Its a foul bro, cus the cue ball " jump over " an object ball. If the cue ball didn't jump over, then it wasn't a foul

@@faizzuliskandar This is not snooker bro... cue ball can jump over any object ball... the foul is with respect to scooping... but it is clear that he did not do it intentionally as he was trying maximum draw...

I don’t think so. It’s very difficult to jump with a shooting cue when you’re trying to do it, and I’ve never seen someone get that much air with one. He was trying to draw and miscued, which caused the ball to jump, we’ve all been there.

@@stephenmcneil4573exactly right

​@@stephenmcneil4573facts because Earl Strickland and Sammy Jones/Loree jon jones ex husband who still runs his pool store here in Greenville Sc which the store is still named after her but him and Earl Strickland was one of the first players who could jump with a regular cue before jump cues were even thought about and yes most definitely with a draw shot you really have to make sure you chalk up your cue tip like crazy especially around the edges of the tip as well

I agree. It clearly was a miscue, and that's why he scooped it. Why are we even talking about this? This thread is like a commercial for chalk.

I thought this type of double hit, was only a foul if it was deemed intentional. There was nothing to gain by playing this way, so highly unlikely to be intentional. I would not have called a foul.

Posted already: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i7V1hbSG3JiZdIU.html

i saw "TWICE-PLUS-TENTHS … The Most Useful Bank Shot Diamond System You’ll Ever Learn" :D and i realy dont know why he post such vids... and sry dr dave i learned a better system.

It depends on the rules that you are playing under. in this case, he scooped it. WPA rules, its a foul. so its a foul. so its a foul. so its a foul.

​@@verekertam8921 But that's NOT the WPA rule. Rule 8.18 says a scoop is a miscue, and rule 6.17 says an *intentional* miscue is an unsportsmanlike conduct foul. Therefore, an unintentional miscue is not a foul if the shot is otherwise a legal hit. Here's Dr.Dave's video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i7V1hbSG3JiZdIU.htmlsi=0p2QYpzorjwA-fkH

WPA rules states: 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. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c). 6.17 unsportsmanlike conduct (foul) (c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing; 9 ball uses rules 6.17 which states that it is only a foul if it is intentional. It was a miscue by definition but the rules state it has to be INTENTIONAL.

You’re exactly right and thanks for posting the link to Dr. Dave’s video. Very useful. Funny to see how many people are arguing against this and they’re just wrong…

They do mention. He did end up losing the game. Very embarrassing moment of premature celebration for sure.

It was a foul because he hit the objective ball. That is the deference between a miscue and a table scratch.

@@jadams1722 Nope, after scooping over it, he hit the intended object ball from behind and drove it to a rail, so it was a legal hit. Again, WPA rules say *unintended* miscues are not fouls.

If you look at it in slow mo you will see that the cue tip hits the ball twice.

@@leogoku13 That is simply not true. You can watch it frame by frame: In one frame you see the contact, and the in the very next frame the cue ball is in the air and the cue tip is on the table. That's not absolute proof it wasn't a double hit, but it's absolute proof that your "slow mo" claim is simply not true.

@@RocketRoomVideo the physics of that doesn't make any sense dude. There is no way to make a cue ball jump over another ball right in front of it just by making straight forward level contact.

Then you obviously doesn't play pool

@@cerkcerkcerk4791 nice conclusion to jump to, person that doesn’t know me. I’m actually quite a skilled player, but even if I wasn’t, it doesn’t take someone to play pool to be able to identify a foul if they know what to look for. So, double fail on your part there. But besides being just wrong (and wrongheaded I might add) I’ll surmise that it’s actually you that is the lesser knowledgeable player between the two of us. Even Dr. Dave disagrees with you. Maybe learn a bit more before opening your mouth in the future…

If he miscued and it flew off the table, you'd not question whether or not it was a foul. He scooped it, which you aren't allowed to do, intentional or not. It is a foul.

95% of fouls are unintentional still fouls

@@suewoo5 Sorry, that's not correct - the WPA rules are clear: unintended miscues are not a foul. If he scooped AND it went off the table, it would be a foul because it went off the table, not the (clearly unintended) scoop. If he had NOT come off the rail and hit the one ball and drove it to a rail, it would have been a "bad hit" foul, not because of the scoop, but he did get a perfectly legal hit. Definitely a bad call.

what are you on about?? he should not complain if the guy is making bad calls ? legit questionable if it is a faul

also this happend last year and what you are on about happend recently so yeah ..

I love the overhead view

Think you're on your own here.. I love it. It's the only way to see how the balls are traveling

@@gregorpesek respectfully do you play alot of pool yourself or do you mostly just watch?

​@@Jack3dBrettover head is better. It makes it much easier to imagine where the cue ball will travel. It shouldn't be over head every shot though

@@JacobJones2148 maybe ive just played enough pool to be able to know where the cue ball is going to go from the view looking down at the table from an angle (the same view you have when you’re actually standing at the table and playing). Plus we want to see the players stance, stroke, mechanics, demeanor, where hes cueing at the cue ball ect ect all of which you cannot see with the overhead camera.

the confusion was over the illegal jump, he didnt know that you may not jump the ball by hitting the bottom of it

and looks like the commentators didnt know either

My understanding of a lot of rulesets, is that “intentional miscues” are illegal. I don’t know if that’s different under this rule set, and I’m having trouble finding exactly which rules they’re are following. This was obviously not an intentional miscue, so it’s either a case of the player not being aware of the miscue rule, or the referee applying it incorrectly. Edit: maybe falls under the wpa push shot rules, about prolonged contact with cue ball beyond a normal shot. They don’t mention miscues, but that’s probably what was ruled here, which makes sense.

​@@stephenmcneil4573the foul isnt for any miscue. if it was a regular miscue and he hit the correct ball, it would not be a foul. however he hit under the cue ball causing it to jump, this is called a scoup shot and is a foul regardless of what occurs after it. The reason it is a foul is because it is counted as hitting the ball twice

That is NOT the case, and on the official rules I was unable to verify that Matchroom has a particular issue with players mis-cueing and causing an accidental scoop. The APA and other pool leagues specifically state scooping being a foul if it is done intentionally, that's the only nuance that matters - hence the confusion of the player - it was an accident.

Ok that makes sense that it's a foul because you hit the cue ball twice. Didn't consider it a foul before.

to clear this up again, if you actually read the rules like I did then you would understand that while scooping is a miscue, it is only a foul if the miscue (scoop) was intentional. WPA rules, look it up or watch Dr dave’s other video on this EXACT match and why this wasn’t a foul. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i7V1hbSG3JiZdIU.htmlsi=2gfp61yXvs_rFPw_

Ty for the link​@@johnnyklasing4002