Oops I did it again (Yapp's) foul in a final, a second time!

[middleofnowhere]

If you look at the two paths of the cue ball in the Sharivari video for separate (non-overlapping) contacts, the paths are quite far apart. The path in the stream video was very close to one of those paths. It is possible that there was overlapping contact, but that is still hitting one ball first, and I think for this shot, the first ball is obvious from the path of the cue ball.

I think that if high speed video had been available -- 10 or 20 frames during each ball-ball contact, so 10,000 FPS -- it would have been very clear which ball was struck first, even with overlap. No tournament has such equipment.

Years ago I paid like $35.00 for a tape and a bunch of hand written notes for something I think was called the Jacksonville project.
. Did I get that from you or Fells or was it someone else.
It was high speed filming of pool shots.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Years ago I paid like $35.00 for a tape and a bunch of hand written notes for something I think was called the Jacksonville project.
. Did I get that from you or Fells or was it someone else.
It was high speed filming of pool shots.

That was me. Some articles about that project are in item #29 here:

SFBA Miscellaneous Files

 

[middleofnowhere]

That was me. Some articles about that project are in item #29 here:

SFBA Miscellaneous Files

Thanks. I think I still have it around somewhere although I don't know what I would possibly play the tape on now, if it would even still play.
I guess Dr Dave is probably taking up the mantle on that now. Although I haven't really looked at that much of his stuff does he have the kind of high-speed stuff you were doing?

 

[smoochie]

Like the OP said, if you have pool knowledge, the foul is self evident. You can't always tell which ball is hit first by the naked eye, but you can tell which ball was hit last by the path of the cueball - it comes off the tangent line of the ball hit 2nd. It went to Yapp's left off the tangent line with the 8. If he hit the 8 last, then he hit the 4 first. It didn't hit a flake of chalk, it wasn't that the ref was unsure, it was that the ref didn't know what the hell she/he was doing. DEI fails again.

Words of wisdom, like you're speaking with my tongue. I know for fact that you got billiard knowledge and been in the game for many many years.

 

[smoochie]

There is simply no way to know what Yapp was thinking or if he knew it was a foul. People are so certain of things, but you just don't know.

i'm sorry,,,,, sooooooooooooooorrrrrrrry - again I love yapp, but there's aboslutely noway a good player wouldnt KNOW that this is a foul, he knows it, he knew it then, look at his face.

but again he's going I think by the books - where people tend to say "Just go by what the ref says" maybe thats how he approched it.

 

[smoochie]

People keep saying this is a foul based on where the cue ball went, which I understand. But I am also curious where the cue ball would go if it is a simultaneous hit and there was spin on the cue ball, and if simultaneous hits are considered legal by these rules.

simultaneous is very rough and kind of impossible but lets entertain it, if you hit both balls at the same exact time - then if you got draw on the cueball then it would draw in between both balls going backward, and if you have follow then it would go tangent in between both balls exactly, provided you are coming straight behind both balls (Not the actual footage of the incident).

For the incident if he hit both of them at the same time i would guess with a draw it will come back exactly where it came from direction-wise. I could be wrong on this, but why do you want to know this tho...

 

[smoochie]

So, I thought it was a foul immediately, but now I am not sure. In fact, I've convinced myself that it's a good hit. This is the top view. If the 8-ball is hit last, the immediate motion off the 8-ball would have to follow the tangent line toward the brown area near the side pocket or it would stop I suppose. If it's a good hit, then the cueball will immediately follow the tangent of the 4-ball. That would be towards the yellow/green area, which is exactlly where cueball went. Maybe others see it different.

Why did Yapp hesitate and just stand there? He sent me a note, so this isn't conjecture. He knew it was really close and was waitng for the ref to confirm. The confused look was that the ref didn't say he won the match, so then it went through his head that maybe it was a Race to 13, and he didn't realize it.

View attachment 896712

hahahahaha, I don't know what you smoked before writing this....please lmao

 

[smoochie]

Sharivari did a good job with the breakdown.

