Post a reply

Jump shot

Postby elnino

Ball on is red.

Player A miscues and jumps over a red.

Cue ball hits another red.

Player B calls a foul.

Player A disagrees.

Either Player may have made a correct call.

But under what circumstances would:-

a) Player B be correct?

b) Player A be correct?

Re: Jump shot

Postby elnino

a) Player B would be right if the cue ball lands on the far side of table first and then makes contact with the second red ball.

b) Player A would be correct if the cue ball strikes the second red ball directly without landing on the bed of the table first.

Re: Jump shot

Postby acesinc

elnino wrote:a) Player B would be right if the cue ball lands on the far side of table first and then makes contact with the second red ball.

b) Player A would be correct if the cue ball strikes the second red ball directly without landing on the bed of the table first.


El Nino, I do not agree with your interpretation of this rule. This is a situation that is very difficult to explain with the written word (which is why the Rules of Snooker do not explain this very clearly); it is much, much easier to explain in real life speaking and using balls on the table for an example. That said (or more accurately, "That written..."), I will start by quoting the appropriate Rule, then attempt to explain what it means.
______________________

"Section 2. Definitions...

Rule 20. Jump Shot

A jump shot is made when the cue-ball passes over any part of an object ball,
whether touching it in the process or not, except:
(a) when the cue-ball first strikes one object ball and then jumps over another
ball;
(b) when the cue-ball jumps and strikes an object ball, but does not land on
the far side of that ball;
(c) when, after striking an object ball lawfully, the cue-ball jumps over that
ball after hitting a cushion or another ball."
______________________

So to break this down in parts:

The definition basically concerns the relationship between the cue ball and the very first object ball it encounters, whether that encounter means making contact, or jumping over, or possibly both. In the simplest scenario, say that Black is the only ball on the table and so (obviously,) Black is the ball on. If the cue ball leaves the bed of the table and ANY part of the cue ball passes over ANY part of the Black ball, it is a jump shot and a foul. Even though this seems simple, there are actually a surprising number of possibilities: a) the White can simply jump over the Black without touching it--foul (also a jump shot but it doesn't matter anyway if contact was not made with Black), b) the White can jump over the Black and touch Black on its way back down to the table--foul, contact was made with the Black, but a part of the White passed over a part of the Black in the process, c) White can jump over Black without touching it, bounce back off a cushion, and contact Black on the rebound--foul, exactly the same as b), d) total miscue.....the White jumps off the bed of the table and veers off at some angle away from the Black and just comes back down somewhere on the bed of the table--maybe a fair stroke (if White luckily rebounds off a cushion and strikes Black) or maybe a foul (if White never touches Black) but this is NOT a jump shot even if White left the bed of the table....it can only be a jump shot by definition if ANY part of White passes over ANY part of object ball in the process of the "jump" (in other words, if a whisker of the right edge of White passes over a whisker of the left edge of the object ball, it is a foul) and this is completely left to the judgement of the referee.


Now, moving on to other parts of the definition...

Sub-part a) says that if White strikes a ball on (for simplicity, let's say Red), then just deflects off of it like a normal stroke, but then makes contact with another ball (for instance, another Red) and in the process, somehow manages to jump over THAT ball, then this is NOT a jump shot, it is perfectly legal. Remember from above, the important thing is the White's FIRST encounter....it was legal so the stroke is legal.

Sub-part b) is another hypothetical. Snooker is a three dimensional game...balls can bounce up and down especially if playing a swerve, or Masse, or some such. So b) simply says if in the first contact White climbs or bounces up on the object ball, but rebounds either back or off to the side but does not pass OVER the object ball, this is NOT a jump shot and not a foul.

Sub-part c) is poorly written (for which I don't blame the Rule writers....it is a difficult concept to write about plainly and simply....witness, look how long it has taken me to write this post) and consequently, it is also where I believe you are misinterpreting. But in fact, it says very much the same thing that sub-part a) said...except sub-part c) refers back to the first ball that the White contacted rather than some other ball like in sub-part a). So it basically says, if the White makes a legal contact with a ball (say a Red), then goes on to bounce around and strike other things like some other ball or a cushion or both, THEN the White goes back and bounces over that FIRST ball that it originally made contact with, then there is no jump shot, no foul.


