When is a miscue a foul?

[Bob Jewett]

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

In general the rules are not a tutorial. It is difficult to write concise rules that cover a problematic are like miscues. While the rules are supposed to be unmodifiable for the next 4.5 years, clarifications of wording are allowed and maybe welcomed. Does anyone have an improved wording for the rule?

 

[worriedbeef]

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?

very good question.

thinking about it - say a player was trying to pocket a straight in shot in the corner and draw directly back to break up a cluster behind.

he miscues (scoops) and consequently only gets about an inch of draw. 99% of people wouldnt say anything to him, because he's not in a great position. but what if he miscues blatantly (ferrule touched the underside of the cue ball and you can hear the slight 'clang' sound) and does manage to draw back into the cluster and break them up, setting up an easy run out. i've no doubt most players would call a foul there, because it worked out for him.

it just shows how much some of our rules are not definitive and 100% reliable. and how many of them are actually just down to interpretation sometimes and whatever's happening in the current situation.

 

[dr_dave]

new miscue rule wording

In general the rules are not a tutorial. It is difficult to write concise rules that cover a problematic are like miscues. While the rules are supposed to be unmodifiable for the next 4.5 years, clarifications of wording are allowed and maybe welcomed. Does anyone have an improved wording for the rule?

The rules might need to be changed in several places (per all of the quotes in the thread above), but I think miscues should be addressed more specifically wherever double hits (and illegal push shots) are covered. Maybe something like this:

Even though miscues involve sliding tip contact and often result in secondary cue ball contact from the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft, unintentional miscues are allowed, provided the cue ball doesn't come into contact with any other ball during the period of sliding and/or secondary contact.​

This might be too wordy, but I think the intent is appropriate. Do you and others agree?

Thanks,
Dave

 

[skor]

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

I have a problem with this. You don't need to see a miscue to know it happened, you can hear it.... and if you know billiards then you can tell by the outcome of the shot.

I think I saw in an old BCA rule book the term "foul by a miscue" and from what I understood back then was that all miscues are fouls.
But since then the rule about miscues became somewhat vague, I believe it's because that most tournament directors started this whole "unintentional" miscue is not a foul.
What's the point of having a rule if no one implement or reinforce it.

In my opinion the call should be made on case by case based. The main factor that should be taken under consideration in ruling should be whether the player that miscued gain anything by it or not, like if he knocked the 9ball down because of it or snookered his opponent or got position that there is no way to get without miscuing then I would call it a faul.

In soccer (and sometimes in other sports as well), if a player is fouled but he still have control over the ball then the referee doesn't bother to call a foul.

The real problem with this as with any tough call is how to deal with it when there is no referee preceding over the match.

To be honest, "cue ball fouls only" annoys me far more then not calling a miscue a foul.....

 

[Paul Dayton]

I didn't have time to read all the posts but the sound you hear with a miscue is the ferrule hitting the side of the cue ball and this is clearly visible only if you have very high speed lenses in your eyes.

I've never called it a foul nor have I ever seen anybody else do so. The rules really ought to address this shot.

 

[Bob Jewett]

The rules might need to be changed in several places (per all of the quotes in the thread above), but I think miscues should be addressed more specifically wherever double hits (and illegal push shots) are covered. Maybe something like this:

Even though miscues involve sliding tip contact and often result in secondary cue ball contact from the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft, unintentional miscues are allowed, provided the cue ball doesn't come into contact with any other ball during the period of sliding and/or secondary contact. ​

This might be too wordy, but I think the intent is appropriate. Do you and others agree?

Thanks,
Dave

As a practical matter of the referee calling the shot fair or foul, I think that wording is problematic. In the particular case of miscuing in the frozen object ball shown in the example video, how should the above wording be applied?

As for whether all miscues should be illegal...

Sometimes miscues may not involve a second contact. IIRC, there are some miscues on the Jacksonville Project video which did not have a visible second contact. Also, sometimes the secondary contacts may be with the tip rather than the ferrule. Should those be illegal?

 

[dr_dave]

miscue fouls

Even though miscues involve sliding tip contact and often result in secondary cue ball contact from the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft, unintentional miscues are allowed, provided the cue ball doesn't come into contact with any other ball during the period of sliding and/or secondary contact.

As a practical matter of the referee calling the shot fair or foul, I think that wording is problematic. In the particular case of miscuing in the frozen object ball shown in the example video, how should the above wording be applied?

