FOUL Called on SVB at the UK OPEN

[dr_dave]

FYI, I just posted a new video that analyzes Shane Van Boening's controversial kick shot from the 2022 UK Open that was called a foul. Spoiler alert: The call was bad. Check it out:

Content:
0:00 - Intro
1:13 - The Rules
1:46 - Possible Shots
---- 1:54 - ball-first
---- 1:59 - cushion-first
---- 2:35 - split hit
---- 2:52 - cushion compression example
---- 3:41 - super-slow-motion examples
4:25 - Was the Call Right?
6:26 - Wrap Up

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!

 

[ideologist]

The consensus by the majority was: Bad call, still sold out either way

 

[The_JV]

Nailed it... Great work Dave.

If only they had this tech, frame rate, and someone to man the monitor during every match.

I still respect the ref's call and his fortitude in standing his ground against Shaw and SVB.

 

[stunshotDAVE]

this is old news. the referees decision is final.

 

[sjm]

Nice video, Dave. Of course, to some extent you've shown how tricky a call this really is.

Bob Jewett and I were side by side at the event and neither of us felt this was a foul. Of course, the result was unfortunate for Shane as, with or without the foul call, Sanchez-Ruiz would have had a huge advantage in the rack, a point made by Jeremy Jones in the post-match commentary. It would be difficult to argue that this call made much difference in this very one-sided semifinal.

 

[dr_dave]

The consensus by the majority was: Bad call, still sold out either way

I hope this video helps grow the majority.

 

[dr_dave]

Nailed it... Great work Dave.

Thanks.

If only they had this tech, frame rate, and someone to man the monitor during every match.

That's probably asking a lot.

I still respect the ref's call and his fortitude in standing his ground against Shaw and SVB.

Agreed. He did handle himself well.

 

[dr_dave]

the referees decision is final.

Agreed. It doesn't mean it was correct, though.

 

[dr_dave]

Nice video, Dave.

Thanks.

Of course, to some extent you've shown how tricky a call this really is.

Bob Jewett and I were side by side at the event and neither of us felt this was a foul. Of course, the result was unfortunate for Shane as, with or without the foul call, Sanchez-Ruiz would have had a huge advantage in the rack, a point made by Jeremy Jones in the post-match commentary. It would be difficult to argue that this call made much difference in this very one-sided semifinal.

Good points.

 

[PoolBum]

An interesting upshot of Dr. Dave's analysis is that there can be shots where a foul occurs, but where the correct call is no foul. This would be the case when there is no clear evidence that a foul occurred. I think in this case the referee took the opposite approach, i.e., the referee decided to call a foul because he saw no clear evidence that the cue ball contacted a cushion after contacting the 3.

 

[pt109]

Nice video, Dave. Of course, to some extent you've shown how tricky a call this really is.

Bob Jewett and I were side by side at the event and neither of us felt this was a foul. Of course, the result was unfortunate for Shane as, with or without the foul call, Sanchez-Ruiz would have had a huge advantage in the rack, a point made by Jeremy Jones in the post-match commentary. It would be difficult to argue that this call made much difference in this very one-sided semifinal.

I think the call makes a difference in the longer run….the shooter should always get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[dr_dave]

An interesting upshot of Dr. Dave's analysis is that there can be shots where a foul occurs, but where the correct call is no foul. This would be the case when there is no clear evidence that a foul occurred. I think in this case the referee took the opposite approach, i.e., the referee decided to call a foul because he saw no clear evidence that the cue ball contacted a cushion after contacting the 3.

Well stated.

 

[Grimper]

FYI, I just posted a new video that analyzes Shane Van Boening's controversial kick shot from the 2022 UK Open that was called a foul. Spoiler alert: The call was bad. Check it out:

Content:
0:00 - Intro
1:13 - The Rules
1:46 - Possible Shots
---- 1:54 - ball-first
---- 1:59 - cushion-first
---- 2:35 - split hit
---- 2:52 - cushion compression example
---- 3:41 - super-slow-motion examples
4:25 - Was the Call Right?
6:26 - Wrap Up

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!

I watched it 25 times. I still think it was a foul.

 

[dr_dave]

I watched it 25 times. I still think it was a foul.

Did you watch the original shot 25 times, or my video 25 times? If you watched (and listened to) my entire video 25 times, I would hope you would think the call was wrong (or at least very questionable).

 

[Grimper]

Did you watch the original shot 25 times, or my video 25 times? If you watched (and listened to) my entire video 25 times, I would hope you would think the call was wrong (or at least very questionable).

I meant I watched the original video. As always, your video was excellent and I understood all the points you made. But on the original shot, I still don't think that cue ball ever hit the rail after the object ball. I think it hit the rail first, then the OB.

 

[skogstokig]

I think the call makes a difference in the longer run….

how so? FSR had three ball in the side, ball in hand or not

 

[pt109]

how so? FSR had three ball in the side, ball in hand or not

It’s for the future…sometimes it might mean a match….any doubt should be in the shooter’s favor…for everybody.

 

[westcoast]

An interesting upshot of Dr. Dave's analysis is that there can be shots where a foul occurs, but where the correct call is no foul. This would be the case when there is no clear evidence that a foul occurred. I think in this case the referee took the opposite approach, i.e., the referee decided to call a foul because he saw no clear evidence that the cue ball contacted a cushion after contacting the 3.

I agree- that is an interesting viewpoint and probably the best one to take if the ref is uncertain.

Shane's shot was very difficult to judge. My initial judgment would be a foul as it just appeared that way off the bat- but as it has been explained over and over, I can see how it may not have been.

 

[straightline]

I recall it looking simultaneous if anything and still indeterminate. I plunked down on SVB's side because the instant of cushion contact cannot be defined whereas the slightest motion of a ball indicates and chronologically nails the impact. Further without high speed video and 'nano' referencing what is there to call?

 

[mrshifty]

how so? FSR had three ball in the side, ball in hand or not

The 3 was easy, but if I recall correctly, getting to the 4 from there wasn't. I doubt this match would have turned out different, but it is good to see Dr Dave's analysis showing how easy it can be to get the right call by watching the balls reactions after the shot.