When are MISCUE and SCOOP Shots Fouls?

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
FYI, I just posted a new video that fully explores miscue and scoop shots in detail and makes it totally clear when they are legal or not. Several recent calls from recent pro tournament matches are also examined in detail, including the recent controversial scoop shot by Patric Gomez against Jayson Shaw in the recent Philippines Open. Check it out:


Supporting Resources:
- rules resources: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/rules/
- WPA “official rules of pool:” https://wpapool.com/rules/
- foul resources: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/foul/
- miscue resource page: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/foul/miscue/
- scoop shot resource page: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/foul/scoop/
- more examples of bad calls: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/foul/examples/

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
 
dr_dave said:
FYI, I just posted a new video that fully explores miscue and scoop shots in detail and makes it totally clear when they are legal or not. Several recent calls from recent pro tournament matches are also examined in detail, including the recent controversial scoop shot by Patric Gomez against Jayson Shaw in the recent Philippines Open. Check it out:


Supporting Resources:
- rules resources: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/rules/
- WPA “official rules of pool:” https://wpapool.com/rules/
- foul resources: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/foul/
- miscue resource page: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/foul/miscue/
- scoop shot resource page: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/foul/scoop/
- more examples of bad calls: https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/foul/examples/

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

FYI, Here are other recent relevant videos:


 
FYI, I just expanded and improved the miscue resource page on my website, and I thought the new last section would be of interest here:

If most miscues involve secondary contact, should all miscue be called as fouls?​

As shown with numerous examples in the videos above, high-speed-video footage does seem to imply that most miscues involve sliding contact and secondary hits by the tip or side of the shaft. However, a miscue is not considered a foul unless it is intentional, to achieve some advantage. One might make an argument that all miscues should be fouls. However, there are compelling reasons to not do this:

  1. Tradition. Miscues have never been considered automatically fouls in the past, so this would be a major change to the sport, and many people will find it difficult to accept. Rules should not be changed unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
  2. A miscue is a mistake that is usually penalty enough since the shot objectives are not achieved. Adding a ball-in-hand penalty might be considered a bit harsh.
  3. Rarely, a miscue is a clean hit with no secondary contact.
  4. It is not always possible to be sure a miscue occurred. You can’t judge them by sound, especially in a noisy environment, and especially with many people playing at once on surrounding tables. For more info and demonstrations, see: using sound to judge fouls.
  5. Sometimes “partial miscues” occur, where the tip slips during contact, but not at the beginning of contact. These shots sometimes sound a little funny, they might not involve secondary contact, they leave a different type of mark on the tip, and the CB might deflect a little more than normal, but they are not “blatant miscues.” Calling “partial miscues” might be difficult and require too much judgment.
 
I believe it came from snooker, when a scoop over an object ball is a foul, while a scoop not over an object ball is not a foul.

Rules are translated differently, and people tends to understand them to their own will/exp/knowledge/prejudice... the fact that rules state a scoop is not a foul does not sit well with many players/refs
 
ctran said:
I believe it came from snooker, when a scoop over an object ball is a foul, while a scoop not over an object ball is not a foul.
Click to expand...

Pool is not snooker. There are many significant differences in the sports.

ctran said:
Rules are translated differently, and people tends to understand them to their own will/exp/knowledge/prejudice... the fact that rules state a scoop is not a foul does not sit well with many players/refs
Click to expand...

Pool refs must apply pool rules, not snooker rules.
 
MattPoland said:
Wish it was always. Otherwise by the wording of the rules I agree with the conclusions of the video.
Click to expand...

I thought this for a very long time also, especially after filming so many miscues with high-speed cameras over the year that showed secondary contact with pretty much all miscues. However, the reasons for not changing the miscue rules (see above) are compelling.
 
ctran said:
I believe it came from snooker, when a scoop over an object ball is a foul, while a scoop not over an object ball is not a foul.

Rules are translated differently, and people tends to understand them to their own will/exp/knowledge/prejudice... the fact that rules state a scoop is not a foul does not sit well with many players/refs
Click to expand...

i've never seen it called a foul in snooker, but then again i haven't seen every match reffed by marcel. 🤣 i think this is just marcel being overzealous.
 
ctran said:
I believe it came from snooker, when a scoop over an object ball is a foul, while a scoop not over an object ball is not a foul.
Click to expand...
Interesting though, that jump shots were legal in snooker until, ummm (I failed to find which year). Multiple world champion Joe Davis clearly explains a techique for such a shot in his instructional book. And it is, can you imagine, a scoop shot! 😱 At the dawn of the game of snooker it was seen as a perfect way to go over an obstructing ball. Good they got smart enough to notice it is just plain wrong, and decided to ban jumping at all.
 
