Definition of a "jumped" ball?

[poolqjunkie]

I would like to know the ruling on what is considered an illegal "jumped" ball?
I know the cue ball will leave the bed of the table when it is strike down, so on a masse shot it will jump a bit. Now, how do you define which is legal and which is not?
Sometimes, the cue ball jump quite high, but does not jump over the ball, sometimes, it jumps a bit over the edge of a ball, and it is hard to call.
I think the rule is if it jumps over a ball then it is a foul, but it is so hard to tell sometimes. Yesterday, I played this guy and he actually jumps the ball over half a ball but when I told him so he was very defensive and said he did not committe any foul.

[bongo]

Hi poolqjunkie,

Is this what you are looking for?, it is the rule in the official rules on Jump Shot.

Section 2 Rule 19

19. 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.

Source-Global Snooker Centre

[poolqjunkie]

So, does it matter if it is intentional or not?
According to the rule quoted, if I masse, the cue ball jumps a bit off the table, then curves around the obstacle, and hits my object ball, is that a foul? Is it considered landing on the other side of the ball?
For a masse shot, when you hit it down on the table, the cue ball will jump up, may be not much, but it will. So, how do you define when is it acceptable and when is it not?

[bongo]

I'd say if it actually jumps over the object ball. If the small jump actually jumps over ob. ball, then a foul, i'd say.

[The Statman]

Yes, if the cue-ball jumps over any part of an object ball, it is a foul; if it jumps but not over a ball, then that's fine.

Essentially, it basically means that if the jump has caused the white to miss a ball that it would have struck if it had stayed on the table, then it is a foul. Even if it touches it on the way over.

When hitting a ball mid-jump, if the white lands on the far side of the ball it jumps over, it is considered a Jump Shot and therefore foul. It the white and object ball are travelling in different directions, you'd have to judge, at the moment the cue-ball lands, whether it has travelled further than the other ball.

Once the cue-ball has hit the (correct) object ball, then anything can jump over anything and that is not foul. (For example, cue-ball hits red, legally, and then jumps over the green; that is not a foul. You sometimes see this in a Peter Ebdon style shot into the pack with great topspin; cue-ball hits black; then careers into the pack and jumps over half of the reds – once the white has legally struck the intended ball [black] then any further 'jump' shot is disregarded.)

[poolqjunkie]

Yes, if the cue-ball jumps over any part of an object ball, it is a foul; if it jumps but not over a ball, then that's fine.

Essentially, it basically means that if the jump has caused the white to miss a ball that it would have struck if it had stayed on the table, then it is a foul. Even if it touches it on the way over.

When hitting a ball mid-jump, if the white lands on the far side of the ball it jumps over, it is considered a Jump Shot and therefore foul. It the white and object ball are travelling in different directions, you'd have to judge, at the moment the cue-ball lands, whether it has travelled further than the other ball.

Once the cue-ball has hit the (correct) object ball, then anything can jump over anything and that is not foul. (For example, cue-ball hits red, legally, and then jumps over the green; that is not a foul. You sometimes see this in a Peter Ebdon style shot into the pack with great topspin; cue-ball hits black; then careers into the pack and jumps over half of the reds – once the white has legally struck the intended ball [black] then any further 'jump' shot is disregarded.)

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.
Thank you also for your help Bongo.

[bongo]

Thank you also for your help Bongo.

No Problem! :snooker:

[ram p]

Isn't this a foul then?
Cause the CB jumped over the first red
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DgBfkj...eature=related

[alexholowczak]

Nowadays, it would be, but maybe the current version of the rule differs from the one when that shot was played.

[TheStranger]

Nowadays, it would be, but maybe the current version of the rule differs from the one when that shot was played.

Actually, if you look closely at that shot, it's still entirely legal:

the first jump was over nothing essentially, so that can't be called

The ball actually never jumps over the nearer red, so that's not illegal

And it finally lands on the near side of the red that is potted (completely legal in the rules)

Werbeniuk got lucky that the white jumped a few inches to the left of the first red.

[alexholowczak]

I agree, if it didn't jump the red, then it's fine. I assumed he jumped a red on the second bounce, making it illegal. But if it passed to the side of it, then it's entirely legal.

[dantuck_7]

If you pause that clip as the shot is taken - you would think that the potting angle of the 2nd red isn't available. So a foul then?

[The Statman]

If you pause that clip as the shot is taken - you would think that the potting angle of the 2nd red isn't available. So a foul then?

Yes I would agree, Dan.

It does appear that the white MUST have jumped over a ball to get to that potting angle, so it must be a foul.

However, I'm not sure when the jump shot rule, or at least today's version, came in. I suspect it was already in place when that shot was taken; you'd have to ask John Street as he'll probably know.

Maybe the referee was uncertain and in that case it would be correct to give the striker the benefit of the doubt.