When is a miscue a foul?

[Thunderball]

Good golly dam...I don't even know how to "intentionaly" miscue.I have much to learn.

Unintended....yeah...I got that shot in the bag.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

a miscue can hardly be described as a "single hit."

My impression from the high speed videos I've seen of miscues is that they sometimes are single hits. Maybe I'm misremembering?

If they are sometimes (or often) single hits, then I don't think miscues should be fouls by definition. In fact, I see no reason why single-hit miscues should be fouls even if intentional. What's the harm?

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

intent isn't always clear

I believe every misuce is technically a foul, but isnt called because of intent. For example, when you draw and miscue you are jumping the cueball from the bottom an obvious foul if you did it on purpose but since it was unintended it is never called. The only time I believe it is a foul is when you are following and the shaft comes through and either stops the cue ball by catching it or speeds up or changes the path of the cueball so obvisously the naked eye can detect it.

I don't like rules that are based on intent, because intent can often be unclear. In HSV B.28, the intent could have been the first shot; but because of the extreme English required, the "unintentional miscue" with the favorable outcome could have occurred.

As another example, what if an "illegal scoop shot" occurs when trying to execute a power draw shot and a favorable (and almost suspicious) result occurs. Should that be a foul, even if the intent was probably a draw shot?

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

So should all miscues be ruled fouls under the new rules?

As I said above, I think they should not always be fouls unless they're always double hits.

Obviously, an intentional miscue is worse than a "standard foul."

It isn't obvious to me that an intentional miscue should be a foul at all (unless it's also a double hit). For instance, isn't a "fouette" an accepted technique even though it's an intentional miscue?

I've sent an e-mail to Bob Jewett asking about this, but he is out of town.

These pool professionals and their jetset lives...

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

most micues are technically fouls

My impression from the high speed videos I've seen of miscues is that they sometimes are single hits. Maybe I'm misremembering?

If they are sometimes (or often) single hits, then I don't think miscues should be fouls by definition. In fact, I see no reason why single-hit miscues should be fouls even if intentional. What's the harm?

I agree that miscues should not be fouls, but I also think the rules should be explicit (and more clear) on this matter.

FYI, I have a collection of clips showing various miscues in HSV 2.1 and HSV A.13-A.20 and A.98-A.109. In most miscues, the ferrule and/or cue shaft make secondary contact with the cue ball. That might partially explain the slapping sound you hear.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Even if the ferrule doesn't hit the cueball, the shaft usually does. For example, see HSV 2.1.

I'd agree with "often", but are you sure about "usually"? And even so, is "usually" enough to make all miscues fouls? Shouldn't single-hit miscues be at least "rare" before we make that blanket determination?

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

foutette is not a miscue

As I said above, I think they should not always be fouls unless they're always double hits.

But most miscues are, technically, double hits. But if the rules were to state miscues are fouls, then we have the problem of determining when a shot is and isn't a miscue. Sometimes, you can get a "partial" miscue (e.g., see HSV A.19).

It isn't obvious to me that an intentional miscue should be a foul at all (unless it's also a double hit). For instance, isn't a "fouette" an accepted technique even though it's an intentional miscue?

A properly executed fouette shot is not a miscue. The cue deflects away from the cue ball quite a bit with a power English shot (e.g., see HSV A.16). From my online glossary:

fouett? shot (pronounced ?fwet-TAY?): a shot that uses tip offset (i.e., English) and cue deflection to avoid a double-hit when there is a small gap between the cue ball and object ball. A fast, full stroke is used so the cue deflects away while the cue ball clears.​

Regards,
Dave

 

[GMAC]

I'd agree with "often", but are you sure about "usually"? And even so, is "usually" enough to make all miscues fouls? Shouldn't single-hit miscues be at least "rare" before we make that blanket determination?

pj
chgo

Is there any high speed video of a single shot miscue? Is it possible?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

FYI, I have a collection of clips showing various miscues in HSV 2.1 and HSV A.98 through A.109. In most miscues, the ferrule and/or cue shaft make secondary contact with the cue ball. That might partially explains the slapping sound you hear.

Every miscue in those tapes is a double hit, which is strong evidence to me that a miscue is rarely a single hit, and probably never when accompanied by that slapping sound (makes my skin crawl just to mention it).

So I think I have to change my tune - if we accept the rules that say (1) no part of the shaft can hit the cue ball except the tip and (2) the tip can only hit the cue ball once, then miscues would have to be fouls or would have to exceptions to these rules.

Simple miscues have not been fouls in the past, so there's some precedence for leaving them as exceptions to those rules even with the new evidence from high speed videos. I think I still prefer that, based on the "no harm no foul" principle. But I'm persuadable.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

a miscue usually involves secondary contact

I'd agree with "often", but are you sure about "usually"? And even so, is "usually" enough to make all miscues fouls? Shouldn't single-hit miscues be at least "rare" before we make that blanket determination?

