There need to be ground rules for identifying situations like this and having reliable parties in position or else.
Referee is tough job, they are human, they do goof.
The referee is to be respected.
For those interested, lots of past "bad call" examples (and resources) to learn from can be found here:... when they make mistakes, the mistakes should be pointed out and learned from so fewer mistakes will be made in the future (by all).
Yes, he also had an easy safety available if he wanted it. Either way, he was in control.how so? FSR had three ball in the side, ball in hand or not
True, FSR might have opted for the safety instead, but even that was kid stuff. FSR always had control of this rack and would only lose this rack if he made an error. He made awfully few of those in the entire single elimination round.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.
True, FSR might have opted for the safety instead, but even that was kid stuff. FSR always had control of this rack and would only lose this rack if he made an error. He made awfully few of those in the entire single elimination round.
Yes, it's possible for sure.... but it is theoretically possible that if the right call were made, Ruiz might have made a mistake and SVB might have launched an impressive comeback. I know ... not likely, but possible. Regardless, fouls should be called correctly independent of the game or match situation.
Yes, it's possible for sure.
It also possible that FSR would have failed to run out the rack WITH ball in hand, but the guy was in dead punch. It took a very inspired performance by Filler to deny FSR the title.
In the original thread, Gatz posted a very good video that clearly showed a good hit.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.
I'm not making a statement about whether I think the hit was good or bad. Refs are human, and bad calls are an unavoidable part of almost any sport.Agreed. It is a tough job, and they do deserve respect. I should have said this in my video.
However, when they make mistakes, the mistakes should be pointed out and learned from so fewer mistakes will be made in the future (by all).
I'm not making a statement about whether I think the hit was good or bad. Refs are human, and bad calls are an unavoidable part of almost any sport.
That being said, if the referee has any doubt, he should call the shot good. I'm willing to bet the ref in this case agrees and abides by that same guideline, as would other trained referees. The fact that he immediately and confidently called foul is worth noting. It's also worth noting that video is notoriously unreliable in situations like these, and the referee was the only person standing at the correct position at the time of contact to determine what actually happened.
Another thing about point of observation - The ref walked into position as the shot transpired and pivoted to a stop just as the hit was about to occur. That's too much multi tasking besides the problems of equilibrium and in this case instantaneous orientation.Good points. However, it is impossible for a human to accurately see the action of a shot like this live without slowed-down video. Something like a double hit or wrong-ball-first call is much simpler since the indirect evidence from ball motion is clear (e.g., the CB going forward of the tangent line with a double hit). Those types of fouls can be easily judged live (even though you cannot see the foul directly). With Shane's shot, there were no direct or indirect clues available live or in video to indicate a foul.
I think "the benefit of doubt goes to the shooter" is implied by the rules. A shot should be called bad only when a foul is visually obvious (directly, or indirectly from the motion of the balls).It has been mentioned several times in this thread, but I'm not aware of the principle that "the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter." Is this by rule, is it a matter of convention, or is it just a standard philosophy among referees?
I believe it's based off of the baseball "tie goes to the runner" rule. If you're not 100% sure, the shooter shouldn't be punished. I'm a fan of the "let the ref make the call and move on with your life" philosophy.It has been mentioned several times in this thread, but I'm not aware of the principle that "the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter." Is this by rule, is it a matter of convention, or is it just a standard philosophy among referees?
It has been mentioned several times in this thread, but I'm not aware of the principle that "the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter." Is this by rule, is it a matter of convention, or is it just a standard philosophy among referees?
Thanks. That's a great example of the philosophical slant in the rules of pool favoring the shooter.There is this rule
View attachment 645636
In this case, you'd replace
"non-legal object ball" with "rail"
"which ball" with "which"
"legal target" with "object ball"
Not sure if that applies though.
Technically, that is not a rule. That is in the "Regulations" for pool. Regulations describe how the rules are to be applied and discuss peripheral things like dress code that are not actually part of the specifics of how the disciplines are played.There is this rule
27. SPLIT HITS
If the cue ball strikes a legal object ball and a non-legal object ball at approximately the same instant, and it cannot be determined which ball was hit first, it will be assumed that the legal target was struck first.