Yapp winning, with a foul! Just like Maradona making a goal with his hands :D

[loggerhead12]

Then who is? His "high profile screwups" are all with Americans involved ... JJ, oh he should have told him the clock was running. SVB, oh the great Doctor RECREATED a video where he developed scenarios that proved the call was wrong, even though Dr. Dave did not make any conclusion of his own per my memory AND the fact that Marcel was in the "correct position" to view the shot and DID review the ACTUAL video before finalizing the call. Then you have Sky questioning a double hit call, where the commentators seemed to agree with Marcel. And then the Yapp incident, where the 9 ball did not move or the movement would have defied the laws of physics IF it happened.

All the Dr. Know opinions that the 9 ball moved, but no slow mo, mo jo or whatever showed the cue stick touching the 9 ball.

You forgot when he unilaterally decided that a miscue was a foul, which WPA had to correct with a rule clarification last month.

Michaela Tabb (not an American, by the way - not sure what your issue is there) set the gold standard for pool referees. Hopefully Marcel can approach her level some day.

 

[VVP]

Wish I could remember where he was positioned. In real time, nobody knew there was any issue at all.

Because there was none. You are a reputable and knowledgeable person, don't feed the conspiracy here.

 

[garczar]

Wish I could remember where he was positioned. In real time, nobody knew there was any issue at all.

Fedor is not bashful about voicing his opinion and so far i haven't heard one 'peep' out of the guy regarding this. BTW, FG put a very well stated apology/explanation about the 'Boanan incident' on his FB page. Well said imo.

 

[VVP]

You forgot when he unilaterally decided that a miscue was a foul, which WPA had to correct with a rule clarification last month.

Michaela Tabb (not an American, by the way - not sure what your issue is there) set the gold standard for pool referees. Hopefully Marcel can approach her level some day.

I believe you are talking about the miscue where the cue ball jumped over the OB. Not sure if there was any determination that his call was incorrect. Scooping the cue ball is a foul, whether intentional or error. Would be happy to read the rule change on that if you have it.

 

[loggerhead12]

I believe you are talking about the miscue where the cue ball jumped over the OB. Not sure if there was any determination that his call was incorrect. Scooping the cue ball is a foul, whether intentional or error. Would be happy to read the rule change on that if you have it.

Also see Bob Jewett's post about the rule changes.

 

[VVP]

Also see Bob Jewett's post about the rule changes.

Like it or not referees have to operate with what the rules are at the time. It is obvious that those two incidents shown were unintentional miscues, but they were scoops. I would say it's a good rule change, but the calls at the time were not incorrect.
How about, Chang Jung Lin losing $100,000 because he mistaking positioned the cue ball with the tip of the cue. Referee made the right call on an obvious mental blunder.

 

[loggerhead12]

Like it or not referees have to operate with what the rules are at the time. It is obvious that those two incidents shown were unintentional miscues, but they were scoops. I would say it's a good rule change, but the calls at the time were not incorrect.
How about, Chang Jung Lin losing $100,000 because he mistaking positioned the cue ball with the tip of the cue. Referee made the right call on an obvious mental blunder.

Right, but why suddenly decide these were fouls when they weren't before? It confused the players (and the rules committee, apparently).

Anyway, hopefully he gets the chance to learn from this. Being and looking in the right place is the majority of a referee's job.

 

[VVP]

Right, but why suddenly decide these were fouls when they weren't before? It confused the players (and the rules committee, apparently).

Anyway, hopefully he gets the chance to learn from this. Being and looking in the right place is the majority of a referee's job.

Not sure why you are saying they weren't fouls BEFORE. You have to provide incidents where Marcel and the female referee (forgot her name) passed on similar "fouls" before the rule change and these incidents occurring. If other referees didn't call it, then they were wrong not Marcel and the girl.

A referee that officiate million dollar snooker matches would be an expert in my opinion and doesn't need mediocre telling him where to stand.

 

[loggerhead12]

A referee that officiate million dollar snooker matches would be an expert in my opinion and doesn't need mediocre telling him where to stand.

Yeah, you would think he would know better.

 

[sjm]

Because there was none. You are a reputable and knowledgeable person, don't feed the conspiracy here.

That's your opinion, which I respect.

Based on the replay, it remains my opinion that a foul was committed. It also remains my opinion that the referee's failure to see a nearly imperceptible foul does not tarnish Yapp's win in any way.

