PDA

View Full Version : Karen's jump shot a foul?



poolguy123
01-11-2005, 08:54 AM
I watched the National 9-Ball match at Lincoln City, OR on ESPN last night. Of course they didn't show the whole game with the shot in question /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif. They showed a slow motion replay of the jump shot twice. But did anyone else see her hit the object ball she jumped over? The ref's attention must have been on the hit of the ball she was aiming for, but I swear that jumped ball moved almost 2 inches!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

ras314
01-11-2005, 10:55 AM
Looked to me like the ball Karen jumped over was hit on and rolled over about 1/2 a turn. The ref was standing just off her right side in good position to see the foul had he been watching.

Wonder if Karen thought she fouled?

Sid_Vicious
01-11-2005, 11:30 AM
I ain't no high level player such as the pros are, but I am amazed at the ineffieciency of many of the professionals at clearing balls. I'm not saying I hit every jumper I attempt, but I will say that what I've seen missed, at the seperated distances between the CB and the obstructing ball, a good 2-3 balls width on average, I'll be high 90% range for at least clearing a whole ball. Maybe the jump is not a particular practice session for them but I'd be embarrased if I was sponsored and couldn't at least clear ball with that much room to work with.

How much room did Corr have to work with on the shot in question? Hopefully she was limited to 1-1.5, cuz otherwize, that girl needs some work on the jump shot...sid

ras314
01-11-2005, 02:44 PM
The separation looked like at least 2 balls, maybe 3. Both Karen and Gerda missed several simple shots in the match (finals of the national 9 ball champ. in Oregon) that were more embarrasing. Recond nobody hits 'em all, sponsored or not.

Deeman2
01-11-2005, 02:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> I ain't no high level player such as the pros are, but I am amazed at the ineffieciency of many of the professionals at clearing balls. <font color="blue">I don't know, Sid, but put us on TV with hot lights and our real income depending on the outcome and we might flub a few as well. </font color> I'm not saying I hit every jumper I attempt, but I will say that what I've seen missed, at the seperated distances between the CB and the obstructing ball, a good 2-3 balls width on average, I'll be high 90% range for at least clearing a whole ball. Maybe the jump is not a particular practice session for them but I'd be embarrased if I was sponsored and couldn't at least clear ball with that much room to work with. <font color="blue">I'm not sure about the shot in question but sometimes you have to back off the jump stroke a little to avoid jumping the table or hitting other balls. I think it's very hard to judge a jump shot if it's not you standing over it. JMHO. </font color>

How much room did Corr have to work with on the shot in question? Hopefully she was limited to 1-1.5, cuz otherwize, that girl needs some work on the jump shot...sid <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Is is just me or does Karen look like she is selecting her clothing a little more carefully and is maybe a little more relaxed at the table? I was very happy to see her "shirts tucked in per inning" go down a bit. Now they need to keep an Accustat on that!</font color>

Deeman

DavidMorris
01-11-2005, 03:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr><font color="blue"> Is is just me or does Karen look like she is selecting her clothing a little more carefully and is maybe a little more relaxed at the table? I was very happy to see her "shirts tucked in per inning" go down a bit. Now they need to keep an Accustat on that!</font color><hr /></blockquote>
Yes it does appear that she's a bit more stylish now. I mentioned it in another thread here just the other day. She used to dress so frumpy and just... I dunno... nerdy looking (for lack of a better description). She just didn't seem to fit her clothes well, or they were very un-stylish, and one side of her shirt was always hanging out. She's looking much better in the last several TV appearances.

Maybe Allison couldn't take it anymore -- since they've spent so much TV time together -- and took her shopping. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Now if she could just get the message to Monica Webb... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Tom_In_Cincy
01-11-2005, 03:40 PM
I wouldn't have suspected that Deeman and David would be the hijackers...

WOW...do you think is Texas related? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I saw the shot, it looked like the ball moved, but I was too busy checking to see if the shirt tail was tucked in...

