Yes I know there is another thread. What does this have to do with this discussion? Read my reply, the cue ball is spinning, almost on its axis, and this causes it to spin away from the rail—not contact with the rail.
Foul or not, YMTK.
- Thread starter gxman
- Start date
Yes I know there is another thread. What does this have to do with this discussion? Read my reply, the cue ball is spinning, almost on its axis, and this causes it to spin away from the rail—not contact with the rail.
Yes I know there is another thread. What does this have to do with this discussion? Read my reply, the cue ball is spinning, almost on its axis, and this causes it to spin away from the rail—not contact with the rail.
O.K., but John's ball curved dramatically, this one just moved in a straight line. I fail to see the connection.
Ive never, ever seen a ball move as much as johns, so I used it as an example of what I believe were the physics of this shot too. Thats all.
Yes, I get that, thanks. It's hard to predict what a ball will do in real life based on a 2-d, no-spin model of behavior.
Yes, but before she hit the shot I don't think anyone would have assumed there would be an issue whether the CB hit the rail or not, such that a ref would have felt the need to stand very close to the 1-ball...…(just my thoughts)
You do know what happens when you "assume" something? :wink:
P.S. If I'm ref'ing that match I will get close to the table to watch that hit. I've probably called a hundred or more like it in my time. I remember in particular one kick shot in the World Championship at Caesar's where two balls rolled the length of the table after contact, one to the side and one to the long rail. I had to watch both balls closely at the same time. Both balls stopped less than an inch off their respective rail and I called a foul. Neither player disputed my call and Jimmy Mataya was watching from the side and yelled out, "Good call ref!". Put a smile on my face.
Last edited:
Yes I know there is another thread. What does this have to do with this discussion? Read my reply, the cue ball is spinning, almost on its axis, and this causes it to spin away from the rail—not contact with the rail.
But it spins toward the rail first, then back away ftom the rail, not like John Schmidt's shot -- it spun in one direction. It's very likely that Kelly's cb double kissed that 1 in the first place. The frame rate when slowed down still makes it difficult to tell what really happened. It doesn't matter because she left a good shot. If the incoming player had taken ball in hand, which Kelly offered, then it would've officially been a foul. But with no ball in hand it wasn't considered a foul.
It is impossible for the CB to double hit the one in that situation. Yes it (the CB) did track toward the rail first, but the spin curved it away from the rail without touching it. Just like Johns shot, the most movement was at the end when the friction and directional momentum hit their equilibrium. Pardon me if my physics vocabulary is not entirely correct.
As far as the second part of your statement, it does matter because it isn't whether justice was served or not, the question was, "Was it a foul?". A foul is a foul whether it is scored correctly or not.
If someone runs 527 in 14.1 and nobody is there to witness it or record it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. If Pete Rose is in the hall of fame or not doesn't mean he isn't in the 4000 hit club.
I'm just saying it was a foul (IMO) and both players knew BIH didn't mean much either way and both were very sportsman like. But what the score keepers and stat makers put on paper is irrelevant.
The 1 was cut slightly to catch the 9 off center. Not impossible for a double kiss, but you're right...it doesn't appear to double kiss. But the cb looks (to me anyway) to hit the cushion about 3 or 4 inches before it stops. It sure was a weird shot that would've taken someone standing right there over the rail to truly say whether or not it was a foul. But it wasn't the type of shot that would normally be watched closely.
Imagine if it had been Jason Shaw and Earl Strickland playing here....lol. I don't think it would've been handled with such sportsmanship.
The problem with the nap idea is that the cloth is Simonis 760 and it does not come equipped with significant nap. Here is a video taken a couple of months later on the same table and along the same path as John Schmidt's scratch. Notice how much the cue ball curves to the right on this shot.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....
https://youtu.be/xHvvr1iz02E
I watched it closely numerous times and it didn't appear the CB ever touched the side cushion at any point after contacting the OB. It did slightly roll further from the cushion the last few inches after rolling over the slate seam, but not due to having contacted the cushion - likely from either slight imperfections with the slate levelness, chalk dust on the cloth, or something on the CB.
Ok...I digress a little on the double hit. It is possible, but for the purpose of debating with the spinning into the rail shot, I was considering that argument over. It would have been a very attentive and focused ref to catch that in real time.
For the record, Shaw and Earl would have just been plain entertainment.
Last edited:
The problem with the nap idea is that the cloth is Simonis 760 and it does not come equipped with significant nap. Here is a video taken a couple of months later on the same table and along the same path as John Schmidt's scratch. Notice how much the cue ball curves to the right on this shot.
https://youtu.be/xHvvr1iz02E
Hard to believe it’s slate level related when a good player shot so much on it.
...you aren’t that far away, Bob....be our man on the ground...
Edit...Bob, I’d like to see how it rolls with no spin...down at that end
Last edited:
Hard to believe it’s slate level related when a good player shot so much on it.
...you aren’t that far away, Bob....be our man on the ground...
Edit...Bob, I’d like to see how it rolls with no spin...down at that end
I have about 10 minutes of video with the ball rolling without spin along the initial line of John's shot and at a speed to just touch the far cushion. This was done with a ramp. There was no roll-off of more than a half ball and I would say that if there was a little roll on a shot it was to the left.
Why are you expecting him to answer if he is the one asking the question?
...Third base
Anyway, it's a foul.
Definitely looks like a foul to me, but I also agree with the players for calling it good and moving on without dwelling on it, since no ref was called.
If you can manage to stop the vid at the right place you can see the cue ball comes off
the rail and hits the one, now I can't tell for sure if it gets back to the rail but it looks like it does. No foul
the rail and hits the one, now I can't tell for sure if it gets back to the rail but it looks like it does. No foul
To most of the responders here it looks like the cue ball does not return to the cushion. It looks like there is always a space between the cue ball and the cushion.
How far up the cushion do you think the cue ball hits? To me, it looks like it comes closest at three diamonds from the corner pocket (one diamond from the side) but it does not actually touch.
I think you’re right, it looks like the cue ball changes direction Just before the third diamond
Last edited:
