you make the call! Foul or not
- Thread starter mikeiniowa
- Start date
Well, you're right
What happens is, people see a close and sharply angled shot and the CB goes off along the tangent line before zipping back. And that tangent line might seem to be 'forward' of the shooter quite a bit, like... 45 degrees relative to the line of the stick. But yeah, if you're using draw then the ball should not go forward of the tangent line.There is one other case that was actually pretty common in our league. For close hits we were often required to jack up and in the process the CB would hop. It would hop forward a ball or more before going back and that is perfectly legal but looks bad.
The earlier posted links contain invaluable knowledge, but unfortunately, even in tournament play, you'll find a great percentage of folks just don't understand it.
I commend those in this thread that have stated that even when they could get away with a push/double-hit, they shoot the more difficult shot to avoid the foul... even if only they know it.
If your opponent were to foul on a shot like this... Good luck calling it without a difficult argument following it. I see it all the time, and I might ask... was that double-hit? If they give me that blank stare of ignorance, I don't bother trying to explain. I just add it to my list of reasons why I can't lose to this person. Play to your standard, not theirs ;-)
In response to the orginal question though... if it's possible, it is not something I could do dependably. I think the majority of attempts to pull of a follow shot in those circumstances would result in a push/double-hit.
I commend those in this thread that have stated that even when they could get away with a push/double-hit, they shoot the more difficult shot to avoid the foul... even if only they know it.
If your opponent were to foul on a shot like this... Good luck calling it without a difficult argument following it. I see it all the time, and I might ask... was that double-hit? If they give me that blank stare of ignorance, I don't bother trying to explain. I just add it to my list of reasons why I can't lose to this person. Play to your standard, not theirs ;-)
In response to the orginal question though... if it's possible, it is not something I could do dependably. I think the majority of attempts to pull of a follow shot in those circumstances would result in a push/double-hit.
Sounds like one of those BCA rules they made up to protect poorly trained refs.
playing stupid?
Your question:
if the distance between the OB And CB is a chalks width or less can the shooter ,strike the ball full and follow the cue ball 6-8 inches with a level stroke?
Is totally irrevelant to what really happened. I was there so lets fill the readers in on the real situation and why you are asking it.
First of all, the player had ball in hand. So he placed the ball about 11/2 to 2 chalk widths from the object ball and about an inch from the rail. He was in a tight spot but obviously if he had only a chalks width between the cb and the ob, he wouldn't have attempted the shot that he did.
Secondly, he did not strike the ball full, nor did he use a level stroke. He gave himself a slight angle to play the position he needed, elevated about 15 degrees and struck the top of the cue ball. The one ball was pocketed in the corner pocket and the cue ball hopped slightly to the side of the path of the object ball and then, with high english on the cb, the cb went to the second diamond on the end rail and rolled up the table to exactly where he wanted the cue ball to be. The cue ball traveled a total of about 5 ft.
He made a great shot and everyone in the room knew it, except the referee who called a foul. The referee likely couldn't execute that shot in a hundred tries so I can understand his mistake. Mike in Iowa however, is a competent pool player and he knew it was a good shot. But Mike was the opponent in this case so he chose to take the ref's ruling because it was a tight match and his charactar just wouldn't allow him to do the right thing. The shooter's team captain was Whitey Walker and he came completely unglued in reaction to a foul being called on the shot, but Mike still went with the refs ruling. Mike's team won the match 13-11 I think so it was definitely a critical shot. The match decided the winner of the winners bracket in the Iowa state tournament.
There were dozens of people, many of them good players such as Scott Kitto and Gary Lutman, who all agreed that is was a good shot and there was a lot of discussion about the shot and the argument that ensued and Mike's charactar is taking the heat for it so now he's playing stupid and pretending that he is not sure if it is a foul or not.
Your question:
if the distance between the OB And CB is a chalks width or less can the shooter ,strike the ball full and follow the cue ball 6-8 inches with a level stroke?
Is totally irrevelant to what really happened. I was there so lets fill the readers in on the real situation and why you are asking it.
First of all, the player had ball in hand. So he placed the ball about 11/2 to 2 chalk widths from the object ball and about an inch from the rail. He was in a tight spot but obviously if he had only a chalks width between the cb and the ob, he wouldn't have attempted the shot that he did.
Secondly, he did not strike the ball full, nor did he use a level stroke. He gave himself a slight angle to play the position he needed, elevated about 15 degrees and struck the top of the cue ball. The one ball was pocketed in the corner pocket and the cue ball hopped slightly to the side of the path of the object ball and then, with high english on the cb, the cb went to the second diamond on the end rail and rolled up the table to exactly where he wanted the cue ball to be. The cue ball traveled a total of about 5 ft.
