Yapp’s Controversial Tournament-Winning Shot in the 8-Ball World Championship … Was it a Foul?
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
I think it was a difficult call, at best.
As to foul or not, it was REALLY close and I would challenge ANY review... I do not see how the shot could have been totally replicated... getting the balls back in the exact spot, the exact English/stroke, the exact power behind the stroke.
This looks (to me) like one of those football "on the field" calls, where it was just too close to call.
I have watched these videos and the shot tons of times... I am still unsure as to which ball made contact with the cue ball first....
I did not see a direct overhead view, live... was there an overhead camera?
As to foul or not, it was REALLY close and I would challenge ANY review... I do not see how the shot could have been totally replicated... getting the balls back in the exact spot, the exact English/stroke, the exact power behind the stroke.
This looks (to me) like one of those football "on the field" calls, where it was just too close to call.
I have watched these videos and the shot tons of times... I am still unsure as to which ball made contact with the cue ball first....
I did not see a direct overhead view, live... was there an overhead camera?
Bertrand Russell: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
Is it possible for a player who is under say -- FR 600 -- to be a good referee? Yes, it's possible. Is it likely? No. Thoroughly experiencing the ball interactions for years gives you a baseline understanding, which you can then use to map all the fine details on to.
Do tourney directors have these types of skilled players/referees to draw upon? Nope.
Do tourney directors have these types of skilled players/referees to draw upon? Nope.
Did you see the first part of my video, where I showed how I ensured the ball layout was as close as possible, and did you see how well the recreated shot matched Yapp's in every way (ball directions and travel distances)?
I think if you (or anybody else who doubts the shot was a foul) were to watch and listen to my entire video, I am confident your opinion would change.
Great point.
As we have ample evidence that the training of referees is inferior on the subject of close hits, we can safely say that many a serious player has far more insight into a subject like this than most referees. While it is not true of most calls that must be made, a serious player likely has far more experience to draw upon in judging situations like this than all but a few referees.
I might go a s low as Fargo 550 here, but I agree with your point in principle that a capable, very experienced player is, on average, more likely to get this call right. In general, a referee will do a much better job on most other types of calls as they are trained to place themselves in the right position to make a call, but the "close hit" scenario is more about knowledge than positioning.
Let's add that having been a snooker referee does not prepare one to make this kind of call, which very rarely arises in snooker. Many referees that came from the world of snooker are very capable as pool referees, but they need training on the subject of pertinence to this thread.
Alexander Hamilton offered that "the masses are asses."
I think a ref's knowledge of, understanding of, and experience with applying the rules is much more important than playing ability. I have seen many examples of world-class players being clueless about certain basic rules (like how to judge double hits and split-hit fouls). Lots of examples can be found here, where the players are sometimes choosing shots that any knowledgeable and experienced referee would know are going to be obvious fouls:
Here's one notable recent example:
Alexander Hamilton said no such thing. It's not how people talked in the 1790s. Perhaps the 1890s or 1990s ...
Hamilton did think the masses might not be capable of governing wisely, and he wrote or spoke such sentiments in words more suited to his times. But he also supported the Constitution in the end.
Hamilton wasn't alone. Most of the founders had suspicions of popular democracy. Which is why they created a Republic!
Now back to our regularly scheduled foul controversy ...
The Masses Are Asses - Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The Masses Are Asses is a quote attributed to Alexander Hamilton
Also of note is this from https://factually.co/fact-checks/language/ass-word-evolution-donkey-to-insult-a69e33 :
The donkey has long carried literary baggage as a symbol of stubbornness or foolishness; by the medieval period likening a person to a donkey had clear insulting force, and by the 12th–13th centuries "ass" was already used derogatorily to mean a stupid or clumsy person
So, people have been talking this way for almost 1,000 years.
Last edited:
middleofnowhere
Registered
To paraphrase what you said. I think he knew it was a foul and hoped he got away with it. Let's be honest here, the ref just was not in the right position to make a definitive call.
That's why when available you have replay. To be honest, at least from many viewers watching. Regardless of the path of the cue ball, it actually looked like a bad hit visually. Just watching from home my wife and I both yelled out that was a bad hit at the same time.
There is hope for Marcel.
Some world-class players being clueless about specific rules, doesn't mean they aren't generally more knowledgeable about what is and what isn't possible on a pool table. Possible fallacious thinking there from the good doctor
I think you maybe too close to the forest on this, being that you're among a very select group that both plays well and has very high-level knowledge. You're nearly one of a kind.