Now to sum all of this up, the Rule is essentially about what happened in the first ENCOUNTER of White with an object ball ("ENCOUNTER" meaning maybe it made contact, maybe it jumped over, maybe both). IF that first encounter was legal (no jump involved), then any other "jumps" that happen from bouncing around off other things are legal (bear in mind, other events may occur to make the stroke foul such as wrong ball falling in pocket, ball off the table, etc., etc.). On the other hand, IF that first encounter involved jumping over that first object ball, whether touching it or not, then a foul has occurred (bear in mind that the jump shot foul may be superceded by some other higher point value foul which may occur).

EDIT: Adding my personal opinion as to why a rule such as this is written such as the way it is...

The Rules of Snooker are not a "fun" read; very few players of the Game have ever actually read through the Rules cover to cover. I have. Dozens of times. It is really not that hard; the Rules is only 22 short pages of substance. By comparison, the Rules of Golf is well over 100 long pages, much of it technical drivel with diagrams about equipment explaining what is legal or not legal in the design of an implement. By comparison, the Rules of Snooker is like a Dr. Seuss classic in terms of entertainment. Occasionally, a concept (such as this "jump ball") is difficult to write about succinctly, so I believe instead it is written in such a way that a Referee Trainer can simply read the Rule to the Referee Student, then explain what it means with balls in hand and waving them around and saying, "So, if it does THIS, that's a jump shot. But if it does THAT, no jump shot." So as an aspiring player just reading the Rule and trying to figure it out without the guidance of a trainer is a much more difficult thing to do.

Now, as for an actual Referee on the floor actually officiating an actual frame of snooker between two professional players....that is another story. Snooker is not a "fast" game by any means....mostly, the things on the table just sit still and nothing happens. You would think that the Referee doesn't have a whole lot to do...easy job. But just occasionally, for literally just a couple of millisecond long burst, a whole lot happens at once. And suddenly, the Referee's job becomes incredibly difficult because he/she needs to determine what happened, in what order the events occurred, and whether anything that transpired in those few milliseconds was illegal. So......a rule such as this Jump Ball Rule provide the Ref with simple guidance and relief. This particular rule is written to tell the Referee that he/she only needs to focus on whether a "jump shot" has occurred in the initial fraction of a fraction of a second when the White leaves the tip of the cue. Clearly, a "jump shot" is only possible when an object ball is just a few inches from the cue ball and it only takes a fraction of a second for the cue ball to traverse that short distance. After that initial fraction of a second has passed and the Ref has determined a simple "yes" or "no" on whether a "jump shot" has occurred, his/her mind is now free to focus on all other aspects of the shot without consideration as the whether balls bouncing around MIGHT result in a "jump shot" somewhere else because, by the Rule, they won't. So the Rule is specifically written to NOT allow a player to jump over a ball purposely at the initial stroke; it is perfectly fine for other "accidental" jumps over other balls to occur.

I don't know the precise history of this particular Rule but it does seem very likely that the wording of it is a specific result of this famous incident with Big Bill Werbeniuk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgBfkjkpZcc

Clearly a fluke, Bill was playing a massive safety draw stroke and miscued. By the way the modern rule is written, this shot would be a foul today. And the precise way the Rule is written I believe is to simplify the job of the Referee so as to only be wary of the "jump shot" in that first fraction of a second of the stroke, then his focus can shift to all the other possibilities for the remainder of the stroke. Oh, and a P.S. about this YouTube video....pay no attention to anything said in the "Comments" section regarding legality of the stroke. You will get better guidance from the aforementioned Dr. Suess book about the Rules of Snooker than you will from a YouTube commenter.


And a final related thought...

If you have ever seen any live or video of a "trick shot" show, a fairly common trick shot is to line up a bunch of balls parallel to a cushion several inches away, then put an object ball in the jaws of a pocket on the opposite side, and place the White inside the line of balls (closer to the cushion and away from the ball in the jaws). Then, simply strike down on White toward the cushion, White will bounce up in the air off cushion (like bouncing a rubber ball off the ground then a brick wall), and White will hop over the line of balls and proceed to pot the ball perched in the corner.

A nice trick, but a completely foul stroke. Remember, the legality of the stroke will be determined by the White's initial encounter with an object ball (initial contact with the cushion is NOT an encounter) so for this trick shot, obviously White's first encounter was to jump over an object ball so this would be a foul stroke played in a frame.

Re: Jump shot

Postby elnino

Thank you ACESINC for your usual thorough contribution.

Simply put if the cueball jumps over a Red it is always a foul unless when it jumps and hits that Red and does not land on the far side of that Red.

