Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[j6uk]

You say it's not possible to pot the black without side, and it isn't from where you place the cue ball, but place the cue ball half an inch to the left on shot one and half an inch to the right on shot two and it's just about possible to make the black off the far jaw using centre ball striking, and that's indeed where the red goes. Bloody good shot BTW spinning the cue ball against the nap which is the hardest way to play it.
Side enables this half inch to be used as the cue ball deflects to that different line and then curves back in just before contact.

You should ask yourself why the shot cannot be played any harder than you do to make the pot.

The SIT afficianados will swear that the shot has to be struck at the right pace for the correct amount of throw, but a very tiny bit too hard and the pot is missed to the far jaw as in your first attempt at shot one, too hard means not enough throw and too soft means too much throw in their world.

In my world too hard means not enough swerve to make near enough to BOB and too soft means too much swerve to get near enough to BOB.

I note that all videos that pertain to prove this throw theory are not made on dead straight shots with camera right behind the pocket.

the red was so much in front of the black that it would not pot from anywhere that side of the table.

[j6uk]

Now that is totally unfair Jason. When you get back to the club, set up your shot with red/black and move the CB further up the table towards the top cushion about 8". You will see the black is now pottable without any side but since we're talking small tolerances make sure you put the red midway between 1/4 and 1/8th ball like you had it in both your shots.

Is it me or you that doesn't understand these principles? I can pot your black all day long as a cut-back black using no side. That is what your doing when you push off the CB and then straighten it out with the RH side.

why unfair? the only place it went was from the other side of the table. but even if you could pot it very low its not relevant to why i potted that straight black hitting it 3/4 ball

[throtts]

Ref Jason's shot its not often you play and see shots like the example Tel and vmax just stated, the one where the CB is nearer the top cush so you play it so it catches the black first before the red to cut it in the corner pocket.

I am sure because the CB makes contact with the red JUST after the black isn't too much energy taken out of the CB to actually pot the black ( bit like deceleration of ones cue on strike of the CB )..

Thats more damn physics and one for Biggy..

[Terry Davidson]

the red was so much in front of the black that it would not pot from anywhere that side of the table.

If you say so Jason. I asked you another question about a shot I saw Anthony Magill play and a shot I've seen and played myself. Red is frozen on pink at an angle toward the top cushion but the red does pot but from straight on you would need to use some side as with your red/black. Magill passes on the shot from straight on and so does his opponent Hussein Vifhai. When they got down to the last couple of reds, Magill took another look and played his position more towards the centre of the table on a line with the blue area and potted the red with no side at all.

I have seen these shots and if BOB is close to being there from straight in and it can be made with side, it will be there from an angle that removes the obstructing ball to where it's more than a half a ball width from BOB. You might say this is impossible though from your perspective but I have played shots like that and I'm pretty sure you have too.

Am I still off-base?

[j6uk]

You say it's not possible to pot the black without side, and it isn't from where you place the cue ball, but place the cue ball half an inch to the left on shot one and half an inch to the right on shot two and it's just about possible to make the black off the far jaw using centre ball striking, and that's indeed where the red goes. Bloody good shot BTW spinning the cue ball against the nap which is the hardest way to play it.
Side enables this half inch to be used as the cue ball deflects to that different line and then curves back in just before contact.

You should ask yourself why the shot cannot be played any harder than you do to make the pot.

The SIT afficianados will swear that the shot has to be struck at the right pace for the correct amount of throw, but a very tiny bit too hard and the pot is missed to the far jaw as in your first attempt at shot one, too hard means not enough throw and too soft means too much throw in their world.

In my world too hard means not enough swerve to make near enough to BOB and too soft means too much swerve to get near enough to BOB.

I note that all videos that pertain to prove this throw theory are not made on dead straight shots with camera right behind the pocket.

in the vid there was no so called bob cus it was well covered 1/4 ball, and didnt go

[Terry Davidson]

Ref Jason's shot its not often you play and see shots like the example Tel and vmax just stated, the one where the CB is nearer the top cush so you play it so it catches the black first before the red to cut it in the corner pocket.

I am sure because the CB makes contact with the red JUST after the black isn't too much energy taken out of the CB to actually pot the black ( bit like deceleration of ones cue on strike of the CB )..

Thats more damn physics and one for Biggy..

It would be a normal cut-back black which happens all the time. I don't see where this is a case of SIT but it might be impact throw or CIT as they call it.

