PDA

View Full Version : Miscue A Foul?



Sid_Vicious
08-07-2002, 07:16 AM
It was recently posted that maybe miscues while jumping might become a foul. What was the foundation for that statement? If there is a rule making a miscue a foul then isn't it logical that masses done poorly will also produce double hits, hence a miscue foul? It seems to be that the actual definition of a miscue might be a gray area in itself, my synthetic tips both sound chattery on close jumps but I wouldn't call them miscuing by definition.

Just sounds like to me that we could be into an interpretation battle with a new rule about miscues and jumps...sid

Nostroke
08-07-2002, 09:10 AM
I always wondered about that. The rules I think have always said that the tip only should touch the ball. If the ferrule or shaft come in contact with the ball, its a foul.
This seems to happen on most miscues but i have never seen it called.

Tom_In_Cincy
08-07-2002, 10:08 AM
Sid,

The famous Jacksonville tapes have shown that miscues are actually double hits. Tip and ferrule make contact with the cue ball.

Rules? none have ever covered this situation that I have seen. Nor have I ever heard or seen anyone call it a double hit.. which it clearly is.

I agree with you, it should be called a foul.. but even the referees say its difficult to call.. more difficult than a double hit on balls close to each other.. you know when you miscue that you strike the cue ball more than once,,,do you ever call it on yourself?

Jay M
08-07-2002, 10:14 AM
Think about it from a different perspective for a moment. This isn't a rule anywhere, but it could be the foundation for the original post.

When you jump a ball, you are REQUIRED to hit above center on the cue ball. If you miscue, then you are hitting outside the range of your cue... so you are hitting just below the midline on the CB.

Food for thought

Jay M

08-07-2002, 10:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> It was recently posted that maybe miscues while jumping might become a foul. What was the foundation for that statement? If there is a rule making a miscue a foul then isn't it logical that masses done poorly will also produce double hits, hence a miscue foul? It seems to be that the actual definition of a miscue might be a gray area in itself, my synthetic tips both sound chattery on close jumps but I wouldn't call them miscuing by definition.

Just sounds like to me that we could be into an interpretation battle with a new rule about miscues and jumps...sid <hr></blockquote>

3.27(bca) does say that "any miscue while executing a jump is a foul".

i think the jacksonville tape pretty well settles the issue that a miscue is, in fact, illegal in that it is really 2 hits. one with the tip and one with the ferrule. i've never seen it called and could probably use 3.27 to argue that it's not normally illegal to miscue since they use that rule to say it is a foul in that one case.

very tough area for rulings and i expect most refs would not call the miscue foul.

dan

TonyM
08-07-2002, 12:37 PM
"It was recently posted that maybe miscues while jumping might become a foul. What was the foundation for that statement?"

I posted that. The foundation is BCA rule 3.27, a miscue while attempting a jump shot is a foul.

As for why and so on, I wan't really that interested in that question, only in pointing out that it is now in the rule books.

Tony

SpiderMan
08-07-2002, 12:49 PM
Dan,

I believe the Jacksonville conclusion was that a miscue often, BUT NOT ALWAYS, results in a ferrule or shaft contact with the ball. In his follow-up article, Bob Jewett noted that because it was NOT ALWAYS a foul, and you couldn't tell the difference without high-speed photography, there were no plans to propose a rule change for miscues on ordinary shots.

SpiderMan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: houstondan:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: Sid_Vicious:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt; It was recently posted that maybe miscues while jumping might become a foul. What was the foundation for that statement? If there is a rule making a miscue a foul then isn't it logical that masses done poorly will also produce double hits, hence a miscue foul? It seems to be that the actual definition of a miscue might be a gray area in itself, my synthetic tips both sound chattery on close jumps but I wouldn't call them miscuing by definition.

Just sounds like to me that we could be into an interpretation battle with a new rule about miscues and jumps...sid &lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

3.27(bca) does say that "any miscue while executing a jump is a foul".

i think the jacksonville tape pretty well settles the issue that a miscue is, in fact, illegal in that it is really 2 hits. one with the tip and one with the ferrule. i've never seen it called and could probably use 3.27 to argue that it's not normally illegal to miscue since they use that rule to say it is a foul in that one case.

very tough area for rulings and i expect most refs would not call the miscue foul.

dan <hr></blockquote>

08-07-2002, 02:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: SpiderMan:</font><hr> Dan,

I believe the Jacksonville conclusion was that a miscue often, BUT NOT ALWAYS, results in a ferrule or shaft contact with the ball. In his follow-up article, Bob Jewett noted that because it was NOT ALWAYS a foul, and you couldn't tell the difference without high-speed photography, there were no plans to propose a rule change for miscues on ordinary shots.

SpiderMan

well, i've loaned out my copy of the tape and articles but my memory is that every one they shot was, indeed a foul. of course it's possible to miscue without the extra hit but that's something you can hear. like the advise to referees about using the sound to help judge a double c.b. to o.b. hit. they don't need to change any rules since it's already illegal to have the cue touch the c.b. with anything other than the tip on a shot and it's illegal to hit the c.b. more than once.

i still wouldn't call it.

dan

SpiderMan
08-07-2002, 02:16 PM
I have my copies at home, so I'll try to remember and check on it tonight. I'm pretty sure about the statement, but it could have been the Shamos article rather than the Jewett article.

SpiderMan

Barbara
08-07-2002, 07:30 PM
Sid,

Without reading anyone else's reply, it could be considered a foul because Bob Jewett's Jacksonville Experiment concluded that when a miscue happens, the cue ball has not only been struck by the tip, but also by the ferrule. By BCA rules, it is a foul to strike the cue ball with anything other than the tip.

Since it happens so quickly to the human eye, but not by the ear, how could we actually determine it was struck by the ferrule? Various things ocurring with the tip could produce a "miscue" type of sound, even a joint not being tightened correctly.

Barbara

Sid_Vicious
08-07-2002, 08:06 PM
Hence my point that if jumps are isolated not to include masses or ordinary miscues, that a lot of gray area will be introduced. Now as far as these tapes(I have it Btw), I have stated that concept long before I ever knew that slow motion video proved it. This isn't rocket science on my part, most thinking players realized that with little effort. Question is, what extent do we carry the miscue fouls? I may get very messy or confrontational since money is getting involved, both in purse and in sponsorship...sid

ATAAP...I made a post some time back asking whether Corr maybe fouled on a shot on a frozen CB on a long rail shot on a match winning 9-ball stroke because of the sound I percieved being suspect to a double hit upon follow thru. That post got zero response, and I wonder is it wasn't partly because nobody considered the chatter of the topped miscue on the follow through BEACAUSE it was never highlighted before in any other scenario. I call myself perceptive, just my 2c sv

Sid_Vicious
08-07-2002, 08:14 PM
"If you miscue, then you are hitting outside the range of your cue... so you are hitting just below the midline on the CB."

I disagree in part with this, because you can miscue due to hitting in the right place but with the wrong stroke of with a poorly dressed tip...sid