Call the hit

androd

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,719
From
New Braunfels tx.
Oop's that's a foul. :sorry

Very hard to tell in real time, there is often a tell tale sound when shooting a little harder.
 
gulfportdoc

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,676
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
Yes, of course it's a double hit. And I love the Dr. Dave super slo-mo vids.

But this is probably an example of how legal hits tend to be judged by today's TDs and referees. Many double hits are difficult to judge, because the second contact cannot be seen or heard with certainty. So as to simply life, it's become somewhat customary to establish that, as long as the cue is elevated by 45 degrees or more, then it will not be judged a double hit.

~Doc
 
Tom Wirth

Tom Wirth

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,972
From
Delray Beach, Florida
I remember the "good old days" when it was legal to shoot through a single ball whether frozen to it or not. That is as long as it was one stroke. Changing this rule, forcing players to elevate 45%, cue ball can't pass more than whatever through the object ball, and whatever other silliness did nothing more than complicate the calls for the refs.

Watch some straight pool matches from even twenty years ago and you will occasionally see a shot where the player has shot through a ball not frozen to the cue ball. No foul was called, no argument by the apposing player. The good old days. Simple and without controversy.

What's wrong with allowing a player to shoot through an object ball? It's the same for both players isn't it?

Just my take,

Tom
 
Island Drive

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
5,196
From
florence, colorado
Tom Wirth said:
I remember the "good old days" when it was legal to shoot through a single ball whether frozen to it or not. That is as long as it was one stroke. Changing this rule, forcing players to elevate 45%, cue ball can't pass more than whatever through the object ball, and whatever other silliness did nothing more than complicate the calls for the refs.

Watch some straight pool matches from even twenty years ago and you will occasionally see a shot where the player has shot through a ball not frozen to the cue ball. No foul was called, no argument by the apposing player. The good old days. Simple and without controversy.

What's wrong with allowing a player to shoot through an object ball? It's the same for both players isn't it?

Just my take,

Tom
Click to expand...

I blame it on Grady :). In the early 70's he taught all of us in CO that shooting into the object ball if frozen was a bad hit.
 
P

poolisboring

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
756
From
toledo
Tom Wirth said:
I remember the "good old days" when it was legal to shoot through a single ball whether frozen to it or not. That is as long as it was one stroke. Changing this rule, forcing players to elevate 45%, cue ball can't pass more than whatever through the object ball, and whatever other silliness did nothing more than complicate the calls for the refs.

Watch some straight pool matches from even twenty years ago and you will occasionally see a shot where the player has shot through a ball not frozen to the cue ball. No foul was called, no argument by the apposing player. The good old days. Simple and without controversy.

What's wrong with allowing a player to shoot through an object ball? It's the same for both players isn't it?

Just my take,

Tom
Click to expand...
agreed.........
 
jtompilot

jtompilot

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
5,814
From
New Orleans
Tom Wirth said:
I remember the "good old days" when it was legal to shoot through a single ball whether frozen to it or not. That is as long as it was one stroke. Changing this rule, forcing players to elevate 45%, cue ball can't pass more than whatever through the object ball, and whatever other silliness did nothing more than complicate the calls for the refs.

Watch some straight pool matches from even twenty years ago and you will occasionally see a shot where the player has shot through a ball not frozen to the cue ball. No foul was called, no argument by the apposing player. The good old days. Simple and without controversy.

What's wrong with allowing a player to shoot through an object ball? It's the same for both players isn't it?

Just my take,

Tom
Click to expand...

You can't do that in the gentlemans game of Snooker:)
 
B

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,572
i tend to agree if things are the same for both players and that helps keep controversies from happening its the best for the game.

wiithout a ref there for every shot, you cant have calls on scratches made by your opponent.

the game doesnt have to be pure. thats only for straight pool tournaments as far as i am concerned.
 
Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
1,447
It's a foul in one (or more) of three ways:

- double hit
- contact with the ferrule
- intentional miscue (if it's intentional)

Usually not called because it's so hard to see clearly.

pj
chgo
 
darmoose

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
2,420
From
Baltimore, MD
Looking for a rule that eliminates controversies?

When the CB and OB are close, you must shoot away from the OB in such a direction that the extension (line) of the cue stick does not touch the OB.

On shots where there could be a foul, both players can look at the intended line of the cue stick and determine beforehand that it is clear of the OB BEFORE the shot.

True, it may limit some shot choices, but it is fair for everyone, and it eliminates controversies, in the same way that looking at a potentially frozen ball prior to the shot does. Nes Pa?:frus
 
T

Tennessee Joe6

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
393
From
Middle Tennessee
Patrick Johnson said:
It's a foul in one (or more) of three ways:

- double hit
- contact with the ferrule
- intentional miscue (if it's intentional)

Usually not called because it's so hard to see clearly.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

With all due respect:
The video is in slow motion and I used stop frame but could not definitely see a double hit.
I could not actually see contact with the ferrule... maybe the side of the leather tip.
Didn't look like intentional miscue to me....but how do you really tell.

Doesn't the call favor the shooter if it is not obvious?

Patrick, could you recheck this. My computer is old but my eyes are in their 70's

Tennessee Joe
 
Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
1,447
Patrick Johnson said:
It's a foul in one (or more) of three ways:

- double hit
- contact with the ferrule
- intentional miscue (if it's intentional)

Usually not called because it's so hard to see clearly.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Tennessee Joe6 said:
With all due respect:
The video is in slow motion and I used stop frame but could not definitely see a double hit.
I could not actually see contact with the ferrule... maybe the side of the leather tip.
Didn't look like intentional miscue to me....but how do you really tell.

Doesn't the call favor the shooter if it is not obvious?

Patrick, could you recheck this. My computer is old but my eyes are in their 70's

Tennessee Joe
Click to expand...
Joe, I should have said "it's an obvious double-hit foul in slomo, but it probably couldn't have been seen in real time".

As for the three ways it could have been a foul:

- I saw the double hit, but wouldn't have without slomo video
- I couldn't tell if the ferrule made contact
- I'm suspicious that it was an intentional miscue, but don't know for sure

So in this case, if I was the ref I would have said no foul - as you say, if it's not clear, the call goes to the shooter.

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top