/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Sid_Vicious
01-11-2005, 03:42 PM
"Sid, but put us on TV with hot lights and our real income depending on the outcome and we might flub a few as well."

But doesn't that analogy fit for ALL of her abilities as well as the jump, and she certainly excels in all of those, to a near perfection???sid

DavidMorris
01-11-2005, 04:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> I wouldn't have suspected that Deeman and David would be the hijackers...

WOW...do you think is Texas related? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I saw the shot, it looked like the ball moved, but I was too busy checking to see if the shirt tail was tucked in...

/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif <hr /></blockquote>

/pokes Tom in the eye. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Sorry for the hijack. It's all Dee's fault, as usual. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

GeraldG
01-11-2005, 04:09 PM
I hope I'm good enough one day that my blowing one difficult shot will start a whole thread in a pool forum. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

jjinfla
01-11-2005, 04:19 PM
Amazing isn't it that no one accused Karen of unsportmanlike conduct for not calling the foul on herself.
If she did foul then she must have seen it.

How about the announcers? Did they mention the foul?

Last night I had to watch the two hour episode of 24. Then I forgot to switch over to ESPN.

Jake

Sid_Vicious
01-12-2005, 06:36 AM
I waited for someone else to wade into this point so I wouldn't begin to start sounding anti-Corr, but yea, what about that!? I'd like to see that shot again to see her body language after the shot was not called bad. It's hard to hide your embarrassment for accepting a wrong event, especially topping a ball...sid

Deeman2
01-12-2005, 08:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> I wouldn't have suspected that Deeman and David would be the hijackers... <font color="blue"> Call me irresponsible, call me unreliable....Hey, I did this without evil intent. I was watching Karen and Gerda play, thinking how hot I have always thought Gerda looked when, bang!, I noticed Karen looked a lot better than she did on previous telecasts. This was an obvious attempt on her part to distract us from the potential fouls she had planned (Yikes!). Leave it to us southern boys to keep fashion in the forefront. </font color>

WOW...do you think is Texas related? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <font color="blue"> It is "too much time at the computer" related, a lurking drive-by, if you will. </font color>

I saw the shot, it looked like the ball moved, but I was too busy checking to see if the shirt tail was tucked in... <font color="blue"> Sacktown, always a man above reproach but loves them leaning over the tables... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

Deeman

/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif <hr /></blockquote>

LARRY_BOY
01-12-2005, 09:43 AM
Acording to Earl Strickland it's only a foul if the refree saw it.......fft.

I would rather be lucky than good.

Tom_In_Cincy
01-12-2005, 10:12 AM
One of my favorite nights at Hardtimes in Sacramento is Monday nite.

Ladies nite, the gals get to play free. The first thing we do at 6pm when the nite shift gets there is HIDE all the bridges.

Nothing prettier than a lady bending over a pool table stretching for that long shot.

Gotta love Mondays.

Wally_in_Cincy
01-12-2005, 10:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> Nothing prettier than a lady bending over a pool table stretching for that long shot.
<hr /></blockquote>

Nothing worse than a dirty old man /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The girl I refer to below had a short skirt on and did not know enough about the game to use the bridge /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> On a lighter note, last night at our league match a young lady with beautiful plump breasts was playing on the adjacent table while wearing a plunging neckline and one of those pleated short skirts that are all the rage these days (Thank you Mr./Ms. Fashion Designer). While this made it difficult to concentrate on the match she did look good from the front and the rear when stretching for a shot. <hr /></blockquote>

old thread (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=150907&amp;Foru m=All_Forums&amp;Words=breasts&amp;Match=Entire%20Phrase&amp;S earchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=1year&amp;Main=150907&amp;Search= true#Post150907)

poolboy
01-12-2005, 03:07 PM
I have not seen the shot but because I am a BCA referee...I can talk about the rule. If the cueball moves the impeding ball it is a foul. However, if the impeding ball is accidently bumped by your cue or hand on the follow-thru...it is considered accidental movement and is not necessarily a foul. It is similar to shooting over a ball and moving it inadvertantly.

