14.1 Stats -- John Schmidt's Run of 434 on Video, December 2018
- Thread starter AtLarge
- Start date
Interesting point. I wonder when the ‘cueball fouls only when not televised’ rule became generally accepted? I must admit, my bridging has thus become so sloppy/careless over the years, I doubt I could get through a refereed match anymore without touch-fouling an object ball. If I were to call that kind of foul on myself in the rural area where I play (and the locals won’t even play BIH 8 & 9 ball pro rules), they would think I was crazy.
When this came up years ago I tried to think through the hows and whys if it were true that the dots are a problem.
I'm not a chemist or can formulate plastics (several years of chemistry via family and school) but my crude speculation is anytime you change something, the hardness or abrasion resistance will change. The color additive could possibly make a difference.
Personal experience??? Well used balls don't roll well and the dots show up as culprits.
I saw the ball movement at 21:28 as well the other day while watching the run. I noticed how very, very close he comes to numerous ball touching fouls in the 20 min leading up to that one as well. Perhaps John’s “loose” style for the first 100 balls or so is a bit too loose for these kinds of attempts. I’m curious why he wouldn’t restart any and every run for ANY foul - unless - it’s not that big of a deal to him whether he makes a sloppy run of 527 or more. Or he honestly didn’t see or feel it. Which is quite possible. Maybe he’s just free-wheeling it and living fast and dangerously on the baize.
~ K.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Of course he knew.
Players of any experience know when they've touched a ball or pushed a shot. It was a foul and the run was over. It was *really* over when he picked up the CB.
Lou Figueroa
It matters for the next attempt.
If he or anyone else goes at it I believe they will be aware, now, that people are willing to question the validity of the run if there are fouls or if they pick up a ball or two, or if there is no neutral racker, or if the balls get polished mid-run. And I have said before: its not going to be the players or their boy fans who decide -- it'll be the aficionados of the sport who decide.
Lou Figueroa
We'll never know if Mosconi's 526 run had any uncalled fouls, either. Considering he was doing exhibitions I doubt he would have stopped in the middle of one for that sort of gentle foul. The same uncertainty applies to any other untaped run by anyone.
just because yours is the last post
Just replying to your post since it is the last post talking about possible issues with the color differences also being different in other ways. No intention of targeting you personally.
I am sure that they aren't identical however they do seem close enough to be undetectable. I may have accidentally skipped over some posts but I haven't seen any mention of fourteen other balls with three colors on the table and one with two colors besides the cue ball. If you machine one of these balls you discover that the numbers and other markings are different plastics, the markings go through the ball. If there are issues with the cue ball, what are the odds of all of these other more complicated pours being perfect?
Assuming a quality red dot cue ball I think the odds of taller or flatter material in the dots is very unlikely. My $30 measle ball seems to have a thick clear outer coat so that neither the red or white plastic touches the table. However, I have seen clones as cheap as two bucks and six dollars was pretty common last I knew. If a clone was being used I have to admit that all bets are off in my mind. chinese and third world companies make things as cheaply as possible. Of course their buyers, the resellers, often want the cheapest possible product. Hard to get quality when the original cost of the ball might have been fifty cents or so.
Hu
Just replying to your post since it is the last post talking about possible issues with the color differences also being different in other ways. No intention of targeting you personally.
I am sure that they aren't identical however they do seem close enough to be undetectable. I may have accidentally skipped over some posts but I haven't seen any mention of fourteen other balls with three colors on the table and one with two colors besides the cue ball. If you machine one of these balls you discover that the numbers and other markings are different plastics, the markings go through the ball. If there are issues with the cue ball, what are the odds of all of these other more complicated pours being perfect?
Assuming a quality red dot cue ball I think the odds of taller or flatter material in the dots is very unlikely. My $30 measle ball seems to have a thick clear outer coat so that neither the red or white plastic touches the table. However, I have seen clones as cheap as two bucks and six dollars was pretty common last I knew. If a clone was being used I have to admit that all bets are off in my mind. chinese and third world companies make things as cheaply as possible. Of course their buyers, the resellers, often want the cheapest possible product. Hard to get quality when the original cost of the ball might have been fifty cents or so.
Hu
For the 526 there was a ref and a racker so it's highly unlikely he committed any fouls.
Also keep in mind that Mosconi was accustomed to playing in world championships with refs and all fouls being called.
Lou Figueroa
His arena in his prime, as well as Earl in his prime, as well as Efren were quite different. Efren soon learned what was out there, but was a Picasso at the core, life led em. Earl saw what was there and had been there in the game, but Mosconi like Efie bled out of the game and those moment in sports, where they ''stood alone'' because of their ''game''. Pele' comes to mind, as does Hoppe'.
I have the same problem, in fact...I struck the side of an ob with my shaft after shooting an messed up the whole stack early in a 1p game.
Like I was raised in a pool-barn
I would venture to say that he LIKELY knew, but not that he definitely knew. In addition to the fact that the movement was so slight as to seemingly not cause the 7 ball to change position, there is the fact that John was wearing a glove, which means less sense of feel. Also, as he always does, he was moving reasonably quickly. So,while he probably knew, I don’t believe it is fair to say that it’s a certainty.
That is the finest example of rationalization I have read here since I joined this forum. Thank you! You should be a defense attorney.
It doesn't matter if he knew or didn't know. The 434 is no longer valid.
Since you don't start a 14.1 run in the middle of the rack, you could start counting at the beginning of the next rack.
So basically, the entire rack (in which he fouled) doesn't count. At the finish of the rack, he was at 112. Just take that 112 away from the 434, and the corrected run total should be 322.
In relation to decreased sensitivity because he was wearing a glove - his glove only covers the thumb, index and middle finger. We’ll never know, but I have to agree with Lou - normally any player of that caliber would realize when touching a ball - even as slight as that.
Really?
Players know, especially experienced player, when they've touched a ball with their hand (glove or no) or stick.
PLUS, there's the video. I find it hard to believe the video would be released without the player himself and/or a few others, reviewing the footage. That they did so, and still claimed the run, was wrong IMO.
Lou Figueroa
If you are a high level experienced 14.1 pool player, anytime you accidentally touch a ball at all with your glove/hands/fingers/cue shaft/tip, you know it, even when others may not have seen it - just as in the case of a double hit.
Last edited:
I suspect john is in the habit of ignoring minor fouls in practice
Lou,
I suspect that john is in the habit of ignoring minor fouls in practice and since by far the most of his 14.1 play is practice he ignored the foul, it might indeed not have registered at a conscious level.
Another long thread running right now is about calling your own fouls or not. How many people call it on themselves if they get a little too close on the final pause at the cue ball and touch it without moving it? Every time I have came off of a shot for that happening in friendly play or tournament play the other player has been much surprised.
I have the distinct impression that while they might call a more grievous foul on themselves, it never occurs to them to call just touching the cue ball although we all know that according to the rules touching the cue ball carries the same penalty as bumping other balls.
Did john ignore the touch deliberately or was it just business as usual?
Hu
Lou,
I suspect that john is in the habit of ignoring minor fouls in practice and since by far the most of his 14.1 play is practice he ignored the foul, it might indeed not have registered at a conscious level.
Another long thread running right now is about calling your own fouls or not. How many people call it on themselves if they get a little too close on the final pause at the cue ball and touch it without moving it? Every time I have came off of a shot for that happening in friendly play or tournament play the other player has been much surprised.
I have the distinct impression that while they might call a more grievous foul on themselves, it never occurs to them to call just touching the cue ball although we all know that according to the rules touching the cue ball carries the same penalty as bumping other balls.
Did john ignore the touch deliberately or was it just business as usual?
Hu