Two Questions for Bob Jewett

[Steve Lipsky]

Hi Bob... I have two questions I thought you might be able to help me out with.

1) I am embarrassed to admit I don't know exactly what the rules are in this situation - though it seems from my experience that neither do most people . For what it's worth, I googled all the world rules and I was unable to find the appropriate section on this. I am sure it's there, but my admittedly cursory search on it revealed nothing...

CueTable Help

Let's say there are no safes played yet. What is a legal succession of shots from this position, and when does the onus fall on a player (and which player) to do something other than tap the 1 to a rail?

Does the situation change if someone takes an intentional foul somewhere during the succession?

Let's also say for the sake of argument that at no time during any of the safeties does the 1 become frozen to the rail.

I know it's hard to use the Wei for something like this, so if you could just describe a legal succession, that would be great. Also, let's say I am playing, I don't know, Marlon Manalo, so now you can easily refer to either Steve or Marlon (as opposed to player A and player B). It is now my shot.



2) This is almost certainly total nonsense, but it's something I've always done.

In the following example, my cut angle on the break shot is severe. Additionally, I am uncertain I can even hit the rack with the cueball. All I know is that it is very, very close.

CueTable Help

I have always played these shots with hard topspin, as opposed to hard draw. I guess I feel that a "topspin bend" would give me an inch or so towards the rack. (Note: the cut angle is so severe that playing it with draw would definitely not have time to work if played softly - thus my choices are limited to hard speeds.)

Is there a "topspin bend"? Is there anything to my theory?

Thanks so much Bob!

- Steve

 

[dmgwalsh]

Steve: I'm sure Bob will answer you, but in the meantime, I think the new rules that went into effect in January got rid of the rule that used to apply in your first example. Therefore, I don't think there would be any limit to how many times the players could safe to the same rail.

in your second example, I'm curious as to whether the high bend would have time to take before it got past the rack.

 

[rikdee]

Seems I recall that once a ball is frozen, the subsequent safety must include driving either the frozen ball or the CB to another rails. If not frozen, safety play can continue as governed by standard saftey rules.

_Rick

 

[3andstop]

I'm interested in hearing this answer from Bob also, but I don't really think topspin bend is anything more than the cue ball traveling along the tangent line for a slightly longer period of time based on a harder hit and collision before the follow takes effect. It bends as it heads forward from the 90 degree angle. I believe with any english the cue ball takes a longer line along the tangent the harder its hit, which in this case can help contacting the rack ..... except ......

With such a slight amount of contact on a thin cut, I don't think the effect would render much in the way of helping the rack hit any more than a center ball hit. Of course I think the follow would help move the cue ball from traffic, which is another story

 

[Poolplaya9]

<snipped> I have always played these shots with hard topspin, as opposed to hard draw. I guess I feel that a "topspin bend" would give me an inch or so towards the rack. (Note: the cut angle is so severe that playing it with draw would definitely not have time to work if played softly - thus my choices are limited to hard speeds.)

Is there a "topspin bend"? Is there anything to my theory?

Thanks so much Bob!

- Steve

Are you hoping to hit the 5 or the 10 ball in diagram #2? I am assuming the 10, but it is hard to know which shot you are talking about for sure since neither really look possible to me (although close) the way it is diagrammed.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Are you hoping to hit the 5 or the 10 ball in diagram #2? I am assuming the 10, but it is hard to know which shot you are talking about for sure since neither really look possible to me (although close) the way it is diagrammed.

The 5 ball. Sorry, the diagram is just to show the basic shot. The important thing is the description of the situation - the breakshot is such that I know it's going to be very, very close whether I hit the rack or not. The diagram should not be taken literally.

I just want to know whether playing it with hard topspin will give me an extra inch or so in the right direction.

Sorry for the confusion...

- Steve

 

[CueAndMe]

I'm interested in hearing this answer from Bob also, but I don't really think topspin bend is anything more than the cue ball traveling along the tangent line for a slightly longer period of time based on a harder hit and collision before the follow takes effect. It bends as it heads forward from the 90 degree angle. I believe with any english the cue ball takes a longer line along the tangent the harder its hit, which in this case can help contacting the rack ..... except ......

With such a slight amount of contact on a thin cut, I don't think the effect would render much in the way of helping the rack hit any more than a center ball hit. Of course I think the follow would help move the cue ball from traffic, which is another story

This is what I was thinking as well.

