[Lockbox]

Hi everyone,

I was playing a match against a friend and he was attempting to shoot with draw on the ball. Accidentally, he miscued as he was stroking under the ball and the ball was "scooped," jumped over his object ball and landed back on the table.

The CB continued into another ball of his, and proceeded to hit a rail. Therefore, other than the jump, the shot was legal.

I called it a foul, he (and most others in the pool hall) said that since it was unintentional, it was not a foul and I was to proceed.

All of the rules explicitly state that scooping is not allowed. However, I have never heard of someone "calling" jump. What do you guys think? Even after looking at the rules, I was not convinced.

[hang-the-9]

Originally Posted by Lockbox

Hi everyone,

I was playing a match against a friend and he was attempting to shoot with draw on the ball. Accidentally, he miscued as he was stroking under the ball and the ball was "scooped," jumped over his object ball and landed back on the table.

The CB continued into another ball of his, and proceeded to hit a rail. Therefore, other than the jump, the shot was legal.

I called it a foul, he (and most others in the pool hall) said that since it was unintentional, it was not a foul and I was to proceed.

All of the rules explicitly state that scooping is not allowed. However, I have never heard of someone "calling" jump. What do you guys think? Even after looking at the rules, I was not convinced.

That is not an illegal jump but a miscue, the intention was not to jump but to draw. The rules say you can't play a jump shot and intentionally hit under the ball. The way the shot was, that is not a foul. Now if you want to be picky and call a foul on the shot, on many miscues the ferrule strikes the cue ball, that IS a foul, but I don't think I have every seen it called since usually the result of a miscue is a foul in the first place of not striking a legal ball or rail. So the "jump" is not a foul, but if the cue hit the ferrule, that is a foul on that shot.

[Lockbox]

Originally Posted by hang-the-9

That is not an illegal jump but a miscue, the intention was not to jump but to draw. The rules say you can't play a jump shot and intentionally hit under the ball. The way the shot was, that is not a foul. Now if you want to be picky and call a foul on the shot, on many miscues the ferrule strikes the cue ball, that IS a foul, but I don't think I have every seen it called since usually the result of a miscue is a foul in the first place of not striking a legal ball or rail. So the "jump" is not a foul, but if the cue hit the ferrule, that is a foul on that shot.

Thanks for the reply. So at no point did his ferrule hit the ball (we'll say, for the sake of argument). My thought was - no one calls "jump" thought it might be obvious what we are doing. Therefore, this shot wasn't just a miscue - the cue ball left the plane of the table via a scoop shot, which is an illegal jump.

However, everyone at the hall agreed that this is not a foul because it was not intentional. But then again, if I have a close shot and barely touch the opponents ball first, it is a foul even though I did not "intend" on contacting it first...

btw, not trying to be picky - just trying to get clarification on a rule. (fwiw I did not call a foul during the match)

[hang-the-9]

Originally Posted by Lockbox

Thanks for the reply. So at no point did his ferrule hit the ball (we'll say, for the sake of argument). My thought was - no one calls "jump" thought it might be obvious what we are doing. Therefore, this shot wasn't just a miscue - the cue ball left the plane of the table via a scoop shot, which is an illegal jump.

However, everyone at the hall agreed that this is not a foul because it was not intentional. But then again, if I have a close shot and barely touch the opponents ball first, it is a foul even though I did not "intend" on contacting it first...

btw, not trying to be picky - just trying to get clarification on a rule. (fwiw I did not call a foul during the match)

The shot was not a scoop shot though, it's just what happens when you miscue when hitting with draw, hitting the wrong ball first is a foul no matter the reason or how slight, it's not the same situation.

It's like someone putting a stolen computer in you trunk and you get pulled over and they find it. Sure it's stolen and in your car but you had no knowledge of it and did not steal it, so you are not in trouble for stealing it. Now you have a laptop that was left on a table at a bar, so you grab it. You did not break into a house or hold a knife to someone to take it, so it's only a "little" stolen, like your light hit on the wrong ball example. But it's still stolen even if you did no work to get to it.

[Lockbox]

Originally Posted by hang-the-9

The shot was not a scoop shot though, it's just what happens when you miscue when hitting with draw, hitting the wrong ball first is a foul no matter the reason or how slight, it's not the same situation.

