WobblyStroke
Well-known member
So the moral of the story is to never agree to slow mo video of your shot. That's just a good hit all day to the naked eye and only bad nit picky things can happen to you as the shooter.
Double Hit or Not? You Make the Call.
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
That is possible. It could have also given him more time to compose himself and focus. Regardless, he was happy to have me film the shot. Like me, he prefers to have slow-motion replay to help make the correct call (even though we got the call wrong in the "moment").
As I explain in the video, there was no 2nd hit (even though it might have looked that way).
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
So you think it is a good idea that a bunch of apa players are now going to be filming and analyzing every shot so they don't get cheated?
See, bringing this technology into the game is going to make a slow, unwatchable game even slower. If you want to advocate for slow-mo video, you have to do it like football. The ref calls the shot fair or foul, either player can use their timeout to challenge and go to video. Otherwise there will be matches that have players who will want to check most shots.
As far as ignorance goes, more knowledge doesn't necessarily fix that, it is about figuring out how to use that knowledge...
still you need a set of standards of what you can shoot and what you cant. otherwise it is both at odds with each other.
just as in this case.
am i going to let him shoot this shot without a ref for a giant first place prize. of course not. you can say if in doubt it goes to the shooter. that's fine but what if the non shooter is not in doubt and says its a bad hit.
only if the ref is in doubt.
easy to be in the chair and say what you will do but when in action for a large prize it is a different story.
just set the standards for what one has to do and then it becomes a good hit if followed. if it isn't going to be called for sure then the shot shouldn't be allowed.
just as in this case.
am i going to let him shoot this shot without a ref for a giant first place prize. of course not. you can say if in doubt it goes to the shooter. that's fine but what if the non shooter is not in doubt and says its a bad hit.
only if the ref is in doubt.
easy to be in the chair and say what you will do but when in action for a large prize it is a different story.
just set the standards for what one has to do and then it becomes a good hit if followed. if it isn't going to be called for sure then the shot shouldn't be allowed.
... not every shot ... just the shots where a double hit is likely (and tough to call) or where a wrong-ball-first call might be close. These shots don't come up often and the filming and review is fast (much faster than arguing with inadequate info). The correct call is usually immediately obvious with the first look at the slo-mo video.
What you are seeing is natural cue-flex return or vibration. See more clear examples of this here:
I’ve seen some old match videos (from the 80s and 90s) where players and refs (and sometimes commentators) were clueless about certain shots and whether they were fouls. The work that first Bob Jewett and the Jacksonville project did (early high speed videos) and later Dr Dave (and others) have done have educated the vast majority of serious players on most of these topics.
I didn't see any cue ball behavior that would indicate a foul.
Dr Dave & I were both at the International Instructors Summit 2024, Quincy, Illinois for PBIA / ACS Billiard Instructors.
CSI Director of Rules and Referees John Leyman was a presenter. He advised against using the video camera on the phones to determine the legality of a shot.
This was due to the possibility of the camera filling in elements that weren't actually there.
Dr Dave & I were both at the International Instructors Summit 2024, Quincy, Illinois for PBIA / ACS Billiard Instructors.
CSI Director of Rules and Referees John Leyman was a presenter. He advised against using the video camera on the phones to determine the legality of a shot.
This was due to the possibility of the camera filling in elements that weren't actually there.
Yep, there are times that it felt like that. You don't see it but feel it.That's my position as well. I rely on the sound of the contact. If it's so slight that it doesn't make a audible click click it's a good hit in my book.double hits can be felt. And if I feel it I call it on myself.
You need to be careful interpreting what you see in videos (especially if the the camera is doing fancy interpolation between existing frames), but this is certainly not as big of a problem as John made it out to be. I wanted to say something during his presentation, but I held my tongue. I am confident there were many others also in the room that were as skeptical as me concerning his statement. Slow motion video from a phone usually (almost always) clearly indicates the correct call, especially with double-hit situations. And when it is not clear, the rules clearly state that the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter (no foul).
Count me in as another who was skeptical during the presentation.
I still will be on the side of letting the cue ball tell the tale instead of relying on the phone.
I think part of it depends on what you are using the phone for. The phone assist in your ability to see and recall what the cue ball is doing. It also is a nice record to be able to show the players why you called it – “you see, the cue ball goes ahead of the tangent line on this close shot, that’s how I know it’s a double hit“.
I don’t want to disparage John or any other referees association or group, but I do get the sense that often they discourage video because if it is just up to the referees call, then the referees call is the end of it and no one can point to a video to complain. I would guess that 99% of the time, the video and explanation by the ref with the video satisfies both players that the call was correct.
Agreed. A ref having video proof that a shot is good or not is tough to argue with. Actually, most players would agree on most slo-mo videos of most suspect shots, even without a ref. For the shots they don't agree on, it is helpful to have a neutral party (ideally, a ref) to make the call. Otherwise, the benefit of any doubt always goes to the shooter (no foul).
Last edited:
I would not have called a foul in real time. After seeing the slo mo I would not have called a foul either because the video is in 2 dimension not 3 D. The cue tip looks to go forward of the cue ball but if it was shot with left English it was a bad hit only in your mind's eye. Not a foul.
Can also be the tip hitting the table bed if the player has jacked up.
At normal speed it looks OK.
At slow motion it looks like a double hit.
You don’t really get slow motion in real life unless it’s a major production and can’t really rely on smartphone footage at low light.
I think that the best way to call this shot as a referee is not to rely just on eyesight but also listen to the shot, usually you will hear a double hit in such a situation.
At slow motion it looks like a double hit.
You don’t really get slow motion in real life unless it’s a major production and can’t really rely on smartphone footage at low light.
I think that the best way to call this shot as a referee is not to rely just on eyesight but also listen to the shot, usually you will hear a double hit in such a situation.
Ref can't interject on an impending foul, so how is he supposed to get ideal viewing?
I wouldn't trust a foul called on me with such "hearsay" evidence. I say no foul unless it's obvious, usually by the CB taking an obvious detour from its normal path. That should also limit it to fouls that matter.
pj
chgo