[travisbickle]

Well I disagree with your interpretation. If you take Jason's video without the red and were attempting to hold the white still after contact to me I would say RH side but you say LH side, but the problem is I can still stop the CB dead with RH but I can't with LH side. So it must be that your stroke is actually a lot better than mine or I'm compensating incorrectly as LH side to me would first push off to the right and attack the black on a thinner cut.

j6 shot is turning the black in. He is not trying to hold the CB.
You really are getting in a muddle over this.
To be fair you have done amazingly well to get a couple of Max's not knowing about how side works.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I did try that shot both with and against the nap and nothing happened to the OB, it went straight both times. I also tried the shot with just the CB and max side at dead weight to the cushion and I couldn't get more than about 3" of swerve without jacking the cue up. I also tried it with drag and side and I got more. I used a spotted CB too. Do you believe spin is transferred to the OB? If you do then you disagree with Biggy.

You MUST be trolling! If not, you're seeing things. Where have i said there is no side transfer in snooker? I told you to stop conflating it with SIT, that's all.

Please try and understand these two different concepts:

1. SIT - a spinning CB momentarily grips the stationary OB, which slightly alters the potting angle. Right spin causes the OB to throw to the left, and vice versa. This is simply friction in action. It is real, it is proven, it is not in doubt.

2. Spin transfer - a spinning CB adds a little counter spin to the OB upon contact. It does not result in any action unless the OB then hits a cushion - no swerving, no spoon bending, nothing. It is useful to know for doubles or safety shots as it widens or narrows angles.

In this thread, we have been discussing SIT only, not spin transfer.

Got that now? Good.

And why on earth are you playing the shot i suggested without an OB?

[Terry Davidson]

j6 shot is turning the black in. He is not trying to hold the CB.
You really are getting in a muddle over this.
To be fair you have done amazingly well to get a couple of Max's not knowing about how side works.

Jason was curving the CB into a potting location is my take and that's because no matter what Jason or you says that shot is pottable as a cut-back black and therefore from certain spot on the table it is pottable despite what Jason says.

[j6uk]

If you say so Jason. I asked you another question about a shot I saw Anthony Magill play and a shot I've seen and played myself. Red is frozen on pink at an angle toward the top cushion but the red does pot but from straight on you would need to use some side as with your red/black. Magill passes on the shot from straight on and so does his opponent Hussein Vifhai. When they got down to the last couple of reds, Magill took another look and played his position more towards the centre of the table on a line with the blue area and potted the red with no side at all.

I have seen these shots and if BOB is close to being there from straight in and it can be made with side, it will be there from an angle that removes the obstructing ball to where it's more than a half a ball width from BOB. You might say this is impossible though from your perspective but I have played shots like that and I'm pretty sure you have too.

Am I still off-base?

i didnt see the match tel

[throtts]

Tel & max are saying the CB bananas up on the last bit of path towards your black to reach the potting point ( BOB ) that was covered up...

[j6uk]

Jason was curving the CB into a potting location is my take and that's because no matter what Jason or you says that shot is pottable as a cut-back black and therefore from certain spot on the table it is pottable despite what Jason says.

ha ha, you couldnt write that even if you believed it

[Terry Davidson]

You MUST be trolling! If not, you're seeing things. Where have i said there is no side transfer in snooker? I told you to stop conflating it with SIT, that's all.

Please try and understand these two different concepts:

1. SIT - a spinning CB momentarily grips the stationary OB, which slightly alters the potting angle. Right spin causes the OB to throw to the left, and vice versa. This is simply friction in action. It is real, it is proven, it is not in doubt.

2. Spin transfer - a spinning CB adds a little counter spin to the OB upon contact. It does not result in any action unless the OB then hits a cushion - no swerving, no spoon bending, nothing. It is useful to know for doubles or safety shots as it widens or narrows angles.

In this thread, we have been discussing SIT only, not spin transfer.

Got that now? Good.

And why on earth are you playing the shot i suggested without an OB?

You said we should not consider spin transfer and now you say it does happen. What I'm saying is it's so little that is doesn't count for anything. You also said with the shot off the pink spot with side you would get 1" per foot of throw on the OB or 9" to the bottom cushion and I couldn't get that at all and against the nap like that I got about 3" with the CB only and it was for comparison purposes. Without swerve or jacking up the cue, just a normal drag shot with spin. Your 9" is way too much but get on a snooker table and try it and see what you get. It will be more against the nap I think.

I got almost zero deviation when using the pink with a CB and to the left might have been a roll on my table because that's how little it was.

[Terry Davidson]

ha ha, you couldnt write that even if you believed it

Well, I'm going to try it after lunch and see what happens. I'm pretty sure it can be potted plain ball as a cut-back. But if I can't then I will get on here and let you know.

[j6uk]

Well, I'm going to try it after lunch and see what happens. I'm pretty sure it can be potted plain ball as a cut-back. But if I can't then I will get on here and let you know.

yeah grab a sarny before you get back onto battle