Are you sure it was moved by the cueball or was it by her hand or cue possibly?

Sid_Vicious
01-12-2005, 03:34 PM
"if the impeding ball is accidently bumped by your cue or hand on the follow-thru...it is considered accidental movement and is not necessarily a foul"

So you're teling me that I've been wrong in calling a foul on myself when I follow through on the jump and move the obstructing ball? I have always thought that was a real foul. Please reply so I can begin to accept my bumps with the cue from now on...sid

DavidMorris
01-12-2005, 03:55 PM
It's really up to the specific tournament rules as to what constitutes a foul. The recent Skin's tournament (or at least the TV matches) were "all ball fouls," hence the controversy over Earl's bumping the 5 ball with his cue after a shot. The recent WPBA TV matches seem to have been "cue ball fouls only." Note that in the Corr /Herndon match that Melissa bumped the 8 ball with the bridge after a shot. She caught herself doing it and turned to Steve Tipton to ask if it was a foul, and he said no.

Having said that, BCA General Pocket Billiards Supplemental Rule 1.16.1 states:
[ QUOTE ]
1.16.1 CUE BALL FOULS ONLY
When a referee is presiding over a match, it is a foul for a player to touch any ball (cue ball or object ball) with the cue, clothing, body, mechanical bridge or chalk, before, during or after a shot. However, when a referee is not presiding over a game, it is not a foul to accidentally touch stationary balls located between the cue ball and the shooter while in the act of shooting...<hr /></blockquote>
That "located between the cue ball and the shooter" part might be open to some hard-headed literal interpretation though.

APA 8 &amp; 9 ball rules specifically state that only movement of the cueball outside of a legal shot is a foul. Object ball movement is never a foul.

woody_968
01-12-2005, 04:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr>
So you're teling me that I've been wrong in calling a foul on myself when I follow through on the jump and move the obstructing ball? I have always thought that was a real foul. Please reply so I can begin to accept my bumps with the cue from now on...sid <hr /></blockquote>

Once again we are going to get into the "it depends on what rules you are playing" routine /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

If you are playing Texas Express you have commited a foul.

6.24: Masse or Jump Shot Interference

If a player executes a jump or masse shot to avoid hitting any numbered ball that obstructs the path to the lowest numbered ball, and as a result moves any numbered ball due to the follow-through of the shot, a foul occurs. The penalty is cue ball-in-hand for the opponent.

Here we go again /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

PQQLK9
01-12-2005, 04:57 PM
I just watched the shot and replayed it several times and IMO the cue ball did touch the jumped ball. It did not appear that the cue stick touched it.

Bob_Jewett
01-12-2005, 06:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ras314:</font><hr> Looked to me like the ball Karen jumped over was hit on and rolled over about 1/2 a turn. The ref was standing just off her right side in good position to see the foul had he been watching. <hr /></blockquote>
There was a shot or two like this in the 2003 Mosconi Cup. Michaela Tabb was on top of the shot and she was watching what she was supposed to be watching. She called the foul that the player himself missed. The TV replay clearly showed the obstructing ball moving just a little. I think it's hard to find refs as good as Ms. Tabb.

jjinfla
01-12-2005, 06:52 PM
I watched it and taped it. Isn't this match from last year? I mean 2003? Their outfits were matching so I think they were supplied by ESPN. And Gerda had black hair. Doesn't she now have blonde hair? Like her partner Allison?

Anyway, they showed the shot after the frame as a highlight and then at the end it was the shot of the match because she did make the two ball on it.

But when the CB went over the 3 the 3 moved and the cue or her hand was nowhere near the 3. Surprising it wasn't called because it did move about an inch which is easy to see.

