PDA

View Full Version : Judging A Double Hit Question - Bob Jewett?



Barbara
10-03-2005, 12:45 PM
Bob,

Last weekend at my NY State event I was working with someone and he was calling most of the hits. During the finals he asked me how I judge calling a double hit when the cueball and the object ball are less than a chalk's width apart and the shooter is not "shooting away". I told him that I hear for it and look at the cueball's speed after they shoot the shot. This is what I learned from you at Ref School.

He told me that he can play that shot straight through and not double hit the cueball with a very, very short stroke. So what he uses to determine a double hit for that shot is where the tip of the player's cuestick ends up in relation to where the object ball was.

My question - Is this an accurate way to measure a double hit?

Barbara

wolfdancer
10-03-2005, 12:54 PM
Yes there is but it involves having keen eyesight like I used to have when I worked at the Allspice factory, seperating fly poop, from pepper, and your eyes have to focus rapidly like Ted Williams, who could pick up the rotation, on a pitched baseball.
Otherwise just call half of them good and the other half double-hits, and folks'' think yer another Don Feeney, or Scott Smith....hope this helps

Bob_Jewett
10-03-2005, 01:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> ... So what he uses to determine a double hit for that shot is where the tip of the player's cuestick ends up in relation to where the object ball was.

My question - Is this an accurate way to measure a double hit?
... <hr /></blockquote>
I don't think so. You can retract the stick very quickly with the right technique. I think the most reliable way is still to judge from the action of the cue ball, but this is not simple. It would help if the players were better trained as well.

Sid_Vicious
10-03-2005, 04:22 PM
"I think the most reliable way is still to judge from the action of the cue ball, but this is not simple. It would help if the players were better trained as well."

All this simplifies if and when the off angle stipulation is iron clad instead of allowing the in-line effort at all, then depending on both better trained players AND referees. Why keep this troubling rule anyway, considering that a small percentage of all players can even make this cleanly? It affects more positively to keep this one simple IMO, OFF angle...sid

Tom_In_Cincy
10-03-2005, 04:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>
........... It would help if the players were better trained as well. <hr /></blockquote>

Easier said than done.

I actually had players try to explain why I couldn't call it a bad hit.

We know there still can be a foul called if the cue is elevated and/or if you shoot away from the OB.

Educating the players would be a huge step in correcting the problem.... but, it would also mean, that there should be a 'single' set of rules to abide by.

There are still players that think that if the one ball is not hit on the break (in 9 ball) that the game hasn't started, and they should get 'do overs' until the game has started.

Barbara
10-03-2005, 05:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr>There are still players that think that if the one ball is not hit on the break (in 9 ball) that the game hasn't started, and they should get 'do overs' until the game has started. <hr /></blockquote>

Ooooo!! Ooooo!! Had that one last weekend! Breaker miscued while breaking, went over the head string. BIH to sitting opponent. Rules 5.4 and 5.7 in the BCA rule book.

Barbara