Earl v MD, was it a bad hit?

[hang-the-9]

Since this is is still an issue, I remember this hit and I thought it was bad when it was first played. Mike was right when he pointed out that there was no way the balls would have gone to their locations on a good hit, the one went sideways, cue ball hit the 9 then hit the 1 on the side.

But, it was very close and you could not really argue it too much if there was no-one watching the hit.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Bob, I could never reject your scenario. However, taking a probabilistic approach to this and combined with the video, I think we can end up with a similar conclusion.

I hope that you will agree with me that nothing is certain, in anything, and that entropy will always get in the way. Therefore all possibilities are valid, just some more likely than others.

Sure, and in that event I think the rule on calling a foul is relatively clear. From the way I see the video -- which seems to be different from the way others see it -- the motion of the balls is consistent with both possibilities.

Here is the rule (actually a regulation):

26. Split Hits
If the cue ball strikes a legal object ball and a non-legal object ball at approximately the same instant, and it cannot be determined which ball was hit first, it will be assumed that the legal target was struck first.​

I think the video is not as clear as some seem to feel it is.

 

[Quesports]

The tie goes to the runner, and in this scenario I agree with Bob and the split hit rule..

 

[dr_dave]

InsidePool just posted the video and the shot is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4hMLjVVjOU&t=4h40m20s

If you pause it, you can use the j and l keys to go back or advance frame by frame. Pretty clear that the 9 moved first.

Good idea!

The shot seems like an obvious foul by watching it frame by frame (although, as some have pointed out, this isn't totally conclusive evidence).

I think better evidence is the motion of the CB, which can be seen without doing a frame-by-frame instant replay. It clearly leaves along the tangent line of the 1, not the 9. This proves that it hit the 1-ball last. Although, as Bob has pointed out, the CB could have barely grazed the 1-ball first, and the outcome of the shot would have been the same.

I personally would have called this shot a foul (due to the clear tangent-line evidence), but it is theoretically possible (albeit very unlikely) that it was a good hit (in which case, the rules imply that maybe it should not be called a foul).

FYI, the following videos cover these types of situations very well:

NV B.53 - How to determine which ball was hit first by watching the cue ball, with Bob Jewett
NV B.54 - How to determine which ball was hit first by watching the object balls, with Bob Jewett
NV B.63 - Instruction for pool rules quiz - part 5: which ball was hit first

And here's an example that Bob mentioned, demonstrating how the CB could have grazed the 1-ball first with the same shot outcome: excerpt from NV B.54

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[Neil]

Sure, and in that event I think the rule on calling a foul is relatively clear. From the way I see the video -- which seems to be different from the way others see it -- the motion of the balls is consistent with both possibilities.

Here is the rule (actually a regulation):

26. Split Hits
If the cue ball strikes a legal object ball and a non-legal object ball at approximately the same instant, and it cannot be determined which ball was hit first, it will be assumed that the legal target was struck first.​

I think the video is not as clear as some seem to feel it is.

To me, the video is very clear that it was a bad hit. However, I totally agree with the ruling that since no ref was present to call it, the call goes to the shooter. Mike definitely should have called a ref over to watch it before Earl kicked at it. Mike's loss on not doing that.

 

[dr_dave]

To me, the video is very clear that it was a bad hit. However, I totally agree with the ruling that since no ref was present to call it, the call goes to the shooter. Mike definitely should have called a ref over to watch it before Earl kicked at it. Mike's loss on not doing that.

Agreed.

Good thread!

Regards,
Dave

 

[Bob Jewett]

... However, I totally agree with the ruling that since no ref was present to call it, the call goes to the shooter. Mike definitely should have called a ref over to watch it before Earl kicked at it. Mike's loss on not doing that.

Yup. Here is the applicable regulation:

(part of Regulation 5) ... If the area referee is asked to determine whether a foul occurred and there is no evidence of the foul except the claim of one player while the other player claims that there was no foul, then it is assumed that no foul occurred.​

 

[KoolKat9Lives]

InsidePool just posted the video and the shot is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4hMLjVVjOU&t=4h40m20s

If you pause it, you can use the j and l keys to go back or advance frame by frame. Pretty clear that the 9 moved first.

What a cool, easy trick (pausing and going frame by frame, back and forth). It's clear to me also it was a bad hit.

But MD & Earl got one look at it, and IMO, with no ref, it's too close to call. Tie goes to the shooter.

 

[Thepip]

Because Mike did not call a ref to watch the shot in the first place the tie goes to the runner in this case. Its our job when we are playing in a match to shoot and watch and if there was a drought in our mind before the shot that it could be a bad hit then he its our job to call a rules official. In the case of Mike and Earl Mike made the mistake and had the opportunity to call a rules official over but chose not to. Mike although upset at the shot and did disagree played on and still won the match and left Earl at the table.

 

[SnapdaNine]

Upon further review....bad hit. Dam..voted to early.

 

[dr_dave]

Good idea!

The shot seems like an obvious foul by watching it frame by frame (although, as some have pointed out, this isn't totally conclusive evidence).

I think better evidence is the motion of the CB, which can be seen without doing a frame-by-frame instant replay. It clearly leaves along the tangent line of the 1, not the 9. This proves that it hit the 1-ball last. Although, as Bob has pointed out, the CB could have barely grazed the 1-ball first, and the outcome of the shot would have been the same.

I personally would have called this shot a foul (due to the clear tangent-line evidence), but it is theoretically possible (albeit very unlikely) that it was a good hit (in which case, the rules imply that maybe it should not be called a foul).

FYI, the following videos cover these types of situations very well:

NV B.53 - How to determine which ball was hit first by watching the cue ball, with Bob Jewett
NV B.54 - How to determine which ball was hit first by watching the object balls, with Bob Jewett
NV B.63 - Instruction for pool rules quiz - part 5: which ball was hit first

And here's an example that Bob mentioned, demonstrating how the CB could have grazed the 1-ball first with the same shot outcome: excerpt from NV B.54

I'm surprised nobody commented on the "Bob example" video clip (at the 1:52 point in NV B.54). If you haven't seen it yet, please check it out. It took Bob and I a long time to capture this, so I hope people will watch it.

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[Underclocked]

I voted GOOD HIT. The one ball came off the initial contact and went to the 5 ball. I don't see how it could have possibly taken that angle if the 9 had been contacted first.

And I did watch it frame by frame.

Disclaimer: I could be half blind.

 

[Neil]

I'm surprised nobody commented on the "Bob example" video clip (at the 1:52 point in NV B.54). If you haven't seen it yet, please check it out. It took Bob and I a long time to capture this, so I hope people will watch it.

Enjoy,
Dave

Notice that in the "Bob" clip, that the ob instantly started to rotate from the very thin hit. Also notice, that in the clip in question on Earl's shot, the one does not rotate at all.

 

[gregcantrall]

You have swayed this juror.:wink:

Notice that in the "Bob" clip, that the ob instantly started to rotate from the very thin hit. Also notice, that in the clip in question on Earl's shot, the one does not rotate at all.

Ok the Preponderance of the evidence says bad hit.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Notice that in the "Bob" clip, that the ob instantly started to rotate from the very thin hit. Also notice, that in the clip in question on Earl's shot, the one does not rotate at all.

In the high-speed video the frames are fast enough to catch everything. Note on the high-speed video how far apart in time the various contacts are. The YouTube frame rate is no faster than 17ms/frame and may be 33ms/frame. I notice that the frame-by-frame progress of the cue ball on YouTube is a couple or three ball diameters per frame and is uneven.

 

[gregcantrall]

In the high-speed video the frames are fast enough to catch everything. Note on the high-speed video how far apart in time the various contacts are. The YouTube frame rate is no faster than 17ms/frame and may be 33ms/frame. I notice that the frame-by-frame progress of the cue ball on YouTube is a couple or three ball diameters per frame and is uneven.

So in a civil court; Guilty
In a criminal court; Not Guilty
Better than 50% chance it was bad but not beyond a reasonable doubt.:wink:

 

[scsuxci]

Good Hit

Watching this over and over and over,I truly believe this hit was good.
If he hit the 9 first then the 1,the 1ball would of never hit the 5ball where
it did.In fact the 1 should of missed the 5 completely.I'm not a Earl fan
but the hit was good IMO.

 

[dr_dave]

Watching this over and over and over,I truly believe this hit was good.
If he hit the 9 first then the 1,the 1ball would of never hit the 5ball where
it did.In fact the 1 should of missed the 5 completely.I'm not a Earl fan
but the hit was good IMO.

It is theoretically possible that the hit was good, but it is much more likely that is was bad.

Check out the videos and info from my previous post. Here it is again:


The shot seems like an obvious foul by watching it frame by frame (although, as some have pointed out, this isn't totally conclusive evidence).

I think better evidence is the motion of the CB, which can be seen without doing a frame-by-frame instant replay. It clearly leaves along the tangent line of the 1, not the 9. This proves that it hit the 1-ball last. Although, as Bob has pointed out, the CB could have barely grazed the 1-ball first, and the outcome of the shot would have been the same.

I personally would have called this shot a foul (due to the clear tangent-line evidence), but it is theoretically possible (albeit very unlikely) that it was a good hit (in which case, the rules imply that maybe it should not be called a foul).

FYI, the following videos cover these types of situations very well:

NV B.53 - How to determine which ball was hit first by watching the cue ball, with Bob Jewett
NV B.54 - How to determine which ball was hit first by watching the object balls, with Bob Jewett
NV B.63 - Instruction for pool rules quiz - part 5: which ball was hit first

And here's an example that Bob mentioned, demonstrating how the CB could have grazed the 1-ball first with the same shot outcome: excerpt from NV B.54

Enjoy,
Dave