt combined with the pressure of the situation would have caused him to choke on either the 8-ball or the 9-ball, and he would have lost anyway. I simply couldn't afford to take that chance, as if he had run out, his opponent would have been unfairly robbed from having his chance at winning the game.

Also, if he had missed the double-hit shot on the 7-ball in question, and left his opponent any kind of a decent shot, it may be more likely I would not have called the foul and would have just ruled to play it out. Not that it would have been the correct call, but with the opponent having an opportunity back at the table to win the game, would have taken me off the hot seat for having to make the call that cost either player the game/match. It's tough in my position when the TD is the owner/manager of the poolroom, as I know any crucial controversial ruling in a match like that is going to leave one player unhappy with me, even if the call I had to make was obvious and correct.

 

[Maniac]

This post and then I'm done here.

Who on this thread believes that the shooter, who obviously fouled, should get to continue shooting at the 8-ball for the cheese simply because he didn't know anything about the double-hit rule? Ruling or no ruling by the TD the guy FOULED and his ignorance should not be rewarded with the tournament win.

JMHO.

Maniac (stick a fork in me, I'm done :grin

 

[nine_ball6970]

So, let's play the "what if" game.

What if nobody watched the shot, the shooter double-hits the cue ball, opponent cries "foul", and the shooter says no, good hit. Then what?

Does the call go to the shooter? If the answer is yes...then that's not fair to the opponent, If the answer is no, what happens next? I'll tell you what happens next. The dispute will be taken to the TD and both sides will state their case. Then, unless the shooter out-and-out lies about the cue ball "coming off a few more rails" (quoted from OP) and the opponent tells his side of the story, then the TD wouldn't have any choice about calling the foul.

That said, if the shooter does lie about the travel of the cue ball, he deserves the ruling that the TD handed out because he is a POS that doesn't need to ever come back to that tournament anyway.

It really doesn't matter what slant you look at this whole scenario from, the right call was made and the shooter who obviously fouled did NOT get to win the tournament. It would have been robbery to have went the other way.

Do you believe otherwise?

Maniac

If a ref is not called to the table then the call goes to the shooter. That is the same with any other hit where the shooter and opponent disagree and a third party is not asked to watch.

I played in tournament where someone obviously fouled and several other people saw it. I asked if it was a bad hit. Opponent said it was a good hit. I shrugged and shot from where the cue ball was. The fact that other people saw it does not matter. Nobody was called to actually watch the shot. I am not automatically siding with the shooter no matter what. If shooter thinks it was a good hit, then it is what it is.

I would not want to be the TD making that ruling only hearing both sides of the story. What if shooter said balls were 3 inches apart and opponent said 1 inch? What if shooter said they were frozen and opponent said they were 1/8 inch apart?

This is solved by either someone is called to watch the hit or they are not. I don't think there should be a grey area here.

 

[easy-e]

This post and then I'm done here.

Who on this thread believes that the shooter, who obviously fouled, should get to continue shooting at the 8-ball for the cheese simply because he didn't know anything about the double-hit rule? Ruling or no ruling by the TD the guy FOULED and his ignorance should not be rewarded with the tournament win.

JMHO.

Maniac (stick a fork in me, I'm done :grin

There is a process that needs to happen. No crying about anything if the process isn’t followed.

 

[jrctherake]

Here is the scenario in our 9-ball handicapped tournament last night. An "A" ranked player was playing a "C" ranked player in the semi-final match. Hill/hill game and the C player is getting ready to play a shot on the 7-ball, with the cue ball about 2-3 inches away from it, nearly straight in the side pocket.

The A player, from his chair, waves me down to judge what he figured could be a potential double-hit by his opponent, but doesn't say anything to his opponent requesting me to judge the shot, as he didn't want to interrupt him as he was getting ready to shoot it. I am behind the C player who is already set to play the shot. I'm guessing there's a pretty good chance this guy doesn't know the rule on double hits or even what a double hit is. I position myself to get a clear look from just behind him, and he plays the shot nearly straight on in the side, pockets the 7-ball and the cue ball chases right behind the 7-ball at the same speed, somehow avoids scratching in the side and comes off a few more rails for good shape on the 8-ball, although it wasn't necessary for him to attempt to play it this way, as the 8-ball was very close to the corner pocket and he would have had a fairly easy shot if he'd just elevated his cue, stabbed at it with bottom and cinched the 7 in the side and stopped the cue ball. This was as easy and obvious a double-hit call as I've ever had to make.

When I immediately informed player C he had committed a double-hit foul, he looked at me astonished and couldn't believe it. I knew he didn't know the rule, and at that moment I didn't feel it was my responsibility to go into detail and explain it to him and further delay player A's ball-in-hand shot on the 8-ball. Player A proceeded to run out, at which time I attempted to explain in more detail the double-hit rule to player C and why I knew that he'd fouled. Regardless, he felt like he'd been robbed and left in a huff and may likely never set foot in here again.

A few questions I have regarding this situation, as the Tournament Director, how I chose to judge this shot / handle this situation. Am I required to inform the shooter before he shoots that I've been asked by his opponent to closely observe and judge the shot for a potential foul? Secondly, in the case of a player that I'm strongly guessing doesn't know the double-hit rule, is it appropriate or out of line for me to explain before he attempts to shoot it, what a double hit is, what will constitute me calling a double hit foul on him and how he could possibly play the shot legally without being a double-hit?

To answer my first question, as I was able to get in a position behind him to correctly judge the shot, in this case I didn't feel a need to have to interrupt him and inform him I was judging the shot. If it was the case of whether he would be hitting the correct ball first, then I'd have no choice but to likely have to inform him, to get myself in a better position to judge the shot from, but in this case I didn't feel like I needed to.

As to my second question, I don't feel it is my responsibility in the middle of the tournament to explain to a player, regardless of their handicap ranking or ability level, before he shoots a shot, what is and isn't a legal shot. In my opinion that would be out of line and offering unfair advice.

Unfortunately I don't have this gentleman's contact information, so I don't know if I'll be able to reach out to him to try to apologize to him, not for my actions, but for having to call this on him on such a crucial shot, and offer him the opportunity to come back in so I can further explain and demonstrate to him in more detail the double hit rule, so he'll know for the future and hopefully will return to play in more tournaments.

Did I handle the situation correctly, or for the future, how could I have handled it better? Thanks

Would a ref take time to explain what caused unnecessary roughness to the guilty team/player? No, as you did, he would have made the call and walked off.

Then again, it does not matter to the ref if said player comes back or not.

Sometimes the "thing to do" is somewhere in the middle.

Rake

 

[Runner]

IMO, all that the shooter needs to know is that he is being watched. He doesn't need a reason why. If he is told the reason why, he very well may opt to play the shot another way or even shoot at an entirely different ball altogether, thus robbing the sitting player of a chance to receive a ball-in-hand. He should simply be informed that the shot is being watched and it is the shooters responsibility to figure out why. There is no need for a third party to give a shooter information that could change the outcome of the shot taken.

Maniac

I'm not condoning the TD 'coaching' the shooter to avoid a foul. The TD was called
over by by the opposing player, so that player wants to make sure shooter doesn't
get away with a foul. If shooter was made aware the hit was being watched, he may
very well alter his shot anyway... can't do anything about that.

Again, two things weren't good about this scenario:
Shooter wasn't told his shot was being watched.
Shooter didn't know the rules.

$.02