Vahmurka said:
Interesting though, that jump shots were legal in snooker until, ummm (I failed to find which year). Multiple world champion Joe Davis clearly explains a techique for such a shot in his instructional book. And it is, can you imagine, a scoop shot! 😱 At the dawn of the game of snooker it was seen as a perfect way to go over an obstructing ball. Good they got smart enough to notice it is just plain wrong, and decided to ban jumping at all.
Click to expand...
There is a video of Bill Werbeniuk miscuing over a red to pot a red by mistake and no foul was called. Of course that was long ago and maybe the rule has been tightened. And it's legal at snooker to jump over a ball after the cue ball has struck a ball, which is sometimes used for position play.

Edit: Here is a video that includes the Werbeniuk unintentional scoop/jump:

 
Last edited:
Vahmurka said:
Interesting though, that jump shots were legal in snooker until, ummm (I failed to find which year). Multiple world champion Joe Davis clearly explains a techique for such a shot in his instructional book. And it is, can you imagine, a scoop shot! 😱 At the dawn of the game of snooker it was seen as a perfect way to go over an obstructing ball. Good they got smart enough to notice it is just plain wrong, and decided to ban jumping at all.
Click to expand...

Playing a "jump shot" is currently a foul in snooker, but the definition of a "jump shot" is complicated. Here is the current definition from the WPBSA official rules of snooker:

22. Jump Shot
A jump shot is made when the cue-ball passes over any part of an object ball, whether hitting it in the process or not, except:
(a) when the cue-ball first hits one object ball and then jumps over another ball;
(b) when the cue-ball jumps and hits an object ball and, at the moment of landing on the playing area, the cue-ball is not on the far side of the current position of that object ball; or
(c) when, after hitting an object ball legally, the cue-ball jumps over that ball after hitting a cushion or the other ball.
 
dr_dave said:
FYI, I just expanded and improved the miscue resource page on my website, and I thought the new last section would be of interest here:

If most miscues involve secondary contact, should all miscue be called as fouls?​

As shown with numerous examples in the videos above, high-speed-video footage does seem to imply that most miscues involve sliding contact and secondary hits by the tip or side of the shaft. However, a miscue is not considered a foul unless it is intentional, to achieve some advantage. One might make an argument that all miscues should be fouls. However, there are compelling reasons to not do this:

  1. Tradition. Miscues have never been considered automatically fouls in the past, so this would be a major change to the sport, and many people will find it difficult to accept. Rules should not be changed unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
  2. A miscue is a mistake that is usually penalty enough since the shot objectives are not achieved. Adding a ball-in-hand penalty might be considered a bit harsh.
  3. Rarely, a miscue is a clean hit with no secondary contact.
  4. It is not always possible to be sure a miscue occurred. You can’t judge them by sound, especially in a noisy environment, and especially with many people playing at once on surrounding tables. For more info and demonstrations, see: using sound to judge fouls.
  5. Sometimes “partial miscues” occur, where the tip slips during contact, but not at the beginning of contact. These shots sometimes sound a little funny, they might not involve secondary contact, they leave a different type of mark on the tip, and the CB might deflect a little more than normal, but they are not “blatant miscues.” Calling “partial miscues” might be difficult and require too much judgment.
Click to expand...

I was hoping we would get some debate on this.

Do you think all miscues and scoops should be fouls? Is so, how would you respond to the 5 reasons above?

Also, how would you write the new rule so it could be applied accurately, fairly, and consistently?

For reference, here is the current rule:

2.11  MISCUE
A miscue occurs when the cue tip slides off the cue-ball possibly due to a contact that is too eccentric or due 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. If an unintentional miscue causes the cue-ball to leave the playing surface, including partially or fully jumping over a ball, it is treated like a legal jump shot. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 3.16 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
 
Last edited:
Has anyone confirmed with WNT if all scoops are considered fouls in their tournaments?

If they say yes, then all of this is moot.
 
I think there’s a huge difference between a miscue and a scoop shot.

Most of the time, in non-recorded matches, these shots are good because it’s hard to prove a double hit.

However, in televised or streamed matches, the referee can simply review the playback, just look to see whether the cue tip moves out of the way immediately after contacting the cue ball. It’s that simple.
 
dr_dave said:
Playing a "jump shot" is currently a foul in snooker, but the definition of a "jump shot" is complicated. Here is the current definition from the WPBSA official rules of snooker:

22. Jump Shot
A jump shot is made when the cue-ball passes over any part of an object ball, whether hitting it in the process or not, except:
(a) when the cue-ball first hits one object ball and then jumps over another ball;
(b) when the cue-ball jumps and hits an object ball and, at the moment of landing on the playing area, the cue-ball is not on the far side of the current position of that object ball; or
(c) when, after hitting an object ball legally, the cue-ball jumps over that ball after hitting a cushion or the other ball.
Click to expand...
Either I don't understand that rule or (b) allows most jump shots that are seen in pool.

(Also, in (c) I think they mean "another" rather than "the other".)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top