Call the hit

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
16,142
double hit to me
i found this review of double hits on dr daves site
check out the second video where he talks about if the cue ball goe past the tangent line its a double hit
your shot above seems to past the tangent line to me
plus it sure looks like the shfts hits the cue ball more than once
http://www.billiards.colostate.edu/threads/fouls.html#double
 

androd

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
7,342
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

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
10,313
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

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
2,702
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

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
4,495
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
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.
 

poolisboring

Verified Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
756
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
agreed.........
 

jtompilot

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
4,505
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
You can't do that in the gentlemans game of Snooker:)
 

beatle

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,794
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

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

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,938
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
 

Tennessee Joe6

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
373
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
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

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
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
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
 
Top