Form the looks of this, the ball is cut-able. Is there any way to clear the foul zone by doing this?
Woodward questionable foul European open
- Thread starter TeddyKGB
- Start date
They were reportedly a millimeter apart. He could have played a very thin cut, maybe with inside, and gotten it as far as the pocket. That would likely have been OK with the ref. There's a gray area for such very thin cuts on very close balls.
jeez my fingers are dyslexic.
Armchairing it, I woulda tried the cut then. The 8 was good from anywhere.
It's not a foul.
I don't even have to watch it twice, all you need to know is how reactions work. That refereee is so bad its amusing to me. I even saw him made lots of bad calls in the past, one that struck to me is him calling a foul on a shot where he thinks it hit another ball first merely by glaze stare looking at the "other ball", where all you need to do is watch the cueball and understand reactions. He doesn't know reactions and i knew of that day that he's not a good referee.
Why on Earth you look at another ball to determine if it was hit first, just look at the white it tells the whole story, I dont even need to stare, I dont even need to GLAZE my eyes. Its that simple.
I don't even have to watch it twice, all you need to know is how reactions work. That refereee is so bad its amusing to me. I even saw him made lots of bad calls in the past, one that struck to me is him calling a foul on a shot where he thinks it hit another ball first merely by glaze stare looking at the "other ball", where all you need to do is watch the cueball and understand reactions. He doesn't know reactions and i knew of that day that he's not a good referee.
Why on Earth you look at another ball to determine if it was hit first, just look at the white it tells the whole story, I dont even need to stare, I dont even need to GLAZE my eyes. Its that simple.
that's a convincing argument. now i don't know what to believe.
Do you still believe this after watching this video:
If so, I have some swampland I want to sell you in Florida.
How much?If so, I have some swampland I want to sell you in Florida.
Let me talk to my friend Elon...he can probably turn swamp gas into a battery or something.How much you got?
P.S. I agree on the call and your analysis. Not to defend Sky, but sometimes players get up in the moment and their brain is just focused on making the shot. He should have recognized the potential foul especially from that angle of attack. I'm sure in the moment he probably thought it was good, but he would digress after seeing the replay. Hind sight is 20/20 as they say.
When I was watching the match live, I was shocked he was attempting the shot the way he was. It was totally obvious the shot would be a foul even before he shot it. That’s one reason why Marcel was able to make the call so quickly and confidently. It was impossible to avoid a foul in the direction he was shooting.
I think something very, very different was happening. I think he was applying the rules from Derby City to a Matchroom event. At Derby City, his shot was perfectly legal and would have been applauded. I think that was why he was so outraged by the call. He was sure the shot was fine.
I'm probably wrong in my analysis now that I think about it. You are probably closer to being correct. He wouldn't have shot that way knowing the gap. Like Dave said, it was impossible and Sky would have known. BTW what is the Derby rule in this case? Odd situation for a pro for sure. I would be curious to know what his line of thinking was.
derby rule is cue butt raised 45 degrees
I think it is embarrassing that the US still has a tournament that uses the antiquated 45 degree rule. This video summarizes why:
Even the VNEA got rid of the rule recently; so now even all league systems penalize double hit and related fouls when they occur (regardless of the angle of the cue).
Yeah, I don't believe Sky was applying the Derby City rule....otherwise he would have said to the ref, "But...but my cue was raised 45 degrees! Look at the replay."
I think Sky expected it was going to be a close call, and what took him aback was how the ref instantly called a foul. The ref called a foul before the backspin even had time to take. I think Sky was thinking, "How the eff can you know that was a foul?!!"
I think the only reason the ref said he would check the replay was to appease Sky. The replay wasn't going to show anything different to the ref. The ref saw the CB go way past the tangent line, and the replay wasn't going to change that.
An interesting question is: does Sky now realize his shot was a foul? Or, do he and CJ remain steadfast in their belief: "I'm a pro; I know when I double hit a cue ball."
Last edited:
Agreed. Marcel new the shot would be a foul even before Sky hit the shot. And as soon as he hit it, the foul was blatantly obvious.
I hope Sky and CJ both watch my video at some point. And I hope the video helps them to reconsider their views some.
I know ... I'm dreaming.
I disagree with this. Only banger league tournaments have rules in place with verbiage such as “if a player jacks up past 45 deg, there is no foul, even if the cb is struck twice”. It’s set up that way because bangers don’t know the difference. At DCC they have that same rule, where the players do know the difference, simply to avoid the time constraints of getting a ref for their monster fields.
I don’t know of ANY other professional event that has this “fake rule”.
Furthermore, on TV matches at DCC with a ref present, I “think but only about 60% sure” that they play by real rules at that point.
I think Sky either tried to get away with an obvious foul, or, in the moment, he thought the CB went sideways on/near the tangent line.
Would a fouetté shot have worked here? I can’t really tell the angle.
Actually, not even the league systems have this antiquated rule in place anymore. See: