Jump Shot

[TheRowdyOne]

It haven't jumped at all!
I mean it didnt get over any sides od the pink!

I originally thought this as well, but if you run through the clip on youtube and pause it around 2:08 there is one point where the white is noticeable off the table. Repeatedly click on the play/pause button from 2:05 and you'll see it.

missneworleans is right in saying it didnt 'Jump' i think your misunderstanding the idea that the ball leaving the table isnt the same as the ball jumping something. I have no real recolection of my highschool physics but from my understanding the white ball would have had to realisticaly jumped atleast 1/3 the hight of the pink, maby even 1/2 the hight, depending on the distance between the two balls whilst the balls are next to eachother.

[vmax4steve]

I've seen this shot before; I think it is being harsh on the referee to criticise him when we've got the benefit of slow-motion replays and whatnot and all he has is the moment when it happens.

Besides, if the referee has the slightest doubt that the foul occurs, he should give the striker the benefit of the doubt.

It is so marginal that I think any referee can be forgiven for having such a doubt.

I disagree with you Statman, if the referee knows the game and looks at the positions the balls are in before the shot is played, he would know that it is impossible to play a swerve shot shot around the blue without jumping the pink, unless of course the white first swerves one way around the pink and then changes direction to swerve the other way around the blue, which anyone who plays the game and knows the game, knows is impossible.
You can bet that the referee looked at the position of the balls in order that he could replace them if neccessary, yet failed to recognise that the shot played was indeed a foul basically because he doesn't know the game.
In this weeks Masters, Jan Verhaas gave a push shot decision against Ronnie when Ronnie played across the edge of a red near the cushion and reversed his decision when Ronnie queried it. Another case of knowing the rules but not knowing the game.
I expect this sort of thing to happen in my local league but not at a professional level.

[vmax4steve]

What the referee says goes anyways... don't it?
Bit similiar to referees on a football pitch?

Of course you are right, football referees know the rules but don't know the game and therefore as a consequence of this basic lack of knowledge get all sorts of decisions wrong.

[dantuck_7]

missneworleans is right in saying it didnt 'Jump' i think your misunderstanding the idea that the ball leaving the table isnt the same as the ball jumping something. I have no real recolection of my highschool physics but from my understanding the white ball would have had to realisticaly jumped atleast 1/3 the hight of the pink, maby even 1/2 the hight, depending on the distance between the two balls whilst the balls are next to eachother.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's a foul if the cue ball is made to jump over any part of an object ball. It's possible to jump the white 1mm off the table and to brush over an object ball by 1mm. Would that be called a foul?

As for criticising Jan Verhass, we have the benefit of youtube and studying the clip... and yet we're not totally convinced. I don't agree that the shot is impossible from that position, the main camera angle isn't as good a guide as being there in the flesh. Robertson hits the red half ball, it could have been a finer clip on it.

[snookerfan91]

Of course you are right, football referees know the rules but don't know the game and therefore as a consequence of this basic lack of knowledge get all sorts of decisions wrong.

What there says goes unfortunately but that is just the way it is I guess.

[RGCirencester]

In this weeks Masters, Jan Verhaas gave a push shot decision against Ronnie when Ronnie played across the edge of a red near the cushion and reversed his decision when Ronnie queried it. Another case of knowing the rules but not knowing the game.
I expect this sort of thing to happen in my local league but not at a professional level.

Sorry bu I don't quite understand how this example is a case of the ref knowing the rules and not the game?

[vmax4steve]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's a foul if the cue ball is made to jump over any part of an object ball. It's possible to jump the white 1mm off the table and to brush over an object ball by 1mm. Would that be called a foul?

As for criticising Jan Verhass, we have the benefit of youtube and studying the clip... and yet we're not totally convinced. I don't agree that the shot is impossible from that position, the main camera angle isn't as good a guide as being there in the flesh. Robertson hits the red half ball, it could have been a finer clip on it.

The rule states any part of any ball, so even 1mm is a foul, tough to call I know, but in a scenario where a player is only snookered by that 1mm and is too close to play around the snookering ball with a bit of side, could quite easily raise the butt of his cue as if to play a swerve but push the white into the bed of the table with no great degree of pace in order to jump that 1mm. A referee that doesn't know the game enough to know that a swerve shot from that position is impossible wouldn't know it was a foul.
In fact I have seen this done with players playing stun shots where the white leaves the table by just enough to jump an intervening ball, the trick shot I mentioned earlier is an example of this.