From what I have seen in all of my slow motion footage (HSV 2.1, A.13-A20, and A.98-A.109), most miscues involve secondary contact from the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft. Also, even the tip dragging across the ball might be considered a "non single hit" by some.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Is there any high speed video of a single shot miscue? Is it possible?

I thought I remembered seeing at least one, but now that I've seen Dr. Dave's collection of a dozen miscues without any single hits I'm wondering if I misremembered.

Dave's videos seem to show that a miscue can't drive the cue ball forward fast enough to get it out of the way before the shaft "rebounds", so maybe it's a double hit by definition.

pj
chgo

 

[GMAC]

Every miscue in those tapes is a double hit, which is strong evidence to me that a miscue is rarely a single hit, and probably never when accompanied by that slapping sound (makes my skin crawl just to mention it).

So I think I have to change my tune - if we accept the rules that say (1) no part of the shaft can hit the cue ball except the tip and (2) the tip can only hit the cue ball once, then miscues would have to be fouls or would have to exceptions to these rules.

Simple miscues have not been fouls in the past, so there's some precedence for leaving them as exceptions to those rules even with the new evidence from high speed videos. I think I still prefer that, based on the "no harm no foul" principle. But I'm persuadable.

pj
chgo

I have changed my opinion from thinking it should not be a foul to it should always be a foul based on your video it looks horrible and you should never receive a reward for hitting a cueball like that.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dr. Dave:
Sometimes, you can get a "partial" miscue (e.g., see HSV A.19).

Another argument for leaving miscues as exceptions to the foul rules. But if we do that, what do we say about the shot in your original video? We can't realistically say what the shooter's intention is - maybe we stipulate that the outcome can't favor the shooter?

My head hurts.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I have changed my opinion from thinking it should not be a foul to it should always be a foul based on your video it looks horrible and you should never receive a reward for hitting a cueball like that.

What reward? Most likely the shot will be missed and the shooter will be punished by giving up the table.

pj
chgo

 

[GMAC]

What reward? Most likely the shot will be missed and the shooter will be punished by giving up the table.

pj
chgo

Mostly like, but sometime u actually make the ball or leave the guy safe if it is a foul you can never be rewarded. I'm bascially talking about the luck factor.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

just about a:
you should never receive a reward for hitting a cueball like that.

me:
Most likely the shot will be missed and the shooter will be punished by giving up the table.

just about a:
Mostly like, but sometime u actually make the ball or leave the guy safe if it is a foul you can never be rewarded. I'm bascially talking about the luck factor.

Luck is a factor even with good hits - should we single out miscues for this reason? We don't punish shooters for getting lucky when they shoot terribly but don't miscue.

This may be one of those areas where there's just no possible rule that satisfies all concerns.

Argghhh....

pj
chgo

 

[GMAC]

Luck is a factor even with good hits - should we single out miscues for this reason? We don't punish shooters for getting lucky when they shoot terribly but don't miscue.

This may be one of those areas where there's just no possible rule that satisfies all concerns.

Argghhh....

pj
chgo

Agreed you are correct luck is always a factor. I think we should single out miscue because of the evidence you presented it looks like a clear foul which I didn't think it was before I saw the video. If we can find a video where the cue doesn't double hit than I would say it shouldn't be a foul because there is no way of determining it on every shot. I should have never watched that video

 

[dr_dave]

miscue rule recommendation: can't favor shooter

We can't realistically say what the shooter's intention is - maybe we stipulate that the outcome can't favor the shooter?

I think that might be worth considering by the rules folks. Regardless of what the rules people decide, I think miscues (and how to easily make judgments) should be addressed more specifically in the rules.

My head hurts.

Mine too ... and I have real work to do that I have been procrastinating on for days ... the AZB forum makes procrastination easy.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

miscue rules far from perfect

This may be one of those areas where there's just no possible rule that satisfies all concerns.

You might be right, but I think the current rules can be much better than they currently are, concerning miscues.

Regards,
Dave

 

[ndakotan]

Good miscue shots

Bert Kinister shows a shot in one of his tapes where he shows how to make a ball using a miscue. The cb and ob are close together (less than a chalk cube) and the shot is lined up to a pocket (hit the ob straight and it will go in). Bert miscues high right, "twisting" the cue in the direction of the english, and it looked pretty clear in the dvd (poor quality tho) that it was a single hit miscue. If i remember correctly, he said he had discussed the shot at the time with the person that wrote the rules and the guy agreed it was a good shot (in theory I would guess). I would be curious to see if it is a single hit miscue. Also, I guess it would be illegal based on the "intentional" rule, but should it be illegal?