He made a great shot and everyone in the room knew it, except the referee who called a foul. The referee likely couldn't execute that shot in a hundred tries so I can understand his mistake. Mike in Iowa however, is a competent pool player and he knew it was a good shot. But Mike was the opponent in this case so he chose to take the ref's ruling because it was a tight match and his charactar just wouldn't allow him to do the right thing. The shooter's team captain was Whitey Walker and he came completely unglued in reaction to a foul being called on the shot, but Mike still went with the refs ruling. Mike's team won the match 13-11 I think so it was definitely a critical shot. The match decided the winner of the winners bracket in the Iowa state tournament.
There were dozens of people, many of them good players such as Scott Kitto and Gary Lutman, who all agreed that is was a good shot and there was a lot of discussion about the shot and the argument that ensued and Mike's charactar is taking the heat for it so now he's playing stupid and pretending that he is not sure if it is a foul or not.
Interesting:
I copied this post from a thread about Scotty Townsend.
I've watched him play a few times and he is one of the best. We had a McDermott tour stop at our local pool in the mid 90's. Goodtime Charlie, Charlie Brown, and I were sitting and watching Scotty play a tight match with Hippy Dave. The score was tied at 7 when Hippy asked Randy G. (TD) to watch a hit, Randy called the hit good, Hippy did not contest the call, but Scotty went over and picked up the cue ball and handed it to Hippy and said it was a bad hit. Randy G. said I said it was a good hit and Scotty said I called it bad because the angle I had to hit the OB it was bad. Hippy stood their dazed and Randy said it's your shot Hippy. Hippy ran out, then broke and ran out to win the match. Charlie Brown asked Scotty what did you do that for? Scotty said it was a bad hit, I called it on myself.
Very classy in my book for a player to do!
I copied this post from a thread about Scotty Townsend.
I've watched him play a few times and he is one of the best. We had a McDermott tour stop at our local pool in the mid 90's. Goodtime Charlie, Charlie Brown, and I were sitting and watching Scotty play a tight match with Hippy Dave. The score was tied at 7 when Hippy asked Randy G. (TD) to watch a hit, Randy called the hit good, Hippy did not contest the call, but Scotty went over and picked up the cue ball and handed it to Hippy and said it was a bad hit. Randy G. said I said it was a good hit and Scotty said I called it bad because the angle I had to hit the OB it was bad. Hippy stood their dazed and Randy said it's your shot Hippy. Hippy ran out, then broke and ran out to win the match. Charlie Brown asked Scotty what did you do that for? Scotty said it was a bad hit, I called it on myself.
Very classy in my book for a player to do!
The APA does not allow it where they have control over it. Go to nationals, you will have a ref not only watch the shot, but explain to you the concept and offer advice about how to avoid a double hit. Then they watch the shot and if you hit it bad they call a foul. There were plenty of officials on the tourney floor and I personally saw and heard the explanation on several occasions and from several refs.
In local play they don't have the capacity to enforce it (no refs on league night) so unless you get to a higher level of competition you might not even ever hear about this from the APA. Consequently you get the "you're from outer space" look.
What irritates me is watching someone who knows it's wrong do it anyway. I mean ignorance is no excuse, but it is worse knowing and doing, than doing because you don't know any better.
FINE, I'LL QUIT LURKING!!!
Depends. It is not a hard shot with force follow. It's a different situation when a center ball hit is used.
How heavy was the cue ball? If it was a center ball hit with equally weighted balls it is a foul.
It's possible to get that much follow off a center ball hit with an overweight cue ball. The physics gurus might be able to get you an idea of magnitude but it's not impossible (and maybe even probable).
Generally on a double hit the distance the cueball rolls is nearly equal to the distance the object ball rolls. If you see the cb flying down table about as fast as the ob then you probably should have been paying closer attention.
In this case the sound is much more telling than the action of the balls. It's not hard to spot the foul if you're paying attention to how the ball is addressed and how much follow through is used. The ball separation will only tell you when you need to pay attention not if a foul is committed. At close quarters and high speed it may not be possible to tell in some circumstances.
Depends. It is not a hard shot with force follow. It's a different situation when a center ball hit is used.
How heavy was the cue ball? If it was a center ball hit with equally weighted balls it is a foul.
It's possible to get that much follow off a center ball hit with an overweight cue ball. The physics gurus might be able to get you an idea of magnitude but it's not impossible (and maybe even probable).