As for the swerve shot itself, those of us who can play them know that you first have to aim the white past the intervening ball and allow the bottom and side spin to take the white back on and even beyond the line. Even when playing side you have to allow for the white to go off the line of the shot and have to compensate for that. In the attachment you posted you can see quite clearly that the line the white has to take between the pink and the blue is absolutely dead straight and yet the white misses the blue by a couple of inches.
A referee who knew the game would know that this was not possible and would therefore have called a foul. I saw it myself quite clearly when I was watching the match live on tv when it happened, and I called foul immediately and was very surprised that the referee didn't.

Rg
As a player who has played for over twenty five years and been in all sorts of snookers and who has played practically every foul in the book and has made many large breaks playing every shot in the book neccessary to make them, I would put myself and others of the same experience in a better position to judge a foul rather than someone who doesn't play the game to any great standard but knows all the rules. I have had experience of such referees who are basically crap at the game, put themselves through a referees course and then have the nerve to tell me, while standing over me in their blazer and official white gloves, that I just played a push shot, when I know for absolute certainty that I didn't.

[Odrl]

There is one thing I don't quite understand about the jump shot rule. It says "when the cue-ball passes over any part of the object ball"...

Does that mean when any part of the cue-ball passes over any part of an object ball, or only when the extreme bottom edge of the cue-ball passes over any part of the object ball?

Surely in this case it would be the former, and there would be a lot of cases where that technically happens, but the jump shot is never called. Or am I missing something?

[The Statman]

The rule states any part of any ball, so even 1mm is a foul, tough to call I know, but in a scenario where a player is only snookered by that 1mm and is too close to play around the snookering ball with a bit of side, could quite easily raise the butt of his cue as if to play a swerve but push the white into the bed of the table with no great degree of pace in order to jump that 1mm. A referee that doesn't know the game enough to know that a swerve shot from that position is impossible wouldn't know it was a foul.
In fact I have seen this done with players playing stun shots where the white leaves the table by just enough to jump an intervening ball, the trick shot I mentioned earlier is an example of this.

As for the swerve shot itself, those of us who can play them know that you first have to aim the white past the intervening ball and allow the bottom and side spin to take the white back on and even beyond the line. Even when playing side you have to allow for the white to go off the line of the shot and have to compensate for that. In the attachment you posted you can see quite clearly that the line the white has to take between the pink and the blue is absolutely dead straight and yet the white misses the blue by a couple of inches.
A referee who knew the game would know that this was not possible and would therefore have called a foul. I saw it myself quite clearly when I was watching the match live on tv when it happened, and I called foul immediately and was very surprised that the referee didn't.

Rg
As a player who has played for over twenty five years and been in all sorts of snookers and who has played practically every foul in the book and has made many large breaks playing every shot in the book neccessary to make them, I would put myself and others of the same experience in a better position to judge a foul rather than someone who doesn't play the game to any great standard but knows all the rules. I have had experience of such referees who are basically crap at the game, put themselves through a referees course and then have the nerve to tell me, while standing over me in their blazer and official white gloves, that I just played a push shot, when I know for absolute certainty that I didn't.

But surely, to judge whether the cue-ball has jumped over part of an object ball, why does the referee need to 'know the game', as you put it? Surely he only needs to observe whether the cue-ball has taken a path which would be impossible on the surface had the object ball mot been there?

Essentially all you are doing is saying that the referee concerned is incapable of observing the route of the cue-ball and noting whether it is a path that, on the flat, should have been obstructed by the pink.

That is a brave accusation and, in a borderline case, if the referee is uncertain he should give the striker the benefit of the doubt.

[RGCirencester]

Rg
As a player who has played for over twenty five years and been in all sorts of snookers and who has played practically every foul in the book and has made many large breaks playing every shot in the book neccessary to make them, I would put myself and others of the same experience in a better position to judge a foul rather than someone who doesn't play the game to any great standard but knows all the rules. I have had experience of such referees who are basically crap at the game, put themselves through a referees course and then have the nerve to tell me, while standing over me in their blazer and official white gloves, that I just played a push shot, when I know for absolute certainty that I didn't.

I agree you probably play to a much higher standard than me, and have probably watched the game for more years. Though why that means I, or indeed any referee does not have the ability to judge in this situation I don't know. The camera angle is not definitively conclusive, not just to me but also to the Statman who has posted above it seems. As we cannot observe the exact line of the shot, and the call would be very marginal anyway, it seems like benefit of the doubt could be given to the player.

Also my previous post was actually asking you to explain what you meant in the case of the push shot (or not) by Ronnie, which surely puts you in the "more experienced" category that you have suggested!!!!! And I still do not understand what you meant by that as you have not elaborated.