PS No, Marcel is not the best pool referee. Not too long ago, he was one of the worst, and being out of position too often was one of the main reasons, but he has improved greatly in the past two years. Like every other pool referee, he gradually learned the trade. He has become a good one now. Calls concerning whether a legal hit of the object ball was made have little to no relevance to snooker but are critical in pool. Same thing with the double hit rule, which comes up all the time in pool but nearly never in snooker. When to freeze the shot clock is something the best referees in pool know, but it's irrelevant to snooker. No, the officiating skills do not translate seamlessly from snooker to pool. Yes, some of the skills do.

I will note that Marcel probably presents himself more professionally than any referee in the game and he is a continuing credit to the game.

Finally, there is no conspiracy. That's only in your mind.

 

[Poolplaya9]

If the apparent movement was caused by flaws in the video process, then wouldn't the balls show the same effects at other times in the video?

As already mentioned in many posts, the balls do show the same "movement" effects at other times in the video, even including before the shot when the shaft had never been remotely near the nine ball yet. That video issues were happening causing optical illusion nine ball "movements" all around the time of the shot is not disputable. The only question is whether Yapp just so happened to foul at the same time the video issues were already falsely making the nine ball look like it was "moving". See post #138 for further explanation and the video that shows the nine moving many times due to the video issues.

 

[AtLarge]

Wish I could remember where he was positioned. In real time, nobody knew there was any issue at all.

Marcel was sort of behind Yapp, closely watching the shot. Below is a picture showing (barely) where Marcel was for the big shot.

One oddity is that I had never before seen Marcel wear glasses, but he had them on for two parts of this match. The first part was the lag, the entire first game, and the racking and the break shot of Game 2. Then he removed the glasses and kept them off through the end of Game 23. For what turned out to be the last game (Game 24), he went back to the ref's table, got the glasses, and wore them for the racking and the play in that final game. So he had them on, as the picture shows, for the much-discussed shot.

 

[VVP]

As already mentioned in many posts, the balls do show the same "movement" effects at other times in the video, even including before the shot when the shaft had never been remotely near the nine ball yet. That video issues were happening causing optical illusion nine ball "movements" all around the time of the shot is not disputable. The only question is whether Yapp just so happened to foul at the same time the video issues were already falsely making the nine ball look like it was "moving". See post #138 for further explanation and the video that shows the nine moving many times due to the video issues.

People will see and believe whatever suits them. I posted a video above where the 8 ball seems to move (post 171), but no comments so far.
Well if it's not a conspiracy it's certainly a controversy being raised here. Too bad.

 

[VVP]

Marcel was sort of behind Yapp, closely watching the shot. Below is a picture showing (barely) where Marcel was for the big shot.

One oddity is that I had never before seen Marcel wear glasses, but he had them on for two parts of this match. The first part was the lag, the entire first game, and the racking and the break shot of Game 2. Then he removed the glasses and kept them off through the end of Game 23. For what turned out to be the last game (Game 24), he went back to the ref's table, got the glasses, and wore them for the racking and the play in that final game. So he had them on, as the picture shows, for the much-discussed shot.

View attachment 846941

Maybe he couldn't see with his glasses lol He was in the perfect position, by the way for those position pundits.

 

[loggerhead12]

One oddity is that I had never before seen Marcel wear glasses, but he had them on for two parts of this match. The first part was the lag, the entire first game, and the racking and the break shot of Game 2. Then he removed the glasses and kept them off through the end of Game 23. For what turned out to be the last game (Game 24), he went back to the ref's table, got the glasses, and wore them for the racking and the play in that final game. So he had them on, as the picture shows, for the much-discussed shot.

I saw that. He was definitely channeling Buddy Holly there for a bit.

 

[Fore Rail]

Along with a referee at the table I would suggest another rules official monitoring the live broadcast for potential rules infractions.

Of course this can't be done at all tables, but would be of great use imo as the field winds down.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Based on the replay, it remains my opinion that a foul was committed.

How on earth could you still possibly have that belief given the evidence we have?

It has been indisputably proven that video issues were falsely making the nine ball appear to be moving constantly in like 80% of the frames all around the time of that shot. Even if that is the only evidence we had to support things one way or the other, the best we would possibly be able to say is that a foul can't be ruled out but it would be silly to have any confidence that one actually occurred given all the video issues that were going on that were falsely making the nine ball appear to move all around that same time.