Again, this shot is possible with an overweight cueball.
Generally on a double hit the distance the cueball rolls is nearly equal to the distance the object ball rolls. If you see the cb flying down table about as fast as the ob then you probably should have been paying closer attention.
In this case the sound is much more telling than the action of the balls. It's not hard to spot the foul if you're paying attention to how the ball is addressed and how much follow through is used. The ball separation will only tell you when you need to pay attention not if a foul is committed. At close quarters and high speed it may not be possible to tell in some circumstances.
Thanks for the exact details of this incident....good report.
I have to ask the obvious question...
Didn't all players, by joining the tournament, agree to follow the ref's decisions no matter what? That is, to follow the rule of law, so to speak?
If there is a ref, it is ultimately HIS call, right? If not, why have a ref?
The ref blew the call but that happens sometimes. The problem is ref training, it seems, not Whitey's or Mike's (or anyone else's) opinions.
Instant replay would help training and complaining, imho.
Jeff Livingston
you could not of been there. The details you speak of are not even close to being correct.
the cue ball traveled 5 feet? The distance was 1-1.5 chalk widths? Nobody was within 12 feet of the shot except edwin the ref and me.
nothing but untruths but I expect that. The ref made the right call but the personal attacks keep coming. Always the same guys leading the parade.
the cue ball traveled 5 feet? The distance was 1-1.5 chalk widths? Nobody was within 12 feet of the shot except edwin the ref and me.
nothing but untruths but I expect that. The ref made the right call but the personal attacks keep coming. Always the same guys leading the parade.
Well, the discussion after the shot was, "If you were in Mike's position, would you have accepted ball in hand, knowing that the call was a bad call?" Most people said they would not.
This shot looked nothing at all like a foul. The cue ball reacted exactly the way it should have and the player got perfect position. I think close hits, hits to close to call, should go to the shooter. I haven't been to ref school but that's always what I've been told. For a foul to be called on this shot I think it should have been obvious and this shot, in my opinion and everyone else's was quite obviously a good shot.
Given the quality of the refs, (some good, some bad but not constistently good) I would say players, especially in the masters division, would be more comfortable refereeing there own matches.
This shot looked nothing at all like a foul. The cue ball reacted exactly the way it should have and the player got perfect position. I think close hits, hits to close to call, should go to the shooter. I haven't been to ref school but that's always what I've been told. For a foul to be called on this shot I think it should have been obvious and this shot, in my opinion and everyone else's was quite obviously a good shot.
Given the quality of the refs, (some good, some bad but not constistently good) I would say players, especially in the masters division, would be more comfortable refereeing there own matches.
oh yeah, and he froze the cue ball to the rail trying to give himself as much distance as possible and he used a level strike..
I am not sure you saw what really happened. You got all the details wrong except what happened after the shot.
it is amazing how many people say they saw it. Or have the most to say when it didn't involve them. Noody else was within 12 feet of the shot. Also you know when you are watching somebody shoot, and you nudge your buddy saying "does that ball go?". If you are 12 feet away and there is an obstructing ball in the way how can you tell the distance? The ref was right there and he must of judged it so.
I am not sure you saw what really happened. You got all the details wrong except what happened after the shot.
it is amazing how many people say they saw it. Or have the most to say when it didn't involve them. Noody else was within 12 feet of the shot. Also you know when you are watching somebody shoot, and you nudge your buddy saying "does that ball go?". If you are 12 feet away and there is an obstructing ball in the way how can you tell the distance? The ref was right there and he must of judged it so.
I agree with Masters becoming their own ref!! It's amazing how many times refs cause this kind of issue by making a bad call. Maybe when they go to ref school or whatever training, they should actually train them for every kind of shot that comes up. But in the end it comes down to the integrity of the players at the table...if the ref makes a bad call, do the right thing, and say the ref was wrong! Make it right at the table, not after the tournament!
Who are you? Don't lie behind a screen name. Everyone and their cousin and hell even Whitey if you call him will admit the guy never jacked up. I definitely don't consider elevating your cue 15 degrees to be jacked up anyway. The only question anyone has been asking about the hit is how far apart were the cue ball and object ball. It is a given the guy shot the ball with a level stroke and through the ball. I was also at the tournament and walked in the room right after the incident and talked to Whitey myself about it. Whitey claims the balls were inches apart and we all know that version is skewed as well.
