Was it a good hit?

roddyc

roddyc

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was playing a weekly tournament and was faced with this (or at least something similar):

http://CueTable.com/P/?@3FRMf3GUWD3HbHB3IOSO3POjh@3FRMf3GUWD3HbHB3IOSO3POjh3aRMf3acxj3dOSO2dKFc3kOjh3kSKV3kSKM3kRlG3kQNx3kNTr3kJko3kFTn4kAej4kGJg4kLHd4kLHd@

The cue ball is frozen to the 6 and not frozen to the 9. I elevated to near 90 degrees and tried to masse it (the execution and final result diagrammed on page 2). Was it a good hit? If not, would there be any way to make a good hit or even another way to play it?

The TD called it good while I was told by some other people that it wasn't. Just curious so I know what to do in the future.
 
I'd say you played it about the only way possible and if the TD said it was a good hit, then that's all that matters, right?
 
When you are frozen to a ball you can hit it with any normal stroke you like. As long as the tip does not hit the cb twice, it is a good hit.
 
DJKeys said:
When you are frozen to a ball you can hit it with any normal stroke you like. As long as the tip does not hit the cb twice, it is a good hit.
Click to expand...

So if the cue ball travels through where the 6 ball was, doesn't that mean I hit it twice? I always thought that as long as you shot in any direction not directly through the ball you're frozen to, it's a good hit, but in this case I couldn't since I would surely foul because of the 9.
 
Nice face Roddy...did that happen last night at the tourney? If Doc called it, it was good. He's pretty good at judging hits (unless they are his :p ) If the object is frozen to the cue, as long as you don't studder your stroke going through, it should be a good hit. Now, if you hit the 9 going through, then it might be questionable.
 
Very possible its a foul. Is the yellow line/arrow where the 9 ended up? Where did you hit the c/b? A masse doesn't describe which way your cue was aimed. The nine is so close it could be a foul.

Rod
 
Sorry, probably needs a little clarification. I was basically aimed directly at the pocket nearest the 6 with the cue elevated near vertical hitting the cue ball with draw. I'm sure I didn't hit the 9 first, but am not so sure how the 9 got down table.
 
roddyc said:
Sorry, probably needs a little clarification. I was basically aimed directly at the pocket nearest the 6 with the cue elevated near vertical hitting the cue ball with draw. I'm sure I didn't hit the 9 first, but am not so sure how the 9 got down table.
Click to expand...


It got there because the c/b made contact with the 9. Which was most likely was cue angle even if you didn't hit the 9 first. If the cue tip was in contact with the 6 and 9 at the same time it can be called a foul.

It may or may not have been a foul. However because of where the 9 went it leads in that direction. If it was me, to avoid a foul on the 9, I would angle my cue a bit more towards the end rail. I Think in a good refs eyes it would look better. We want to give the appearance that it had to be a good hit.

Rod
 
Next time you probably should just try and make a legal hit instead of fouling 6 times before it gets to that point.:p just kidding. Its neat how you can ask 20 different people and get 15 different answers. Don't sweat it I'll get you next week:mad: :p
 
Anybody see the horrible call in the WPC by Nigel Reese when Earl was playing one of the Taiwanese players?

He stood right on top of it, it was clear as day and the ball action indicated a good hit and he called it a foul!

I guess we all have bad days.
 
Bob Jewett would be the authority in a case like this, maybe he will weight in. He demonstrated it to me once. If the balls are frozen, the trajectory of the cueball after the hit is not the issue. That is used by referees to "judge" double hits when the balls are not frozen because they are so difficult to see with the naked eye.
 
trickdaddy said:
Next time you probably should just try and make a legal hit instead of fouling 6 times before it gets to that point.:p just kidding. Its neat how you can ask 20 different people and get 15 different answers. Don't sweat it I'll get you next week:mad: :p
Click to expand...

Well, if you wouldn't play lock up safes, I wouldn't have to push clusters together like that. So actually, it's really your fault if you think about it :D
 
DJKeys said:
Bob Jewett would be the authority in a case like this, maybe he will weight in. He demonstrated it to me once. If the balls are frozen, the trajectory of the cueball after the hit is not the issue. That is used by referees to "judge" double hits when the balls are not frozen because they are so difficult to see with the naked eye.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've read some of Bob Jewett's articles and found them very technically detailed. Hopefully he will chime in with his opinion.
 
traitor!

Firecracker said:
Nice face Roddy...did that happen last night at the tourney? If Doc called it, it was good. He's pretty good at judging hits (unless they are his :p ) If the object is frozen to the cue, as long as you don't studder your stroke going through, it should be a good hit. Now, if you hit the 9 going through, then it might be questionable.
Click to expand...
You're supposed to be on my side!:mad:
 
For what it is worth, from the way you describe it it was a good hit, unless your cue hit the 9 as you stroked through the shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top