EDIT: OK having read back through this thread now I think I might have got the wrong end of the stick and you were meaning referrees etc in general not knowing the game. But could you clarify in the specific instance of Ronnie's push shot (or not) how it would be interpreted wrong? Because to me the rules allow for a thin cut not to be a push shot and at the time I thought that cut was thin enough not to be deemed foul.

[DawRef]

"when the cue-ball passes over any part of the object ball"...

The late John Street quotes,
"There is a popular theory that if the cue-ball does not jump over the middle of a ball it is not a jump shot. This is totally incorrect! Let us examine the wording so far and get the precise meaning of the phrase, 'passes over any part of an object ball'. If the cue ball leaves the bed of the table and its extreme right hand edge (even a millimetre) were to pass over the extreme left hand edge (again 1mm) of an object ball, it is a jump shot. Perhaps another way to explain it is if the cue-ball had stayed on the bed of the table, a jump shot has occurred. Whether the cue-ball touches the object ball on the way over or cleanly, is immaterial. If it passes over part of a ball, it is a jump shot.

As a player who has played for over twenty five years and been in all sorts of snookers and who has played practically every foul in the book and has made many large breaks playing every shot in the book neccessary to make them, I would put myself and others of the same experience in a better position to judge a foul rather than someone who doesn't play the game to any great standard but knows all the rules. I have had experience of such referees who are basically crap at the game, put themselves through a referees course and then have the nerve to tell me, while standing over me in their blazer and official white gloves, that I just played a push shot, when I know for absolute certainty that I didn't.

I disagree. To get to the standard of Class 1/Examiner takes a lot of time and hard work. It is not just a case of reading the rule book and becoming a referee. How long did it take you to master a deep screw shot? I doubt you could do it after your very first visit to a snooker table. What would you have thought if someone had said, "He's only been playing a week and thinks he's the worlds best."

[Rane]

But surely, to judge whether the cue-ball has jumped over part of an object ball, why does the referee need to 'know the game', as you put it? Surely he only needs to observe whether the cue-ball has taken a path which would be impossible on the surface had the object ball mot been there?

Essentially all you are doing is saying that the referee concerned is incapable of observing the route of the cue-ball and noting whether it is a path that, on the flat, should have been obstructed by the pink.

That is a brave accusation and, in a borderline case, if the referee is uncertain he should give the striker the benefit of the doubt.

I agree with the Statman. It jumps, but can we from the cameraangles be 100% certain, that it´s actually in the air, when it passes the pink. I´m often cheated by the camera angles when I´m watching snooker. I can see that Ronnie O´Sullivan taps the table, I don´t think he would do that if he felt he had been cheated by an opponent playing a foul stroke.

[dantuck_7]

Maybe Ronnie doesn't know the rule exactly for the jump shot?

[The Statman]

I agree with the Statman. It jumps, but can we from the cameraangles be 100% certain, that it´s actually in the air, when it passes the pink. I´m often cheated by the camera angles when I´m watching snooker. I can see that Ronnie O´Sullivan taps the table, I don´t think he would do that if he felt he had been cheated by an opponent playing a foul stroke.

Indeed; and, even if it is in the air when it passes the pink, that doesn't mean that it has gone over the pink.

I would sooner trust the referee's judgement than any of ours, purely because he was there able to judge the position with the naked eye, whereas we are looking at it through a camera lens from 15 feet away.

[vmax4steve]

The camera angle doesn't make it difficult to judge as we are seeing the shot from directly in front, so we can see the trajectory the white takes. Where was the referee standing ? probably behind the player or to one side where he in fact cannot see the shot as well as we, the viewers, can. In my opinion, not only does the ref not know the game, but he is standing in the wrong place to make a correct judgemnet based on watching the trajectory of the white. He should have been watching from where the camera was to have seen it, and if the player concerned didn't want the ref to be in front of him when playing the shot, then that is just tough, the ref has to be in the best place to make a judgement, not only to see the trajectory that the white takes, but also to ascertain what spin the player is putting on the white. Also, if the referee knows the game, and what shots are possible and what shots are not, then he has a better understanding of what a foul is rather than calling one and then retracting it when queried by the player concerned.
I do this when refereeing in our local league, my positioning is based on my own judgement on referees positioning when I in fact am playing, ie I stand in the best place to make a judgement, and if that is in a players eye line then I make sure that I keep perfectly still. I certainly only notice referees that move when I am taking a shot or are inordinately slow when re-spotting colours.