And I'm wondering if the bend that you're used to isn't caused by a slight jump of the cueball when striking it high and hard, causing the object ball contact to be above center and therefore the cueball coming off of the object ball not along a 2-dimensional tangent line, but a 3-dimensional tangent line that send it backwards slightly. Which, when seen in 2 dimensions is beyond 90 degrees.

Jeff

 

[accdealer]

Steve-

This reminds me of the first break shot you made in your video from your match at D+D.

From the camera angle, it looked like you landed on a pretty conventional break shot. However, when you executed it, it seemed you were using a low inside cueball and actually went two rails into the back of the stack.

For a moment I wondered if you intentionally played the shot in this manner, or if you believed you could go directly in the rack and got a little lucky with the two railer.

OK, I promise to get my lips off your sack......I quickly dismissed that it was a lucky shot after rewinding and noticing what looked to be an extremely low cueing of the cue ball and of course your knowledge of the game. Luck or skill, I have learned a new way to get into the rack when the breakshot is a little thin or a little high on the rack. If I could only find the time and interest to bring the lessons that I learn here from you and the others to the table.

dc

 

[Poolplaya9]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the question in shot #2 because it seems pretty clear cut. Let's say the angle is such that when using a hard centerball stun shot that the cue ball may or may not just barely graze the edge of the 5 ball, but it is going to be very close either way.

Removing the risk of miscue from the equation, any use of topspin will always decrease the chance of contacting the five, and any use of draw will always increase the chance of contacting the five. Neither makes much practical difference here because of the hard stroke and severe cut angle. To maximize you chance of hitting the five here you have to use draw. Using follow is lowering your odds.

 

[Poolplaya9]

If by "topspin bend" you mean that the cueball will come back from the tangent line slightly before going forward to cross the tangent line then I would say that it definitely does not exist. The possible exceptions to that would be if the cue ball were lighter than the object ball, or possibly if the object ball was frozen to other balls.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Hi Bob... I have two questions I thought you might be able to help me out with....

The first has already been answered. There is no "rail nurse safety" rule in 14.1 or any other game now. If the game is not making progress, a stalemate is called. This is much easier to understand but requires a ruling by an official.

By a curious coincidence I had more or less the same situation in league last week. There were about five balls left on the table with the eight ball nearly frozen on the rail three inches above the side pocket. I tried to work it off the rail and ended up nearly frozen to it on the head-rail side. All the other balls were in rack area, and I was hooked on all of them. I played a soft shot on the eight. So did my opponent. We continued to do that for ten minutes or so, frequently calling over someone to call frozen or not frozen. Many of the rail contacts were by the cue ball -- nick the eight, go to the rail and come out a little but not where another ball could be seen. Even under the old rule, the sequence would have been legal since the cushion contact was sometimes by the cue ball. The series eventually ended when my opponent left the cue ball on the cushion for a straight-in shot on the 8 to the corner.

If the referee declares a potential stalemate, each player gets three more shots. If no progress is made, re-rack and lag for a new opening break.

As for using topspin to get a hit on the questionable break angle, the follow can only make the cue ball go forward of the tangent line. I have heard a former world champion claim that follow makes the cue ball become lighter and so bounce back off such a break ball, but I think that's hooey. I believe you get the same initial tangent line regardless of the follow/draw on the cue ball. If someone can come up with a convincing demo that shows otherwise, please speak up. What the follow will do for you as compared to stun is to reduce the throw. Draw will do the same thing, as will outside english. That allows you to hit the object ball fuller and take a better line towards the rack. This effect is expected to be around 2 or 3 degrees and depends on speed, spin and ball conditions.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

My thanks to Bob, poolplaya, and everyone else who took the time to help out. I had a feeling my thoughts on example 2 were not based in reality, so I wanted to finally ask.

That is a very interesting new ruling about the rail-nurse safeties. I think I like it, except what happens when there is no referee available? Who can then make the call as to whether or not "progress is being made"?

Thanks again,
Steve

 

[Bob Jewett]

... That is a very interesting new ruling about the rail-nurse safeties. I think I like it, except what happens when there is no referee available? Who can then make the call as to whether or not "progress is being made"? ...

It's not like a decision has to be made instantaneously. After 15 minutes of tippy-tap, most people will agree that it is time to play some other shot. Also most people are not able to play the soft safeties required. If the cushion contacts are only by the object ball, it will usually soon get frozen and then the "no-rail" rule comes in and one player or the other will be on three fouls. If the cue ball is making cushion contacts, as in the situation I was in, the object ball eventually has to cross the side pocket or reach a corner pocket. I can imagine players skilled enough to play safes off a ball frozen to the middle of the end rail and to keep it there without fouling, but it's very unlikely. Efren and Caudron could probably do it, but I don't think I could.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

ACC,

Yes, that breakshot was with a lot of inside, which I wouldn't have used if I was going right into the rack.

