Understood, but the rules are the rules.
YOU MAKE THE CALL – Are These Pro Shots Fouls or Not?
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
There was lots of discussion concerning this shot on Facebook and YouTube, so I thought I would share this here:
Even with a cushion-first hit, this shot can still be legal. For example, at 11:29, the shot was actually good since the CB hit the cushion, then the OB, and then cushion again. Regardless, you can't tell (without slow-motion video) if the shot is a foul or not just by looking at the action of the balls. That's why a shot like this should not be called a foul when it is too close to tell.
Nigel sharking Pagulayan. John Leymen goofy foul call on Van Boening. Pat Fleming does it right. Just give them the extension. Don't be so anal. British referees want to be the center of attention. When the referee is the point of discussion after a match something went wrong.
Oh ya, the time violation foul on SVB when he clearly made zero effort to ask for an extension. Yep, certainly have to blame the ref for that one. SVB is definitely flawless...lol
Here is another one from the tournament a few days back that I'm guessing would see some disagreement and have people on both sides. For some reason AzB isn't accepting the time stamped version of the link and removes it when I hit save but the shot is at 3:45 in the video below.
Last edited:
Thanks for posting it. I've added it to the Example Calls resource page. IMO, the video available makes it pretty much impossible to judge this one, so no foul based on the video evidence. Do you guys agree?
Tough to argue. If Yapp didn't even question it, I'd have to agree that is was probably cool. Not to mention, Omar is known for his sportsmanship. I'd like to think he'd have called it on himself if he thought it was bad.
I can't really see how it would be possible to be a good hit. If he hit the six first (or if the cue ball was frozen to it) and the one second, the one would have absorbed more than half of the cue ball's energy and there is no way the cue ball could have gone forward without hesitation and at the same speed as the one ball like it did here. If he hit the one ball first and the six ball second, which is kind of what the direction of the cue ball would suggest (although the double hit could have also altered the cue ball's path), then same thing, that one ball would have absorbed over half of the energy from the cue ball and the six would have absorbed even more and there is no way the cue ball could have gone forward at that speed and without hesitation without a double hit. Because there is for sure a gap between the cue ball and one ball, the one thing that cannot be possible on a legal shot is for the cue ball to travel at the same speed as the one ball regardless of which ball was hit first.
It could be argued that he say hit the one first and then the six second but that both balls were so close to the cue ball that the tip of the cue had never left the cue ball until both balls were already contacted and on their way, but if that were a valid argument then it would also have to be valid if you were shooting straight into a ball that was the same distance from the cue ball as the one ball was from the cue ball in this video and where you got the same kind of cue ball reaction in that case. That person would equally have the same argument, "well the ball was only one millimeter away so the tip was still on the cue ball when the cue ball hit the object ball so no double hit occurred" but of course that argument doesn't fly when there is a gap between the cue ball and object ball no matter how slight.
As I alluded to initially, this is an example I would expect a lot of people to get wrong or to be completely unsure about, and I would expect that most people would (incorrectly in my opinion) not call foul here including most pros.
Last edited:
The hits on both the 1 and 6 were fairly thin (especially the 1), so not that much energy would be lost. Like you, I have the suspicion that he double-hit the CB, but I still don't think the video provides enough conclusive evidence to call a foul.
It looks like he hits the one ball first, and then the six ball. The one ball hit is easily a half ball hit (notice that right before/during the last change of camera view he moves the cue for a fuller hit than he initially lined up for). Then the resulting tangent line into the six has that being a minimum of a quarter ball hit on the six ball, possibly a third of a ball hit, but certainly no grazing blow by any means. The cue ball retains too much energy for this to have been a good hit.
Also consider it from this perspective. He is following through with his stroke. With the way the two object balls are arranged, and as close as they are to the cue ball, regardless of which one is hit first it kind of "pinches" or "traps" the cue ball right there for a moment, and because the cue is still following through that spot it pretty much has to hit the cue ball a second time.
If you couldn't be convinced on the Oi shot though, as obvious as that was, I'm not expecting you to be swayed on this one which is considerably tougher to call. Speaking of the Oi shot, a friendly challenge if I may. If you cannot duplicate Oi's results with a legal hit (his results being the cue ball traveling "through" the object ball a half a ball, getting the same cue ball draw pattern, etc), while using the same shot speed and distance between balls etc, and without any tricks that are unlikely to have occurred in the match (50 degree cue elevation, balls that are different weights from each other, phenolic tip, etc), then I think it is safe to say it was impossible for it to have been a good hit, and therefore we must call it as it was, a foul. Agreed?
Last edited:
To be clear, I "believe" both shots (Oi's and this one) were fouls, especially after multiple viewings of the videos. I just don't "think" the video evidence is clear enough to call a foul, especially if viewing the shots live only once.
I say the cue ball action he got on that shot is not possible at that speed with a good hit, period (again, assuming no obvious silliness that wouldn't be what happened in the match, some of which I already mentioned). I don't care what you do with all the rest of the variables (again within realistic reason). The speed alone makes it impossible.
Unless you are lacking in the necessary skill or knowledge for the shot (and I don't believe either of those to be a factor for this shot but you can tell me if you disagree), you can easily prove one way or the other if his results can be duplicated at the speed he hit it at with you being able to do whatever you want with all the rest of the variables (no phenolic tip and other silliness that wouldn't be what happened in the match of course). That being the case, the video is all we need since it clearly shows the speed of his hit and it either is or isn't possible at that speed.
Do you agree that if you (or anybody else) cannot duplicate his shot results with a legal hit using the same shot speed on similar equipment that the shot must then be impossible (remember, all the rest of the variables are yours to play with as you will within realistic reason). That seems to the only reasonable conclusion that could be reached in such case. Agreed? If not, why?