Woodward questionable foul European open
- Thread starter TeddyKGB
- Start date
From the exchange it seemed to me the referee didn’t know you could shoot straight into frozen balls legally and he didn’t know it was his responsibility to declare it was frozen. Because otherwise if he was going to stick to his double hit call I would have expected in his exchange with Sky that he would have said “I inspected the balls and they were not frozen, that’s why I didn’t declare them frozen, and given there was a gap, the action of the balls made clear a double hit occurred.” What he said instead was more suggestive that he was unaware cueing straight into frozen balls is not a double hit.
I think Marcel is aware of both of those, but I could be wrong.
CJ's take. Only a touch of self promotion
A D player knows it's not a foul if they are frozen. Marcel has to know this inside and out.
I'm wondering is there a protocol amongst the European trained ref's that they don't "on their own" declare a ball frozen, unless a player asks first? Declaring the ball frozen gives the player at the table almost free reign to do whatever they want.
Touching ball is the only declaration. Not Touching gets no announcement.
The regulations (which include how refs should behave) say explicitly that the ref should call any frozen ball without being asked. I think the European refs go by those regulations. My conclusion is that the ball was not frozen. In that case the ref should say nothing unless asked. In any case, the ball was not called frozen.
Nope. Clearly a foul.
the DCC rule is arbitrary and probably serves to prevent arguments and "unnecessary" ref calling.
but what about the greenleaf style 90° raise? i see that quite often and always assumed the tip can get out of the way. i'm talking about making the 6 ball not just nipping in this case
but what about the greenleaf style 90° raise? i see that quite often and always assumed the tip can get out of the way. i'm talking about making the 6 ball not just nipping in this case
Marcel has two problems. He's primarily a snooker ref and he was taught by my opinion the worse ref in the business. Look at the other "high controversy shots like SVB's no rail shot. He hasn't been around pool enough to understand some of the nuances. In this case it was close.
My first thought was kick to the side. Looked like he coulda got either side.
A simple little one pocket wedge shot would have been better. Sky could use his one hole experience vs a Euro.
Marcel Eckert has a history of controversal calls.
Yeah a lotta shots would've worked. To be fair, he did make the ball. The foul was unanticipated. There was no froze call so Ref was correct.
The SVB call looked like a no railer though so also good call.
I’m very inclined to believe Jim. That means Sky’s shot was 100% a blatant foul.
Agreed. The shot was an obvious double-hit foul since the balls were not frozen and the CB was driven forward. For those interested, numerous videos dealing with all topics in this thread can be found here:
A broken watch can be right twice a day.
And just to give it a visual. It's hard to gauge the exact tangent line but wherever it was, that cueball flew well forward of that line. Much more than you can account for with ball hop.
