Calling Dr. Dave! SVB "Foul" @ UK Open
- Thread starter 9andout
- Start date
yes, i was gonna start just this thread. dr dave, enlighten us
I'm curious to know the details of a conversation between SVB and Marcel Eckardt (the referee) after the match when it looked like they were trying to reproduce various minor differencies and each part trying to explain his own probably. Also Karl Boyes was there, so it could be nice if he makes a video of that for his YouTube channel.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
Is this the foul in question?
I don't see the cue ball move back to the rail after contacting the 3 but if it's in contact with both I believe it's legal.
I don't see the cue ball move back to the rail after contacting the 3 but if it's in contact with both I believe it's legal.
the simultaneous hit rule refers to object balls being hit at the same time, not rail contact. i think.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
If the cue ball is is contact with a rail and the object ball at the same time then it is in contact with the rail at some point in time after it initially contacted the object ball because the contact will last for that miniscule fraction of a second.
Are you saying if both balls are frozen to the rail and each other, the shooter can shoot the cb at the lightest amount possible and it is a good hit?
That's not how the legal shot definition works.
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
If the ball is frozen to the rail, it must leave the rail and come back to the rail. NEW contact is necessary for a legal shot. If both balls are frozen to the rail. Watching closely you can see that the object ball begins moving and then the cue ball changes direction a couple of frames later indicating that the cue ball contacted the rail after the object ball.
Tough call here. First of all (and I've probably said this a million times) the referee MUST be in position to make the correct call here, and he obviously wasn't. This is the kind of shot you often see in billiards where the cue ball contacts the object ball near the rail and immediately touches the rail again, or MAYBE NOT! On this particular shot it is hard to see or even discern that the cue ball re-contacted the rail after hitting the three ball. In that case it is a foul.
The Shane foul. Referee says foul, foul. Reason: FU. It even looks like a bad hit.
Gut feeling, ball got momentarily pinned to the cushion, no second bounce.
My thoughts:
indeterminate split hit, player's call.
On this particular shot, ball contact is instantly verifiable. It moved, it got hit. Coincident and simultaneous to this, the ball apparently hit the cushion. The CUSH-ion contact cannot be placed in chronological reference to the object ball contact. AND
in freeze frame, the cue ball appears to pick up rail induced spin AFTER the object ball moves. Call to the player.
Gut feeling, ball got momentarily pinned to the cushion, no second bounce.
My thoughts:
indeterminate split hit, player's call.
On this particular shot, ball contact is instantly verifiable. It moved, it got hit. Coincident and simultaneous to this, the ball apparently hit the cushion. The CUSH-ion contact cannot be placed in chronological reference to the object ball contact. AND
in freeze frame, the cue ball appears to pick up rail induced spin AFTER the object ball moves. Call to the player.
A friend of mine said this yesterday that made sense. The only way that the cue ball would have gone forward without contacting a rail was if it were a 100% straight on hit on the object ball. What are the odds? Practically a simultaneous hit the squeeze would be so slight you would never see it. Life isn't always fair.
Isn’t it also hard to tell it doesn’t touch. Whatever happened to tie goes to the runner. Call goes to the shooter. Shouldn’t there be direct evidence of a foul ? If it’s not detectable on the video replay then how can a foul be called ?
So...we should let the players make their own calls in a match where a referee is officiating???
No but in this instance and instances like this where the call cannot be eyeballed, the player should be allowed the choice.
Then we should let the players rack their own balls too. Hell, who needs a ref anyway???
It's pretty easy to stack incidental <if thens> but in the case of allowing an indeterminable decision go to the referee - a defacto ignorant party, smacks of miscarriage.
To use an analogy, let's think of this as the instant replay in football. There is not enough evidence to reverse the referee's decision. So it was a foul.
soyale
Well-known member
i'm not dr dave, and i await his response to this, but the way i see it
your shooting it basically at the 3 and rail at the same time.
aim one mm left, and it glances the 3 ball, sending it moving, then hits the rail and rebounds off following the 3. fractions of mm in fractions of seconds.
aim one mm right, and it goes rail first, rebounds off the rail, then hits the 3 ball full, sending the 3 ball moving and leaving the cue ball around where it is. fractions of mm in fractions of seconds. i believe this is what shane was trying to explain to the referee but i couldn't really hear very well.
my buddy seems to think it hit the rail before the 3 and then hit the rail again. i suppose this is possible too? but that's just not what these old eyes saw during the match.
your shooting it basically at the 3 and rail at the same time.
aim one mm left, and it glances the 3 ball, sending it moving, then hits the rail and rebounds off following the 3. fractions of mm in fractions of seconds.
aim one mm right, and it goes rail first, rebounds off the rail, then hits the 3 ball full, sending the 3 ball moving and leaving the cue ball around where it is. fractions of mm in fractions of seconds. i believe this is what shane was trying to explain to the referee but i couldn't really hear very well.
my buddy seems to think it hit the rail before the 3 and then hit the rail again. i suppose this is possible too? but that's just not what these old eyes saw during the match.
It was such a fast hit to the rail and back out that the cueball was not seen to move to the rail, but it looks like it went rail, hit the 3 almost full on, them was jammed back to the rail, and pushed the 3 back out after hitting the rail. The movement back to the rail was pretty much immediate since the 3 was almost exactly a ball away from the rail.
While the final call may have been actually not correct, I don't think that the call in the match was "bad" since it was very close and even after review was called a bad hit. I look at it as part of the human factor, even though in pretty much any sport you can have perfect calls using robots, AI and cameras, we should not go that path. I would rather see a ref make a few mistakes here and there than remove humans from human sports and activities. There are some fouls that we have all seen that were let go due to "let them play the game" type judgment calls that I agree with, especially in contact sports like hokey and football.