When is a miscue a foul?

[dr_dave]

all rules require judgment and reason

Miscues which are not obvious to the opponent or referee wouldn't be considered fouls, since they wouldn't be obvious enough to be called. However, I'd think the majority of miscues are fairly obvious. We'd still have arguments over whether it was a miscue or not, but I don't see that as being any different from the arguments over which ball was hit first, or if a rail was hit before or after the OB.

... or a double hit, or an intentional scoop, or a touched ball, or if a ball were frozen or not, etc!

Dave

 

[hang-the-9]

... but the ferrule often contacts the cue ball with a miscue, and it is difficult to tell without high-speed video. Even if the ferrule doesn't hit, a miscue can hardly be described as a "single hit." Does that mean all miscues should be called fouls under the new rules?

Dave

I don't think so. While the video shows THAT shot with the ferrule hitting the ball, I'm sure it's possible for the tip to slide off the ball without that happening. I read in one of the pool magazines (Maybe by Bob Jewett) that although in some cases a miscue is also a foul, it's very hard to tell, and the act of miscueing usually leads to bad things for the shooter. So the bad result of a miscue should be enough on it's own without calling it a foul (which it may not have been).

 

[hang-the-9]

... or a double hit, or an intentional scoop, or a touched ball, or if a ball were frozen or not, etc!

Dave

If both players are honest, these things sort themselves out pretty well. For the most part when someone dissagees with a call I made, I point out the result and what I saw happen, and we can go through the paths of the balls to sort things out.

I noticed that people who cheat (or not calling a foul that they commited on themselves even if no-one else saw it, which I view as cheating), are the most vocal when it comes to arguing someone elses call about a foul.

There are people I play with that I know I can head for a walk around the building, come back in, and they would have the cueball in hand waiting for me if they fouled while I was gone. Even if we were the only 2 people in the building. Some others, I can make a point of watching the hit, and would still be warry. Sucks when I have to play them as I can't even take a bathroom break without thinking the balls would be moved or the score changed.

 

[dr_dave]

non "single-hit" miscues

While the video shows THAT shot with the ferrule hitting the ball, I'm sure it's possible for the tip to slide off the ball without that happening.

It is possible to not have secondary contact with a miscue; but from what I have seen (and heard), many (if not most) miscues do involve secondary contact with the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin,

Generally, I'm with you on not limiting things ... the fewer rules, the better. I guess we are both pool-rule libertarians. However, if you allow too much, you open the door for too many abuses and judgment calls, IMO. For example, if you allow double hits between the tip and cue ball, how do you prevent somebody from intentionally using a double hit to easily get position, cheat a shot, or correct an errant 1st hit?

Regards,
Dave

Dave,
I agree it's a bit hard to define the double hit in these circumstances. In English 2-shot, though I forget the exact wording, it was explained something like. "one motion along one direction, without slowing and then acceleration" and in my experience this rule worked well. It's very hard to ad-lib a pushing motion without obviously breaking that rule.

As you mentioned, this libertarian nature rule makes things more simple, but I think it also has the benefit of bringing in some very creative shots. A friend of mine once made a seemingly impossible push shot pot against a local star who was a touring Snooker pro in England. He was very curious about how he made the shot, and my friend showed him the method and told him that I had taught it to him.

That story's not meant to brag me up, but to show how such shots can develop intrigue, even amongst very experienced players. I think that adds color and fascination to the game.

Colin

 

[hang-the-9]

It is possible to not have secondary contact with a miscue; but from what I have seen (and heard), many (if not most) miscues do involve secondary contact with the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft.

Regards,
Dave

But then you could be calling a foul when it was not (if the general rule is all miscues are fouls). I personally would not want to have a foul called on me in a hill-hill match in the finals when there is even a 10% chance it was not really a foul. Many times the result of a miscue is a foul of some sort anyway, wrong ball hit, no rail, no ball hit and so on. I have to stand with the idea that a miscue should not be a foul by itself.

 

[dr_dave]

fewer rules, more creativity

Dave,
I agree it's a bit hard to define the double hit in these circumstances. In English 2-shot, though I forget the exact wording, it was explained something like. "one motion along one direction, without slowing and then acceleration" and in my experience this rule worked well. It's very hard to ad-lib a pushing motion without obviously breaking that rule.

As you mentioned, this libertarian nature rule makes things more simple, but I think it also has the benefit of bringing in some very creative shots. A friend of mine once made a seemingly impossible push shot pot against a local star who was a touring Snooker pro in England. He was very curious about how he made the shot, and my friend showed him the method and told him that I had taught it to him.

That story's not meant to brag me up, but to show how such shots can develop intrigue, even amongst very experienced players. I think that adds color and fascination to the game.

Colin

I think I might be with you and others regarding legalizing push and double hit shots. Less rules and more creativity are good, provided the rules are written clearly to avoid obvious possible abuses.

Maybe Bob can also take these ideas to his committee for possible future "major-change" revisions.

Regards,
Dave

PS: Should marijuana and same-sex marriages be next?

 

[dr_dave]

good arguments on both sides

But then you could be calling a foul when it was not (if the general rule is all miscues are fouls). I personally would not want to have a foul called on me in a hill-hill match in the finals when there is even a 10% chance it was not really a foul. Many times the result of a miscue is a foul of some sort anyway, wrong ball hit, no rail, no ball hit and so on. I have to stand with the idea that a miscue should not be a foul by itself.

There are obviously good arguments on both sides of this debate. I'm glad I don't write the rules.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

PS: Should marijuana and same-sex marriages be next?

I don't think they should be banned. In fact I'd encourage my opponents to get distracted by either course during a tough match.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Something I remembered.

Last year, playing snooker, I played a 1/4 ball safety, where the cue ball was about 1mm from the OB. The most experienced player in the league called a push shot on me. I knew it could not be a double hit, but his belief was that such a shot must hit the extreme edge of the OB otherwise it must be a double hit.

The fact that even local experts do not understand the physics, is part of the reason that I think push shots should be allowed. It would help to stop those who don't understand physics from penalizing those who do.

Colin

 

[Bob Jewett]

... "one motion along one direction, without slowing and then acceleration" and in my experience this rule worked well. ...

So if the cue ball is ten inches from the object ball, and the player uses a single forward motion without an unusual acceleration sequence, it is fine to hit the cue ball twice in the British game? And if the cue ball is close to a stack of balls, you can shoot with great force towards the stack and hit the cue ball five or six times without penalty? While such shots may be amusing to cheat your friends with, I don't think they should be part of pool. Are they in fact part of English 8-ball?

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The fact that even local experts do not understand the physics, is part of the reason that I think push shots should be allowed. ...

And I think it is a mistake to dumb down the rules. He's not an expert; he's an ignorant person who plays well. He needs education, not a rule for stupid people.

 

[Robert Raiford]

"one motion along one direction, without slowing and then acceleration"

Since this whole discussion is about writing rules based on results of high-speed film analysis, this kind of wording has similar problems.

"One motion along one direction" is impossible because of cue deflection. In addition, every stroke involves "slowing and then acceleration". The cue slows to ~50% its original velocity right at impact with the ball, then the hand quickly accelerates it back up almost immediately due to its inertia once the skin 'spring' allows it too. The seemingly smooth motion of the stroke of the cue is an illusion to both the player and anyone watching.

Writing rules is tedious and difficult, and I admire those with the interest and patience to work out the details. I prefer to just play and deal with the consequences of the occasional injustice, which I figure to benefit as much as suffer from on average.

I also have similar "libertarian" pool and billiard leanings, as it would simultaneously expand the tools available to the player and eliminate much controversy during matches.

Robert