Allowing for side

[Cue crafty]

No snooker is not in the dark ages. Mr. Big, you are arguing semantics and language differences without realizing it. Cue sport world as you call it speaks many many languages and dialects. It isn't only English. Millions of people play this game. No cue sport forum nor any internet news group has any authority over correct cue sports terminology. Whenever two players discuss colliding balls, anywhere in the world, using any spoken language, all you will ever hear is gibberish. Of that I'm certain 100%.

Great post! As you say, many different dialects luckily from different countries. This is a good thing!

[sealer]

My pleasure.

Dirty balls do throw more than clean balls, actually. Friction, innit?

It's all physics. It's not 'pool'. A spinning cue ball does not care whether it hits a stationary snooker ball, pool ball, billiards ball, golf ball or ping pong ball. It has an effect on all of them.

The laws of physics do not break down on a snooker table, no matter what simpletons like vmax say.

Chapter and verse:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html

And to the idiots who think any of this is wrong, the good doctor is always grateful to be proven wrong, like all good scientists. So hurry up and make a name for yourselves, 30 break heroes!

Thank you I will have a look.

Just as a disclaimer: there is probably a bit of an 'effect' due to friction etc but as others have already pointed out it would be negligible. I just cannot see the spinning snooker cue ball kicking the red at a different direction then the one opposite the contact point(as I mentioned: in any noticeable degree). I have couple of experiments in mind so when I do get a bit of time I shall try it out.

FYI: You do come across as a really lovely person.

[golferson123]

Very true.

What you are describing is a technique called Back Hand English. I can't be bothered to go into the technical aspects but it is where the player uses the cue's natural pivot point and plays side without adjusting their bridge hand ie cueing across the CB. This cancels the deflection. Many snooker players do this, unusually subconsciously. Very noticeable with trump.

Exactly as I stated many posts ago

[itsnoteasy]

This video is worth a look, it shows how much the friction between two balls affects the true plant position. I don't know how much a side spinning cue ball will change that, probably next to nowt. I don't know why it's made such a fuss about, it's something that's learned in seconds or minutes, it's no great hardship for your brain to work out and if it is you will struggle to play this game unfortunately.
https://youtu.be/CGsXQ1MvO9Q
P.s some of it is clearly nap drift but it does show a thicker appearing contact.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

This video is worth a look, it shows how much the friction between two balls affects the true plant position. I don't know how much a side spinning cue ball will change that, probably next to nowt. I don't know why it's made such a fuss about, it's something that's learned in seconds or minutes, it's no great hardship for your brain to work out and if it is you will struggle to play this game unfortunately.
https://youtu.be/CGsXQ1MvO9Q
P.s some of it is clearly nap drift but it does show a thicker appearing contact.

That is CIT (contact induced throw). That happens on every shot. In short, the potting angle we think is correct is NOT correct. It is in theory, but the friction effect of two balls colliding means the OB deviates a little from the line of aim. This is a mechanical process, one the brain quickly adjusts to.

What we have been discussing is SIT, the far more exciting spin induced throw. This can throw the OB well off line, and can be a very useful tool, especially if you have a ball blocking the potting angle. It can also be tremendously good fun once you know what you are doing, and can juice the cue ball enough to really enjoy it.

And a spinning cue ball will change the angle of a plant significantly. The squeeze shot is simply throw - the effect friction has on the two balls upon impact.

Easy demonstrations of throw: put the pink on its spot. Now place the CB between the black spot and pink spot, in a straight line, as if playing the pink into the blue/brown. Hit the pink in the middle and spin the crap out of the CB. Make a note of where the pink ends up after each shot, and play them at different speeds and with top, bottom and stun. The trick is to really juice the cue ball. The spining CB causes friction with the stationary OB, causing throw. Left spin throws the cb right and vice versa. Maximum throw is achieved with a sliding CB iirc, so a stun shot.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Exactly as I stated many posts ago

So you did golfy lad, i missed it. But the question was about the effect side has on the ob, not how to negate the effects of deflection.

When's yer mate coming back anyway? Getting tired of insulting these idiots alone lol.

[itsnoteasy]

I think it may be a bigger thing on nap less cloths Biggie, also it's not very often that massive amounts of side are played in snooker, it's very very rarely needed, so again it might not be as much a thing.
Here's a video of a spinning cue ball but no transfer of spin onto the object ball.( I take it there must be a transfer of spin to knock the object ball offline ,if you hit it bang on dead centre)
https://youtu.be/7OaBq829ldQ
Saying all that the old billiard players swear by it, and there's not much they don't know about spin and how balls react.

[Ramon]

Very true.

What you are describing is a technique called Back Hand English. I can't be bothered to go into the technical aspects but it is where the player uses the cue's natural pivot point and plays side without adjusting their bridge hand ie cueing across the CB. This cancels the deflection. Many snooker players do this, unusually subconsciously. Very noticeable with trump.

well, the problem is that for many players is confusing when it comes to useing side and deflection.
useing side and deflection are not the same thing..!! even though you may sometimes get the same result by useing side as well as deflection .