This is exactly what I've been saying, no need to eye-ball it with your eyes I dont know why ref's do this. it is amazing to me when they do this, especially that one clown ref I always forget his name, he comes very close and squints his eyes, its hilarious.

All you need is to understand the cue-ball reaction, its very simple. I can tell a foul or not from a mile away and here in the video above what the man says is exactly what I wrote in my original post, the direction of the cueball told you everything.

 

[smoochie]

Bad reffing. Plain and simple. Yapp knew it. FSR couldn't see as he was seated behind Yapp. Ball path makes it obvious. If you slow down the vid to 0.25x speed, you can clearly see the 4 move first...if knowing the physics of the shot isn't enough for you.

Baffles the mind how a professional ref doesn't just think to themselves, "if CB goes this way, good shot, if that way, foul" before the shot is even taken.

Would've been nice to see Yapp call a foul on himself there. I get it, if ref doesn't call it, it's not a foul, and as a player you just take those when it's your turn. I know one thing for certain; Ronnie O'Sullivan would have called it on himself.

Yes Ronnie would have called it on himself, and I think I would have called it on myself also. I would have been much happier if Yapp called it on himself but he didn't....I mean look at his face again as the 8ball went down, he couldn't even breathe he knew its a foul.

This is the 2nd time that he won the final rack of a major finals tournament with a foul. I'm still convinced that he touched the 9ball on my other post about yapp's final, but yea...it is what it is, tournaments with horrible referee's what can you say.

 

[GideonF]

Yes Ronnie would have called it on himself, and I think I would have called it on myself also. I would have been much happier if Yapp called it on himself but he didn't....I mean look at his face again as the 8ball went down, he couldn't even breathe he knew its a foul.

This is the 2nd time that he won the final rack of a major finals tournament with a foul. I'm still convinced that he touched the 9ball on my other post about yapp's final, but yea...it is what it is, tournaments with horrible referee's what can you say.

I’m not 100 percent certain how Ronnie or the other top snooker pros would have handled it. They always call fouls on things they control or feel (touching a ball, feathering the CB, double hits) but it’s a bit different on which ball was hit first.

I saw Shaun Murphy (I think) ask the referee to watch the replay when he thought he might have hit the wrong ball and the ref had said nothing. The replay showed that it was a good hit.

I don’t know what he would have done (or should have done) if the ref said it was good and he thought the video showed a foul. Even when you are being honourable, at some point the ref is the final call.

There is a famous video where the black would not sit on its spot and kept rolling off a bit (just enough that Ronnie could see a red that should have been blocked by the black. The ref eventually said she couldn’t get it any better. His solution was to play a safe off a different red, turning down an easy pot. That was a creative solution to a difficult problem.

 

[WobblyStroke]

with that much space between them it likely wasnt a foul. or certainly too close to call.

Im not sure how the cue ball taking a path that is only possible with a 4 first hit is too close to call. I get that seeing the contact is impossible, but where the cue ball goes is clear as day. Foul. No doubt.

 

[middleofnowhere]

I just watched a match with Gabe Owen and Bob Jewett. From the 2019 US Open. On his second inning Mr. Jewett was reaching over a ball and called for the shot to be watched in case he fouled. Some people are very rule conscious.

 

[straightline]

i'm sorry,,,,, sooooooooooooooorrrrrrrry - again I love yapp, but there's aboslutely noway a good player wouldnt KNOW that this is a foul, he knows it, he knew it then, look at his face.

but again he's going I think by the books - where people tend to say "Just go by what the ref says" maybe thats how he approched it.

Girlfriend too. Gangsta junction.

 

[skogstokig]

simultaneous is very rough and kind of impossible but lets entertain it, if you hit both balls at the same exact time - then if you got draw on the cueball then it would draw in between both balls going backward, and if you have follow then it would go tangent in between both balls exactly, provided you are coming straight behind both balls (Not the actual footage of the incident).