And it looked like Karen looked over at the ref for a ruling and since none was not fortcoming she just kept right on shooting.

But it is old stuff so no sense worrying about it now.

Of course there is that bug a boo about whether a player should make the call on herself if the ref misses it.

Jake

Rod
01-12-2005, 10:19 PM
Sid, the rule you may be thinking of is a masse'. There is more lee way on a jump, it depends.

Rod

Sid_Vicious
01-13-2005, 07:22 AM
Rod...I asked one of the head refs from past BCA Nationals and he emphatically agreed that it was a foul, same thing also if you touch or move any ball during a bridge use. Maybe there are venues with exceptions, but in BCA everywhere I've played so far, the disturbance of other balls in these strokes is definitely a foul, masse shots included. If CB fouls only removes this ruling, then that is a goofy bend of the rules, imo...sid

SPetty
01-13-2005, 10:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> Rod...I asked one of the head refs from past BCA Nationals and he emphatically agreed that it was a foul, same thing also if you touch or move any ball during a bridge use.<hr /></blockquote>In one of my eight ball league matches, my opponent was using the bridge. He completely missed his object ball as he stroked with both his cue and the bridge, but the bridge struck another ball which, after it hit a ball, went way downtable and hit another ball.

It was ruled not a foul by the league players, and they put the balls back to where they thought they were and let the guy shoot again.

Didn't seem right to me, but I couldn't find the rule that would have made it a foul.

DavidMorris
01-13-2005, 02:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>In one of my eight ball league matches, my opponent was using the bridge. He completely missed his object ball as he stroked with both his cue and the bridge, but the bridge struck another ball which, after it hit a ball, went way downtable and hit another ball.

It was ruled not a foul by the league players, and they put the balls back to where they thought they were and let the guy shoot again.

Didn't seem right to me, but I couldn't find the rule that would have made it a foul.<hr /></blockquote>
Assuming yours is a BCA league, was there a ref present? If you notice BCA rule 1.16.1 posted above, it said that it would only be considered a foul if a ref was present.

SPetty
01-13-2005, 02:37 PM
Yeah, I think that was their point.

So it wouldn't have been loss of game if the ball racing downtable (due to being hit by the bridge) happened to hit the 8 ball into a pocket? Just a hunch, but I betcha everyone's answer would have been different then!

Sid_Vicious
01-13-2005, 03:11 PM
I do not understand how that rule can eliminate the foul call simply because a ref wasn't looking on. Seriously, if this is stipulated like this for this foul, then why even count the everyday occurances of general fouls since most are done out of the eye of a ref? I could easily deny ever topping an object ball with the CB and seemingly get away with it if the ref was elsewhere, and that to me, opens up such a disfunctional door for "bad boys" to use, it contradicts organized rules for their intended use, to maintain gentlemanly order and game flow. These things need fixing..sid

SpiderMan
01-13-2005, 04:17 PM
I'd agree, compared with how well they make balls and get position, some pros seem to be relatively weak on specialty shots.

SpiderMan

DavidMorris
01-13-2005, 04:36 PM
I agree completely, the rules are too vague in places.

Barbara
01-13-2005, 05:11 PM
Sid,

When a referee is present, all fouls are called. When a ref is not present, "cue ball fouls only" is the call.

Why? I don't know. Maybe Bob Jewett or RandyG will chime in.

Barbara

woody_968
01-13-2005, 05:39 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> Sid,

When a referee is present, all fouls are called. When a ref is not present, "cue ball fouls only" is the call.

Why? I don't know. Maybe Bob Jewett or RandyG will chime in.

Barbara <hr /></blockquote>

Im no ref, but I would bet some of the reason for cueball fouls only is to keep from the arguments that would take place otherwise. Like a player making a call that the shooters shirt touched the object ball.

That being said, there are very few people that really play the cuball only foul rules correctly (as was pointed out to me a few months ago).