It's for this reason that I don't like high breakshots. I know many very successful players do, so I can't argue. I can only say that for me, I often wind up with too much angle on them to go right into the stack. This is a problem you literally can't have with breakshots to the side of the rack.

- Steve

 

[jondrums]

And I'm wondering if the bend that you're used to isn't caused by a slight jump of the cueball when striking it high and hard, causing the object ball contact to be above center and therefore the cueball coming off of the object ball not along a 2-dimensional tangent line, but a 3-dimensional tangent line that send it backwards slightly. Which, when seen in 2 dimensions is beyond 90 degrees.

Jeff- I think you might be mistaken. The CB will take an angle less than 90 degrees when striking a ball high. Check out this thread which probably has way more detail than you want.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=76823

Note also that this effect is very minor when the CB isn't very far off the table, and/or the cut angle is large (which would be the case here).

Jon

 

[CueAndMe]

Jeff- I think you might be mistaken. The CB will take an angle less than 90 degrees when striking a ball high. Check out this thread which probably has way more detail than you want.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=76823

Note also that this effect is very minor when the CB isn't very far off the table, and/or the cut angle is large (which would be the case here).

Jon

Thanks Jon. I skimmed the thread. I realize that if the cueball is in the air and still on its way up that this would be the case. I just wonder whether it would be the case if it were on its way down. If you take a cueball in your hand and throw it from above an OB at that OB so that it strikes the OB higher than the OB's equator, the cueball falls backwards off of the 90 degree 2-dimensional angle.
So my suggestion was that if the cueball were stroked to hop slightly and was on its descent when it struck the OB, it might increase the angle to over 90 degrees.
But it was just a guess.

 

[jondrums]

Thanks Jon. I skimmed the thread. I realize that if the cueball is in the air and still on its way up that this would be the case. I just wonder whether it would be the case if it were on its way down.

Everything I can think of says that the resultant instantaneous CB direction is independent of the original direction of the CB - only dependant on the actual contact point. So your idea that the CB being on the way up or way down shouldn't matter to the final direction of the CB.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Everything I can think of says that the resultant instantaneous CB direction is independent of the original direction of the CB - only dependant on the actual contact point. So your idea that the CB being on the way up or way down shouldn't matter to the final direction of the CB.

Maybe I misunderstood the premises, but... The direction in 3-space of the air-borne cue ball coming off the object ball will be in the plane that includes centers of the two balls at contact and the (3-space) velocity of the cue ball. That vector needs to be projected onto the plane of the table to find the "effective" direction of the cue ball.

Consider two extreme cases like those bluepepper was mentioning of a nearly full-ball hit about half-way up the object ball. If the cue ball is rising and it barely hits the object ball, it will go forward almost along its original line. Instead, if the cue ball has gone in a high arc and is coming down steeply when it strikes the object ball, it will come back towards you. I suppose there are cases in between for all intermediate exit angles. Usually the cue ball for a close shot is still rising. For a distant shot, the cue ball is unlikely to be descending much (at a steep angle) so it's probably not possible to get practical "backup follow" with a jump technique.

 

[CueAndMe]

Maybe I misunderstood the premises, but... The direction in 3-space of the air-borne cue ball coming off the object ball will be in the plane that includes centers of the two balls at contact and the (3-space) velocity of the cue ball. That vector needs to be projected onto the plane of the table to find the "effective" direction of the cue ball.

Consider two extreme cases like those bluepepper was mentioning of a nearly full-ball hit about half-way up the object ball. If the cue ball is rising and it barely hits the object ball, it will go forward almost along its original line. Instead, if the cue ball has gone in a high arc and is coming down steeply when it strikes the object ball, it will come back towards you. I suppose there are cases in between for all intermediate exit angles. Usually the cue ball for a close shot is still rising. For a distant shot, the cue ball is unlikely to be descending much (at a steep angle) so it's probably not possible to get practical "backup follow" with a jump technique.

Could the cueball rebound because of the support that the table is giving to the object ball with an above center collision, in effect making the object ball heavier than the cueball?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Could the cueball rebound because of the support that the table is giving to the object ball with an above center collision, in effect making the object ball heavier than the cueball?

I think you can get the equivalent of a double kiss if the cue ball is coming down almost vertically but I think that's the only way you will see some kind of "extra mass" behind the object ball.