Indeed, both Chen and Fisher handled that with class.
Foul or not, YMTK.
- Thread starter gxman
- Start date
Indeed, both Chen and Fisher handled that with class.
At 3-cushion billiards there are "tickies" that want very close to that kind of action -- going almost straight down the rail after a full hit on the object ball. Here is an example from Virtual Pool. A little different hit and the cue ball does not get to the left cushion a second time.
![CropperCapture[259].jpg](https://forums.azbilliards.com/data/attachments/378/378566-cf9b92cec3eb6ffca368f6ff8d58cc50.jpg?hash=z5uSzsPrb_ "CropperCapture[259].jpg")
I don't think so.
The cue ball was travelling nearly parallel to the cushion at the end. That means if it did hit the cushion, it was already going nearly parallel to the cushion. (You can't go straight into the cushion and then spin off parallel to the cushion on any normal cushion.) If a ball is going nearly parallel to the cushion when it hits the cushion, it gains very, very little speed from the contact.
It can I, the 3 cushion type hit described above.
Still no found called.
Nice to see a player offer ball in hand and the opponent decline it. Class both ways, 2 make players might have cleared the place out over less!
Jeremy Jones and Mary Kenniston I believe.
Thanks, Bob, great reply! I have read the rules, now I will read the regulations!
JJ's voice I couldn't quite place. Haven't heard him in a while, but I like his commentating and how he describes shots.
Circling back to this after Bob Jewett pointed out to me that there are regulations in addition to rules.
Here are two pertinent excerpts:
My interpretation of this is that since there was not a referee for the match, and a referee was not called to judge the shot by the opponent, the call has to go with the non-shooter's call, because the non-shooter is performing all the duties of the referee.
Of course, if the shooter then asks the area referee to make a decision, in the absence of evidence other than the players' assertions, it will be assumed no foul occurred, also according to section 5.
I'm ambivalent about this. In this context, according to my interpretation of the regulations, I think it might be more appropriate to go with the non-shooter's initial determination.
Maybe the regulations should be updated to account for the ubiquity of smart phones, to say something like "If, prior to a particular shot, either player feels that his opponent will not be able to properly judge the shot, the non-shooting player shall video-record the shot."
I think this is a very good idea....at our room, we use the cell phones to determine hits.
CB is spinning very quickly and moving along close to the rail, tapering toward the rail, then it brushes right between those 2 diamonds and loses a lot of its spin and then rolls to a stop. I thought it looked pretty obvious. That's what K points out, that it brushed against the cushion there between the diamonds.
Last edited:
With youtube you can slow the video way down now pretty easily. I watched it very slowly a few times and I don't see the point at which the cue ball "brushes" the rail, maybe you can get a screenshot and show us? I only ask because you said it looked pretty obvious, and from my perspective, it's pretty obvious the cue ball never touches the rail.
Could you tell us how?
I went to settings and did not see anything for slo-mo.
Thanks.
I watched it at highest resolution available (720) and at 0.25x speed. To me it looked obvious because the cb is about 1/2" from the rail after hitting ob, then drifts closer to the rail between the diamonds (too grainy to verify actual contact), but the the cb moves quickly loses its spin and stops at abour 1/2" from the rail again. Here....
Right after impact....
CB moves toward cushion....
CB moves away from cushion....
Photos of pool balls on the cloth are a bit deceiving anyway, especially in poor quality. I've seen pics where it looks like all the balls are slightly hovering over the cloth, or balls frozen to the rail look like their a 1/4" off the rail. Here I'm just noting the drift of the cb toward the rail and then back away from the rail. Had it not brushed the cushion it looks like the spin would've retained a little longer. I'd say from Kelly's pov it looked like it brushed the rail between the diamonds. Hard one to call in person I bet.
when you have the video opened up, click on the gear shaped icon (the icon that lets you change the resolution quality of the video) in the lower bar of the video screen and there should be an option for speed. click on that and you can choose how slow you want it to play.
Check this out at 2:06:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf9hRHdA0A8&feature=youtu.be
I think this is what happened to the cue ball and it didn't hit the rail. The screen captures also look like it didn't hit a rail.
On a side note, man what a bad roll for John. I feel sick for him. I hope someone breaks the record on good equipment before I die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf9hRHdA0A8&feature=youtu.be
I think this is what happened to the cue ball and it didn't hit the rail. The screen captures also look like it didn't hit a rail.
On a side note, man what a bad roll for John. I feel sick for him. I hope someone breaks the record on good equipment before I die.
What a bad roll for Schmitty....
...but a snooker player understands this reaction spinning against the nap...
..that cue ball had right hand english on it...against the nap gives you a reverse masse...
...could’ve been the way the table was cleaned...brought up some nap.
That was the most extreme example I’ve ever seen....
Kelly hit the cue ball with no english....you can see the shadow of her cue lined up with
the center of the the cue ball....I don’t see how whitey could pick up much ‘rail english’
on that hit,
Mind you, I don’t see how whitey followed through after contacting the object ball either.
....new cloth effect?
Yes, there's a long, long thread on this elsewhere; what does this have to do with this discussion? Maybe you're saying that sometimes the cue ball does counter-intuitive things? But, it seems like it will take the current discussion on a tangent.
Foul. Final answer. What do I win?