So what's your name? How close were you to the shot? Why are you fabricating a story that sounds good just to do it? What do you have against Athens in this case because your opinion sounds quite biased? If you want to shed some light and air out the real details of the story at least be honest about who you are...my guess is you are on Whitey's team. Your version makes it sound simple, I guarantee that if your version was true and as cut and dry as it sounds Athens would never in a million years have taken ball in hand, I've seen him give the benefit of the doubt to the opposing player in THOUSAND DOLLAR sets before, this is small potatoes compared to that.
I think it is poor form to question a man's character, for "choosing" to take the ref's ruling. Name me one other sport where the call by the ref is subject to debate. Does a batter get to walk to first when the ump calls a ball a strike, or go back to the dugout after a ball is called because he believed it was a strike?
Was the goal by Brett Hull recalled after the fact because it was shown the puck tore a hole through the goal net to get in rather than going across the goal crease when the Dallas Stars won their last Stanley Cup?
In a sporting event you take the call of the ref. If the roles were reversed I'd bet the other player would take ball in hand too.
It's one thing to correct the ref and make a call on yourself, as refereenced by the scotty did. However I'd wager if scotty weren't the shooter he'd take the ref ruling and ball in hand.
To question the incoming player's character because he follows the ruling of the ref istotally uncalled for.
Bad form hijeep, Bad form
That's what makes pool different from baseball though...we can be honest about the ref making a bad call and make it right. I would rather go down being honest than win by letting the refs bad call stand. Integrity in the game of pool is lacking, but there are still some guys out there that have that quality.I think it is poor form to question a man's character, for "choosing" to take the ref's ruling. Name me one other sport where the call by the ref is subject to debate. Does a batter get to walk to first when the ump calls a ball a strike, or go back to the dugout after a ball is called because he believed it was a strike?
Was the goal by Brett Hull recalled after the fact because it was shown the puck tore a hole through the goal net to get in rather than going across the goal crease when the Dallas Stars won their last Stanley Cup?
In a sporting event you take the call of the ref. If the roles were reversed I'd bet the other player would take ball in hand too.
It's one thing to correct the ref and make a call on yourself, as refereenced by the scotty did. However I'd wager if scotty weren't the shooter he'd take the ref ruling and ball in hand.
To question the incoming player's character because he follows the ruling of the ref istotally uncalled for.
Bad form hijeep, Bad form
I'd like to apologize for the above statement. I was out of line making this comment. It is true that during the years I played in the BCA pool leagues (late 90's to early 2000's) I saw some pretty sloppy officiating at the Nationals. The referees were not the most knowledgeable and I personally witnessed some seriously incorrect calls. It was so bad back then, that I would prefer not to have a referee called to our table. I would rather have my opponent make the call, risky as that sounds.
The refs used to hang out at the end or the room, gabbing with whoever and basically appearing disinterested in what was going on. It was almost an imposition to ask them to come to your table to watch a hit or give a ruling. They were more like adornments to the event, rather than actual working staff.
It has now come to my attention that since Mark Griffin took over the BCA pool leagues, he brought Bill Stock in to train a new batch of referees. Bill is a very good pool man who knows his stuff. He has assured me that the current BCA referees are a well trained bunch. That's good enough for me. My apologies to all concerned for my insensitive remarks.
If I'm shooting and I commit a foul, I give up ball in hand, no ref needed. However if the ref is standing over the shot and calls a foul on my opponent I will accept the call.
1. He's the ref and should know what he's doing.
2. He's standing in the optimal spot to observe the shot, I am in my chair. I have to rely on the ref's eyes to make the proper call. I am not hovering at the table looking over the ref's shoulder, that would be a shark move IMO.
3.I'm in the chair the ref hands me the CB I'm going to take it and take my turn. The only alternative being handing the ball back to my opponent and essentially givinghim ball in hand when I haven't committed any foul.
We can argue about quality officiating, and ref's training and experience, but ultimately that is the responsibility of the tournament director, or the league operator.
Willie Jopling shows you how to do it in one of his videos. No follow through, no double hit.
Calling Mike's character into question over this is total BS. I wasn't there, but that doesn't matter. The bottom line is that refs in all sports make calls like this every day. Regardless of the sport you are talking about some are good calls, some are bad calls and some could literally go either way. Do you ever see a player or coach in the NFL/NBA/MLB decline a favorable call because they think the ref/ump made a bad call? Of course you don't, because the calls tend to even out over time. The bottom line for me, is if you don't want the ref to potentially make a bad call against you, then don't put yourself in a position for the ref to have to make a call at all. If you have ball in hand, why would you even chance it if it was that close?