It's like someone putting a stolen computer in you trunk and you get pulled over and they find it. Sure it's stolen and in your car but you had no knowledge of it and did not steal it, so you are not in trouble for stealing it. Now you have a laptop that was left on a table at a bar, so you grab it. You did not break into a house or hold a knife to someone to take it, so it's only a "little" stolen, like your light hit on the wrong ball example. But it's still stolen even if you did no work to get to it.

Your analogy is inapposite.

First, to my understanding, the miscue on the draw causing a jump is a "scoop" shot. It's the same action whether you attempt to jump the ball by "scooping" or by miscuing on the draw - the action and result are the same.

Second, the analogy would be more apt if it was you who placed the stolen computer in your car without knowledge that it was stolen. All criminal acts require a requisite mens rea and actus rea - a mental element and a corresponding action. What's lacking here, though would be knowledge that the computer was stolen.

So, while it may not be technically larceny, it would still require some effort to show that you did not know it was stolen (if that is asserted as the defense).

Basically, how can someone scoop-jump a ball, then say they did not intend to do that and the rules would dictate that it wasn't an illegal jump? This would be clear if you had to declare "jump" before any jump shot, but I do not believe that is the rule nor is it the practice.

So basically, it's an honor code issue?

[hang-the-9]

Originally Posted by Lockbox

Your analogy is inapposite.

First, to my understanding, the miscue on the draw causing a jump is a "scoop" shot. It's the same action whether you attempt to jump the ball by "scooping" or by miscuing on the draw - the action and result are the same.

Second, the analogy would be more apt if it was you who placed the stolen computer in your car without knowledge that it was stolen. All criminal acts require a requisite mens rea and actus rea - a mental element and a corresponding action. What's lacking here, though would be knowledge that the computer was stolen.

So, while it may not be technically larceny, it would still require some effort to show that you did not know it was stolen (if that is asserted as the defense).

Basically, how can someone scoop-jump a ball, then say they did not intend to do that and the rules would dictate that it wasn't an illegal jump? This would be clear if you had to declare "jump" before any jump shot, but I do not believe that is the rule nor is it the practice.

So basically, it's an honor code issue?

I guess without knowing they were trying to jump or not you can call a foul but it should be pretty clear what they were doing. I've done that and have seen it done many times, the only time I have seen it be a foul is if the ball jumped off the table or just never hit a legal ball. It's the same thing as not having to call "obvious shots". To me, if a good player plays a bank, it's pretty clear to me with how they were shooting that they played that shot, even if a bank is not technically a "obvious shot".

I have had people, and have seen people do the same aside from me, where someone plays a shot, then looks over and said, "crap I did not call that", we both should know what they were trying to do. I've let kicks go like that also, it's pretty clear what pocket is the obvious one for a kick most of the time, if they kick and make it, but did not call it, if they continue to shoot, I don't say anything about not calling it.

I don't know anyone that would play a shot at a ball but choose to jump over an object ball to hit another one further up the table without at least looking at the shot and winding up for it. If the player was getting down on the ball, aiming at it, then jumped during the shot, that is not an attempted jump shot to me.

[Pelican1989]

Any miscue COULD be a foul if anything other than the tip makes contact.

However an accidental jump doesn't inherently imply that happens, but some abnormal jumps from miscues may be fouls

[Lockbox]

Originally Posted by Pelican1989

Any miscue COULD be a foul if anything other than the tip makes contact.

However an accidental jump doesn't inherently imply that happens, but some abnormal jumps from miscues may be fouls

This doesn't answer the question posed. If I "scoop" jump without my ferrule touching the ball, most would still consider that a foul. Nevertheless, you are not asserting that this is a foul, but that it COULD be one.

I jump balls on occasion when I am merely trying to draw and don't have chalk. I still assert that this should be a foul, but I nor anyone else call it that.

[pocket]

In before Dr. Dave!

with, Dr. Dave!

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/fouls.html#scoop

[Lockbox]

Originally Posted by pocket

In before Dr. Dave!

with, Dr. Dave!

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/fouls.html#scoop

Here is the pertinent quote from WPA Rule 8.18:

A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue.

and, per WPA Rule 6.16c, a miscue is a foul if it is intentional (e.g., if used to purposely jump the CB over an obstacle).

This is the language that comes up from the link you sent. Although my computer doesn't seem to be able to reach the websites, i'll take the stated language to be accurate.

My issue is that, while a miscue is a foul if it is intentional, no one "calls" a jump shot. Therefore, it's up for interpretation if a scoop shot is intentional or not. This is the crux of my issue, which your reference to Dr. Dave doesn't solve.