Alot of the rules problems we have are because of two simple reasons.

1. People dont really know the rules.

2. People dont have the guts or honor to stand up and call a foul on themselves.

Number 2 is a much smaller group than number 1, but even more irritating.

Woody

Barbara
01-13-2005, 06:02 PM
Woody,

You're probably right. The "cue ball fouls only" rule does keep things a bit more settled.

Barbara

Rod
01-13-2005, 06:47 PM
Well, I seriously doubt the jump shot needs that much attention. I might be wrong but I doubt Karen or Allison devotes very much time to a seldom used shot. Personally, I rarely ever see them make one. Actually in many circumstances a kick is the better shot. Why make a ball to leave what would be a real tough safety or hooked?

Sure they could be better but I imagine practice is just judging stroke needed for a certain shot. No sense practicing it to death. Most times they clear the ball, like many other players but sell out anyway.

You know at some rooms here all they did was jump. Most of those players were the easiest to beat in a tournament. They spent way to much time perfecting jumps but weren't smart enough to know when not to jump. Of course there kicking ability was so poor it forced them to jump, never ending cycle.

Pool like any game is a balance of ability. The shots that come up most often need more attention. While some may think they should jump better, I see them on par for the course. I wouldn't use a single jump as a ruler for Karen's jumping ability.

Rod

SpiderMan
01-14-2005, 08:12 AM
Rod, all that may be true, but I still have to agree with Sid - since these women are pros, if they incorporate jumping into their game they should at least work on it so that they have some acceptable skill level. This could be practiced without taking away from their kicking ability.

After I first witnessed the shaft jump (there were no 40" cues then), I spent several solid hours working with it. This was enough to get it under control and satisfy myself that I could pull it out in a game situation. Why would a pro be unwilling to devote similar effort? And, if not, why do they persist in trying something they can't execute?

Sid brought up another good point in a private conversation - all these women selling out on close-in jumps are still stroking underhand. Why has no one learned the dart stroke, which is much easier to sight and control for the more-vertical angles?

Since they're obviously trying to make it part of their game, why shouldn't a pro learn to jump as well as B-league amateurs?

SpiderMan

Rod
01-14-2005, 03:05 PM
Marty,

I think they do have an acceptable skill level. Not clearing a ball once, if that indeed happen, isn't a good measure though.

I know what you mean about the dart stroke. It is somewhat odd that you never see it used. That stroke however takes considerable practice to be fairly accurate. By that I mean if the stroke isn't straight, you might hit the ball but making it isn't likely. The women, many aren't very tall, you would think a dart stroke would be worth while learning.

Maybe it's a good question to ask one of the lady pro's over at AZB. I still tend to think however the shot isn't used very often so there not going to spend much time with it.

I'm sure a B level player sees a lot more jumps than they ever will. You have to figure, B level players do hook themselves. They get hooked more often buy their opponent as well. That is due to either player getting out of line, playing safties etc.

Rod

SpiderMan
01-14-2005, 04:20 PM
OK, good point, maybe they don't bother working on the jump shot because they don't get hooked very often.

BTW, what happened to the ratings that AZB used to post for the amateurs in Arizona?

SpiderMan

Rod
01-14-2005, 06:19 PM
That's just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. The amateur rating, I don't know. Honestly I never knew it was gone. It might be for several reasons, one good one is the time it takes to change or add players ratings. With appx 6 meetings per year that is a lot of changes. All of the rooms that participate get new sheets. I'm not certain being on a web site is of any real value.

Rod

ras314
01-14-2005, 06:26 PM
"The new policy of The Arizona Ratings Committee is to no longer publish the ratings list on the internet effective November 8th, 2004.

Anyone interested in becoming a member of the Arizona Rating Committee can apply by contacting.....

Bob Jackson at 520-546-3464"

From playtournamentsonline.com. Presumabaly they still have the printouts used to handicap tournaments, I haven't played over there in a while.