That isn't even all we have though. We can also see that in the frame after the foul would have had to have occurred, if it one had occurred, that the nine ball hasn't moved even the most minute amount since supposedly being hit. That tell us that it was not in fact hit. If it had been fouled it would have moved. Balls that get hit start to move right away, they don't sit around perfectly motionless for a while before finally deciding to stat moving at some later date. It hadn't moved because the shaft never actually hit it, and it did what balls that have not been hit do, it sat there dead motionless. And all the nine ball "movements" we see after that are just more of those same video issues that are happening in like 80% of all the other frames all around there too.

It might be half reasonable to believe that Yapp not fouling is the most likely scenario but feel that a foul can't be ruled out, but at this point, to have any confidence that a foul actually occurred is ludicrous given the evidence we have of the video problems causing all the false nine ball movements and the nine having sat there stationary for a while after the foul would have had to have happened. You didn't read post #138 and look at the frames in that video did you? Clearly you couldn't have.

 

[sjm]

How on earth could you still possibly have that belief given the evidence we have?

It has been indisputably proven that video issues were falsely making the nine ball appear to be moving constantly in like 80% of the frames all around the time of that shot. Even if that is the only evidence we had to support things one way or the other, the best we would possibly be able to say is that a foul can't be ruled out but it would be silly to have any confidence that one actually occurred given all the video issues that were going on that were falsely making the nine ball appear to move all around that same time.

That isn't even all we have though. We can also see that in the frame after the foul would have had to have occurred, if it one had occurred, that the nine ball hasn't moved even the most minute amount since supposedly being hit. That tell us that it was not in fact hit. If it had been fouled it would have moved. Balls that get hit start to move right away, they don't sit around perfectly motionless for a while before finally deciding to stat moving at some later date. It hadn't moved because the shaft never actually hit it, and it did what balls that have not been hit do, it sat there dead motionless. And all the nine ball "movements" we see after that are just more of those same video issues that are happening in like 80% of all the other frames all around there too.

It might be half reasonable to believe that Yapp not fouling is the most likely scenario but feel that a foul can't be ruled out, but at this point, to have any confidence that a foul actually occurred is ludicrous given the evidence we have of the video problems causing all the false nine ball movements and the nine having sat there stationary for a while after the foul would have had to have happened. You didn't read post #138 and look at the frames in that video did you? Clearly you couldn't have.

Ultimately, my opinion here doesn't matter, and most of my posts in this thread deal with the matter of how such positions have been officiated in the past and how they should be officiated in the future.

Maybe there was a foul and maybe there wasn't, and I'm not trained to make the distinction, but I am allowed my opinion. Still, the ref did not see a foul, so it was not a foul under the rules, and that's really all that matters to me. I have taken considerable exception to those who feel that this "possible foul" colors, in any way, Yapp's great accomplishment.

My only concern pertains to the future as it pertains to how such situations are best officiated. A referee's job is difficult, and we should all recognize it.

 

[VVP]

Ultimately, my opinion here doesn't matter, and most of my posts in this thread deal with the matter of how such positions have been officiated in the past and how they should be officiated in the future.

Maybe there was a foul and maybe there wasn't, and I'm not trained to make the distinction, but I am allowed my opinion. Still, the ref did not see a foul, so it was not a foul under the rules, and that's really all that matters to me. I have taken considerable exception to those who feel that this "possible foul" colors, in any way, Yapp's great accomplishment.

My only concern pertains to the future as it pertains to how such situations are best officiated. A referee's job is difficult, and we should all recognize it.

Acceptable, but you have to understand that you are one of the most respected voice on this forum and you called it a foul, without apparently reading all the arguments that it wasn't. You should have evaluated everything before rushing to judgement. If the purpose of this thread is to put an asterisk on Yapp's win, it failed badly.

 

[sjm]

Acceptable, but you have to understand that you are one of the most respected voice on this forum and you called it a foul, without apparently reading all the arguments that it wasn't. You should have evaluated everything before rushing to judgement. If the purpose of this thread is to put an asterisk on Yapp's win, it failed badly.

Agreed that I didn't read every post in the thread, but I have taken loud exception at every turn in this thread to those who have tried to take anything away from Yapp's great win.

The only thing that interests me here is the procedures and appeal processes of pertinence. There is no conspiracy and no controversy here, but a heightened awareness of how tough this kind of call is and how difficult it is to officiate, even if a video replay is available. If the takeaway is that video is unreliable in such situations, that an important finding in this thread.

I think you're wrong to value my opinion so highly in this sort of matter. Mine is just one of many opinions on this subject, and, while I have a sense of how tricky rules situations have been handled in the past, officiating is certainly not an area of expertise in my case.