In HSV B.28, secondary contact from the tip/ferrule/shaft clearly redirects the object ball, based on how the object ball moves; however, it is not clear if the miscue is "intentional" or not. Now, you make a good point that my quoted statement is problematic (e.g., it doesn't cover all possible scenarios). Maybe somebody else can propose improvements. How about:

Even though miscues involve sliding tip contact and often result in secondary cue ball contact from the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft, an unintentional miscue is legal unless secondary contact clearly affects the shot.​

I know this isn't perfect either; but, hopefully, you have enough to think about and discuss the next time you get together with the rules committee. You guys have done a great job with the current rules, and I'm sure you can improve how the rules currently address "unintentional miscues."

As for whether all miscues should be illegal...

Sometimes miscues may not involve a second contact. IIRC, there are some miscues on the Jacksonville Project video which did not have a visible second contact. Also, sometimes the secondary contacts may be with the tip rather than the ferrule. Should those be illegal?

I agree that not all miscues should be illegal. This would open and even larger "can of worms" because sometimes it isn't clear if a shot is a miscue or not (e.g., a "partial miscue" is possible). Also, the "penalty" for a legal miscue (e.g., missing a shot, or missing the object ball entirely) is usually "stiff" enough already.

Do you think all miscues should be ruled as fouls under the current rules (based on all of the rule quotes in the thread above)? How about miscues involving sliding tip contact and/or secondary contact with the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft?

See the videos referenced here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/fouls.html#miscue
​

under "miscues." Based on this collection of videos (and the sound most miscues make), it seems to me that most (but not all) miscues involve sliding tip and/or secondary contact. Without high-speed video, it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine whether or not a miscue involves secondary contact. Even with high-speed video, sliding and/or secondary contact isn't always obvious.

Regards,
Dave

PS: Thank you for all of your efforts on the rules committee. I'm glad we have people like you willing to dedicate so much time to these important activities.

 

[David Beck]

How about... Obvious miscue = foul. Most obvious miscues end up being fouls anyhow. We have evidence which shows most, if not all, obvious miscues are fouls by way of secondary tip, ferrule, or shaft contact. Modern equipment is good enough, and miscues rare enough, that it must be assumed the player is at fault and should be penalized accordingly. What's the problem here?

 

[enzo]

the proper way to handle this of course is to have all miscues be fouls, as they are in asia. this is because on most fouls i would say the ferrule (or at least the side of the tip) almost has to touch the cueball and thus be struck twice. this has been painfully clear for years, ie this is not a new thing.

the problem though, is that kinda like the english vs metric system..... where the metric system is FAR superior, yet we americans wont change because we are stubborn and we tend to think change is bad, and quite frankly couldn't handle such a simple change as well. same reasons with the miscue rule. oh well, maybe in another 100 years. i just think it's ironic how we tend to think we are so "advanced."

the interesting caveat to all this is how would you handle intentional miscues in one pocket. and how do you judge "intentional." see what i mean?? eg guys game ball is hanging and if a miscue is a foul a guy can scoop and jump the hanger in and since its a foul both come up.

 

[dr_dave]

all miscues should be fouls

How about... Obvious miscue = foul. Most obvious miscues end up being fouls anyhow. We have evidence which shows most, if not all, obvious miscues are fouls by way of secondary tip, ferrule, or shaft contact. Modern equipment is good enough, and miscues rare enough, that it must be assumed the player is at fault and should be penalized accordingly. What's the problem here?

You guys have convinced me. Since most miscues involve tip sliding and/or secondary contact with the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft, miscues should be illegal. This would simplify the rules and eliminate the need for difficult judgments (e.g., with shots like the one in HSV B.28). I really like the fact that player intent would no longer be an issue. Any miscue (intentional or not) would receive the same penalty.

I hope Bob and the rules committee will consider this the next time they meet.

Thanks,
Dave

 

[Tom In Cincy]

the interesting caveat to all this is how would you handle intentional miscues in one pocket. and how do you judge "intentional." see what i mean?? eg guys game ball is hanging and if a miscue is a foul a guy can scoop and jump the hanger in and since its a foul both come up.

enzo,

I guess you don't play much One Pocket. When you make a table foul (such as a double hit) and pocket your opponents ball in his pocket, his ball stays down and you have to spot one or owe if you haven't made any.

From the WWW.OnePocket.org set of rules
6.2 Any scratch or foul results in the end of the shooter?s inning, as well as a standard one ball penalty. All balls pocketed in the shooter?s pocket as a result of a stroke that includes a foul do not count for the shooting player and are to be immediately spotted, along with the standard one ball penalty. Also, any balls pocketed in the opponent?s pocket on a stroke that ends in either a pocket scratch or with the cue ball off the table are not to be counted for the opponent, and are to be immediately spotted. However, on a stroke when any other foul is committed (such as a push shot, double-hit or illegal ball contact), any balls scored into the opponent?s pocket are to stay down and be counted for the opponent.


The WPA doesn't include One Pocket anymore in its current rule book. http://www.wpa-pool.com/index.asp?content=rules_tournament

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I hope Bob and the rules committee will consider this the next time they meet. ...

No significant change to the rules is supposed to happen until January, 2013. One of the most serious problems with the rules of pool in the past is that they changed every year. Fortunately, that has been stopped.

As for all miscues being fouls, that would be a major change from how all cue sports presently operate (by the official rules of each one): accidental miscues are not considered fouls by themselves.

 

[Bob Jewett]

How about... Obvious miscue = foul. Most obvious miscues end up being fouls anyhow. We have evidence which shows most, if not all, obvious miscues are fouls by way of secondary tip, ferrule, or shaft contact. Modern equipment is good enough, and miscues rare enough, that it must be assumed the player is at fault and should be penalized accordingly. What's the problem here?

Some miscues are not so obvious. Some of my own miscues diverge from the intended path by only a few degrees and the sound is only a little funny. I think that as soon as you say, "all miscues are fouls," there will be a need for a referee at each table, and there aren't enough competent refs.

 

[dr_dave]

miscue foul rule "clarification"

As for all miscues being fouls, that would be a major change from how all cue sports presently operate (by the official rules of each one): accidental miscues are not considered fouls by themselves.

Maybe it isn't a major change. The current rules require a single, non-prolonged, forward-stroke hit of the tip on the cue ball, right? All miscues involve the tip sliding along the cue ball, and most miscues involve secondary contact with the tip, ferrule, and/or shaft. Therefore, shouldn't most if not all miscues be fouls under the current rules? I think it can be argued, especially with the video evidence in HSV A.13-A.20 and A.98-A.109, that declaring miscues as fouls is just a rules "clarification," and not a "major change."

What do you think?

Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

FWIW, I think all miscues, push shots, touching or not quite touching should be allowed. Such shots require skills that increase the interest in the game.

Also, most beginners intuitively want to push through balls. Baning such shots creates a higher barrier of entry into the game.

In English 2-shot pool push throughs are allowed when balls are not touching. In US 8-Ball push shots are allowed when balls are touching. I'd like to see both allowed. They create the opportunity for creative shots, and allowing them, so long as they are performed in one fluent motion, is a benefit to the game in my opinion.

Colin

 

[Bob Jewett]

... What do you think?

Dave

I think miscues are hard to call.

 

[dr_dave]

the less rules, the better, in general

FWIW, I think all miscues, push shots, touching or not quite touching should be allowed. Such shots require skills that increase the interest in the game.

Also, most beginners intuitively want to push through balls. Baning such shots creates a higher barrier of entry into the game.

In English 2-shot pool push throughs are allowed when balls are not touching. In US 8-Ball push shots are allowed when balls are touching. I'd like to see both allowed. They create the opportunity for creative shots, and allowing them, so long as they are performed in one fluent motion, is a benefit to the game in my opinion.

Colin

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

 

[dr_dave]

benefit of doubt to shooter

I think miscues are hard to call.

I think most people know an obvious miscue when they see or hear one. In the case of near or partial miscues, the benefit of doubt should go to the shooter, just like with any judgment call in any sport or game.

Regards,
Dave

 

[David Beck]

Some miscues are not so obvious. Some of my own miscues diverge from the intended path by only a few degrees and the sound is only a little funny. I think that as soon as you say, "all miscues are fouls," there will be a need for a referee at each table, and there aren't enough competent refs.

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.

 

[David Beck]

I think most people know an obvious miscue when they see or hear one. In the case of near or partial miscues, the benefit of doubt should go to the shooter, just like with any judgment call in any sport or game.

Regards,
Dave

Exactly...