For the incident if he hit both of them at the same time i would guess with a draw it will come back exactly where it came from direction-wise. I could be wrong on this, but why do you want to know this tho...

the in between reaction is true if they're hit equally thick (trickshot style). but not if one is thin, one thick and it's still simultaneous

 

[jasonlaus]

Sharivari has a good video discussing the shot and showing 8-first and 4-first shots. In each case the cue ball follows the ball it hit second. That is for shots that clearly hit one ball first.

A very general principle in physics says that as the incoming line of cue ball is very gradually changed from hitting one ball first to the other ball first, the final path of the cue ball will smoothly vary from one direction to the other. These in-between directions happen when the cue ball is in contact with the two balls simultaneously. The contacts are not instantaneous. They last about 0.2 milliseconds or 200 microseconds, or about a tenth as long as tip-ball contacts.

The "normal" situation is that the contact begins with one of the object balls, the cue ball and first object ball acquire their new speeds and directions, and then the cue ball leaves contact with the first ball. It travels a little distance and then contacts the second ball.

The unusual situation is when the cue ball is still in contact with the first ball when it hits the second. The two contacts overlap in time. This is pretty rare, because the duration of each contact is so short.

A reasonable way to decide which was first for overlapping contacts is to see which of the "normal" paths the cue ball is closer to. This requires you to know what the normal paths are. A very simple case is when shooting directly between two frozen object balls. If the cue ball comes perfectly straight back, you hit the balls simultaneously. If it goes even slightly to either side, that tells you which was struck first. I have seen the cue ball come back within a couple of degrees of straight back, but never perfectly straight back.

I think the positions of the balls for the shot in question was pretty complicated and it was not easy to predict the exact paths of the cue ball for various sequences of hit. Maybe a video review would have helped, but I doubt that the actual collisions would have been in separate frames. The frames are typically around 10 milliseconds apart and only very expensive equipment could see the actual ball-ball contacts.

Im not reading all that, but I trust you 100%

 

[GideonF]

I just watched a match with Gabe Owen and Bob Jewett. From the 2019 US Open. On his second inning Mr. Jewett was reaching over a ball and called for the shot to be watched in case he fouled. Some people are very rule conscious.

I think this is quite common. Even in local tournaments and league play in my area, many players call for the referee themselves (or ask their opponent if they want a referee to watch) when it may be close. The shooter is often best placed to know if it might be close. Just today I saw Arseni and LFV play on the stream and the shooter asked if the other wanted a referee (he looked at the placement of the balls and didn’t ask for a ref and the hit was good).

Honest players like Bob don’t want have their opponent wondering if the hit was good and to just shrug and say “you shoulda got a ref”.

 

[straightline]

Just call split then whomever's available can watch the hit. Not calling split will be a foul.

 

[jsp]

Raises the question: Should refs based calls on physics.

Of course. We do it all the time with double hits when the CB and OB are very close together. Just observe the path of the CB after collision. This situation with Yapp on the 8-ball is less obvious, but fundamentally no different. Knowledge of physics provides a definitive answer. And in this case, it was a clear foul.

 

[uk_9_ball_convert]

Bad reffing. Plain and simple. Yapp knew it. FSR couldn't see as he was seated behind Yapp. Ball path makes it obvious. If you slow down the vid to 0.25x speed, you can clearly see the 4 move first...if knowing the physics of the shot isn't enough for you.

Baffles the mind how a professional ref doesn't just think to themselves, "if CB goes this way, good shot, if that way, foul" before the shot is even taken.

Would've been nice to see Yapp call a foul on himself there. I get it, if ref doesn't call it, it's not a foul, and as a player you just take those when it's your turn. I know one thing for certain; Ronnie O'Sullivan would have called it on himself.

I don't think whoever was in charge of the tannoy helped, Yapp paused as he was clearly at the very least in doubt if it was legal or not, the crowd seemed to half clap as if they weren't sure either and then quite quickly it was announced over the tannoy that Yapp was the champion. The ref should have called it, but it's possible she wanted a second to think before making the decision and never really got a chance.

 

[dquarasr]

Of course. We do it all the time with double hits when the CB and OB are very close together. Just observe the path of the CB after collision.

Try explaining that to an APA 3 and his/her captain. ("And that's when the argument started.")