Sure the knowledge is ultimately the most important aspect, but what does a referee map their knowledge on to if they haven't already processed thousands of object ball interactions? If a player loses an important match from a double-hit foul call at some point in their career, they're going to more easily understand the rule once it's explained to them. There's also a reason APA 3's aren't randomly asked to watch close hits during a tournament. We intuitively understand that better players, by necessity, pay closer attention to what's happening on the table. That's part of what makes them better players.
Come now, sjm. Citing ... a Wikipedia entry with no attribution to an original source (because there is none). Wikipedia!
The word 'ass' has been around a long time. No disputing that. But the construction of the phrase "masses are asses" definitely has a modern tinge, not an 18th century one.
I was a Hamilton cheerleader years before Ron Chernow wrote his bio and the play followed. None of his biographers ever referenced this alleged statement. I've read a lot of Hamilton's private and public correspondence. He just did not write or speak like that.
An AI search suggests the phrase was popularized in a poem by Don Seitz and later used in a 1974 play by Pedro Pietri. True? Who knows.
My verdict: The attribution of the phrase to Hamilton was a foul. I don't blame Yapp, though!
Yes I am one of those culprits..... and the cue ball direction off the first ball was too obvious.
Now if he would of spin cut the 8 ball then it could of easily been a good hit.
If this was an European ref then they are still learning about the larger ball interactions.
Wonder how they'd do in 3 cushion.
Thanks for the background. Many quotes are apocryphal. When I visited the battlefield at Bosworth in Leicestershire, England, where Richard III was killed by forces led by Henry VII, the tour guide noted that, despite Shakespeare's reference, Richard III surely never said "my kingdom for a horse." She claimed that the scenario in which Richard III would not have had access to a horse at any point of the battle of Bosworth was unimaginable to any scholar of the period. Other quotes are equally unfathomable. The saying "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" is absurd as it predates the invention of the fiddle.
Last edited:
so how are the ref. supposed to determine good hits or not good hits.
by what they see and ascertain from what they see. or the total of what happened.
if its the total of what happened, how is that determined.
does the ref. go by how the cueball reacts after the shot, or the sound the shot made, or by some personal feeling on what should it be.?
how can we give the ref. that power.
what if the cueball hit a piece of chalk and rolled certain way that wasn't kosher to the shot? who could see that.
too many variables to give the ref. the right to call based on his assumptions. or so called knowledge of how cueballs react.
if you want to have perfect calls then you need to have the opponent call for a camera before the shot.
if he chose not to, then he takes whatever the ref. decides and lives with it.
in this case the opponent said nothing so he lives with the decision. which was correct from what the ref. saw of the hit.
but incorrect/wrong, according to physics of the way a cue ball will always react in that particular case.
if you want highly trained ref's. you are going to have to pay them more as well and have lowered prize pools.
by what they see and ascertain from what they see. or the total of what happened.
if its the total of what happened, how is that determined.
does the ref. go by how the cueball reacts after the shot, or the sound the shot made, or by some personal feeling on what should it be.?
how can we give the ref. that power.
what if the cueball hit a piece of chalk and rolled certain way that wasn't kosher to the shot? who could see that.
too many variables to give the ref. the right to call based on his assumptions. or so called knowledge of how cueballs react.
if you want to have perfect calls then you need to have the opponent call for a camera before the shot.
if he chose not to, then he takes whatever the ref. decides and lives with it.
in this case the opponent said nothing so he lives with the decision. which was correct from what the ref. saw of the hit.
but incorrect/wrong, according to physics of the way a cue ball will always react in that particular case.
if you want highly trained ref's. you are going to have to pay them more as well and have lowered prize pools.
I think it's just as likely that he hoped the ref would make the call, which is why he gave her time to do so. I don't have a problem with how Yapp reacted here. He should not be expected to referee the match when someone is there to do so. No other athlete, in any other refereed sport is expected to penalize themselves.
most european refs have pool background only, as have most european players. snooker is mainly a UK thing. i don't know where this ref was from, but predator do use a lot of EPBF refs nowadays (eurotour, pool, american sized balls) but also american refs
Golf and snooker both come to mind. In both sports players are expected to call rule infractions on themselves and they regularly do so on the biggest stages.
Obviously snooker is the closest analogy. In snooker the players routinely call a foul on themselves for touching an OB, feathering the CB, double hitting the CB etc. even when there is a referee standing right there watching. I’ve seen dozens of televised matches where the player calls the foul and the referee didn’t see it.
The player in those situations is an a position to know with certainty that they fouled. I’ve said earlier that this particular situation (which ball is hit first) is harder and the closest example I’ve seen was a player asking the referee go watch a replay because they thought they might have hit the wrong ball first (he had not). In that situation I don’t know what the player should do if the referee does watch the replay and thinks it’s a good hit but the player thinks it wasn’t.