It is always a foul regardless of whether Player A hits the next Red or not.

Player B was correct.

Player A misinterpreted the rule and was confused by the phrase:

"when it jumps and hits that Red and does not land on the far side of that Red."

Re: Jump shot

Postby acesinc

elnino wrote:Thank you ACESINC for your usual thorough contribution.

Simply put if the cueball jumps over a Red it is always a foul unless when it jumps and hits that Red and does not land on the far side of that Red.

It is always a foul regardless of whether Player A hits the next Red or not.

Player B was correct.

Player A misinterpreted the rule and was confused by the phrase:

"when it jumps and hits that Red and does not land on the far side of that Red."


You are welcome El Nino. If I remember correctly, you had previously stated long ago that you watch a lot of amateur level match play so I assume this incident did in fact take place between two players? Not just a hypothetical situation? I do hope that the correct player, Player B, won the argument and that the foul was properly called.

I think you understand this rule perfectly now but I must make an addition to one of your statements above...

"Simply put if the cueball jumps over a Red it is always a foul unless when it jumps and hits that Red and does not land on the far side of that Red."

This is true but not complete. Rather than stating "Red", you should state "object ball" because a "jump shot" may be committed whether the ball "jumped" is actually a ball on or if it were a different ball. For instance, say ball on is Red, but White is snookered behind a slight edge of the Yellow. It would be legal to play a swerve shot where White is struck down and to a side in order to make it swerve around Yellow (the Referee must closely watch to see that White actually curves on its way toward Red). But it would be a "jump shot" and therefore a foul to strike White downward but on its central axis to force White to "hop" over the edge of the Yellow (the Referee would observe that the White follows a straight line path to the Red).



Not stated in the definition of "jump shot" is the fact that any jump shot is a foul stroke. That statement is made in Section 3. Rule 10. (a) (ix). It is impossible to play a "legal" jump shot just as it is impossible to pot a ball during the course of a foul stroke. And that is why it is critical to understand exactly what causes a stroke to be considered as a "jump shot" or not. It is not the fact that the cue ball leaves the bed of the table; that happens quite often and it is usually not a jump shot. Indeed it is not even jumping over a ball that defines "jump shot"; if you play a very strong shot at a ball at an angle and it is near a cushion, it may very well happen that White bounces up off the cushion and may well jump over other balls (or the first ball struck) in a similar way to that trick shot I alluded to earlier. But again, this is not a "jump shot" if the initial contact with a ball on was made legally. So it all boils down to the fraction of a second after White leaves the tip of the cue.....what happens with the very first ball toward which the White was played whether it was a ball on or not? Did White make legal contact with that first ball? Did any part of the "hemisphere line" (halfway point) of the cue ball pass over any part of the "hemisphere line" of that first ball (again, whether it was a ball on or not)?

Related to this is that you may notice that sometimes a Referee will call "Foul!" immediately while balls are still in motion, and other times, he/she will wait until the balls have stopped moving (or at least nearly so). And also, the Ref will always wait until all balls have stopped moving before calling out the penalties points to be awarded. Sometimes, if the shot is played strong, there could be quite a long time, several seconds, between "Foul!" and the verbal award of points. There is very good reason for all of this. The Ref is required to call "Foul!" at the instant that a breach of the Rules is noted. So in the case of a "jump shot" for instance, he/she will call "Foul!" almost instantly after White leaves the tip of the cue. It is impossible for a player to play a stroke, then a "jump shot" occurs two seconds later....that would simply defy all laws of physics. On the other hand, sometimes a player may play a thin cut on a Red but miss the Red completely. The Ref will NOT call "Foul!" because the White is still in motion so maybe, just maybe it will hit some other Red and the stroke will turn out to be fair after all. As for not calling the penalty points until all have come to rest, that is simply because other higher value penalties may occur; for instance, playing at Red and a "jump shot" is played will result in immediate "Foul!" but maybe it takes 3 or 4 seconds and the Black suddenly drops in a pocket. So the four point jump shot foul is superceded by the seven point Black foul and so the Ref waits until all action has stopped before calling penalties.

Re: Jump shot

Postby elnino

ACESINC as a matter of fact it occurred in an amateur game.

A qualified referee was in the audience. He settled the argument. Adjudicated that Player B's was correct; and, gave a full practical demonstration of the jump shot rule after the game concluded.

I posted this topic and in absence of response to it sent a reply to provoke a debate.

You rose to the challenge and filled in the blanks.