It's ironic, cuz as i pointed out in my previous post. There are some players who can use the deflection to pott the ball and get used to it.


At the end, it's the result which is important. If someone can pott the ball on his own way , then he should stick with it , imo. :snooker:

[vmax4steve]

It is purely an act of physics, what MUST happen when spinning objects collide. Makes no difference whether it's the planets in the universe or balls on a billiards table; there is a predictable and measurable response to the contact.

That many are too stupid to understand this is regrettable, but cue sports players in this country ain't smart IME, so no surprise there.

Not smart but the best so we must know something.

Very true.

What you are describing is a technique called Back Hand English. I can't be bothered to go into the technical aspects but it is where the player uses the cue's natural pivot point and plays side without adjusting their bridge hand ie cueing across the CB. This cancels the deflection. Many snooker players do this, unusually subconsciously. Very noticeable with trump.

Deflection isn't cancelled at all, as the cue isn't parallel to the line of aim the shot is played from a slightly different line and therefore the cue ball deflects onto the correct line.
And Trump doesn't do this at all, his body movement on the delivery stroke takes the cue onto the correct line of aim, he offsets for this reason alone.

And a spinning cue ball will change the angle of a plant significantly. The squeeze shot is simply throw - the effect friction has on the two balls upon impact.

The squeeze effect is the pushing action of balls that are touching and moving together before they break apart thus the angle can change. A spinning cue ball isn't needed to achieve this at all.

Take a look again at the video that itsnoteasy posted, no transfer of side to the object ball on a ball that is free and not touching others or a cushion. Dr. Dave uses the squeeze effect to prove his transfer of side theories, it's he who doesn't understand and thinks it spin that's causing all these effects. It's not, it's squeeze and the arcing of the cue ball along the cloth. He can only demonstrate transfer of side on a ball that comes of a cushion, far more contact friction between cloth and ball than two balls contacting. A ball coming off a cushion at an angle will collect a little spin, it only comes off at the angle it contacts at dead full on with no spin on it, otherwise it collects a little side as it digs into the cloth covered rubber.
I've done this with a striped pool ball, hit it into the cushion at an angle with centre striking and the stripe stays vertical, but after contact with the cushion the stripe goes sideways.

[acesinc]

When's yer mate coming back anyway? Getting tired of insulting these idiots alone lol.

The laws of physics do not break down on a snooker table, no matter what simpletons like vmax say.

Chapter and verse:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html

And to the idiots who think any of this is wrong, the good doctor is always grateful to be proven wrong, like all good scientists. So hurry up and make a name for yourselves, 30 break heroes!

The pearl of wisdom that you can only occasionally proffer is certainly not worth drowning in the deep, dark ocean of noise you cause to retrieve it. Dr. Dave is a nice and humble guy and surely would not be proud to be represented by the likes of you. To the others reading this, please do not discount the message for the antagonistic nature of the messenger. There are a few opinions he has that I share though I never present in such diatribe.

Should have been banned long ago; someone is asleep at the wheel.

[bolty]

Should have been banned long ago; someone is asleep at the wheel.

I do find it amazing that he's still here when all he seems to do is troll, argue and generally spout drivel for hours and hours everyday. Occasionally he does offer a decent insight, but this is not very often.

Is there no American pool forums you can join rather than wasting our time here? Surely you'd prefer it there, where they use your American terminology and would agree with you that what pool is superior to snooker?

[Neil Taperell]

Mr Big Shot ..........a little warning for you .

Play nicely or i will take your ball away .

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Mr Big Shot ..........a little warning for you .

Play nicely or i will take your ball away .

Can i call vmax clueless one more time?

Ta.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I do find it amazing that he's still here when all he seems to do is troll, argue and generally spout drivel for hours and hours everyday. Occasionally he does offer a decent insight, but this is not very often.

Is there no American pool forums you can join rather than wasting our time here? Surely you'd prefer it there, where they use your American terminology and would agree with you that what pool is superior to snooker?

Right.

Firstly, i rarely visit this forum, it's terrible. Where do you get your hours and hours a day from? Secondly, what drivel? Prove what i say is incorrect. Hurry up. Thirdly, when have i ever said pool is superior to snooker? You clearly haven't been paying attention if you think I've said one game is better than the other. I've been at pains to point out they are different games.

Apart from that, great post from a valuable member.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

The pearl of wisdom that you can only occasionally proffer is certainly not worth drowning in the deep, dark ocean of noise you cause to retrieve it. Dr. Dave is a nice and humble guy and surely would not be proud to be represented by the likes of you. To the others reading this, please do not discount the message for the antagonistic nature of the messenger. There are a few opinions he has that I share though I never present in such diatribe.

Should have been banned long ago; someone is asleep at the wheel.

Someone with 22 contributions to this site in nearly 5 years - wow, thanks for your commitment to the cause.