Yapp winning, with a foul! Just like Maradona making a goal with his hands :D
- Thread starter smoochie
- Start date
Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, but it is also reasonable to expect that the person putting it out there should be willing to consider all the evidence regarding whatever they are giving their opinion on and to expect to be called on it if it doesn't appear that they have. Don't you agree?
It didn't appear that you did or even that you were willing to look at all the evidence which automatically makes the opinion appear disingenuous, uninformed, and/or intentionally biased. I acknowledge the off chance that you had assessed all of it and just weren't convinced to the same conclusion that seems so readily apparent to me, which is why I asked you to explain your thought process so that I or others could learn how other people think and are able to come to the wrong conclusions or perhaps even learn where it was my own thought process that had gone wrong.
I agree with you on the rest of the post. Yapp's win isn't tainted in the least, it would be unlikely he would know he had so lightly grazed the nine ball even if he had, it is of course more than reasonable to discuss how things are best officiated, and as much as Marcel has majorly dogged it on many other calls in the past due to lack of basic knowledge that was inexcusable, this wasn't one of them as it would be unreasonable to expect that Marcel should always catch such a very slight movement of the nine ball even if it had actually happened.
Then explain these two things that nobody else has been able to give an explanation for.
We see the nine ball "move" 642 times all before, during and after the shot due to obvious video issues happening in more than 80% of the frames in the time right around the shot. Knowing that, how can you pick out any one of those 642, even though it looks just like the other 641 happening in most frames before and after it, and say "this particular one was caused by a foul and is not a video issue like the other 641 even though it looks just like the other 641"? Where is your evidence to believe that that one particular one out of the 642 was caused by anything other than the same thing that caused the other 641 of those optical illusions?
Why would the nine ball, after having been hit by the shaft, sit there perfectly still for a while before finally deciding to move later on? Don't balls that are hit move right away? If not, explain the physics or how they would stay in place perfectly motionless for a while before finally deciding to move later. Do they have the option to take a nap first before finally deciding to move at some later time after they have been hit? How does that work?
Last edited:
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid the obvious. He pulled the cue up and left after contact and hit the 9. End of story.
No he did not, and it is pretty clear from all the videos that he did not. We never see the shaft touch the nine ball, and we have zero reason to believe it did either, especially considering all the evidence against it. If you want to keep saying it did, show me the frame where the shaft is hitting the nine. Until then that is a silly belief, and that imaginary nine ball movement you are without evidence attributing to being a foul was just another one of the 641 other nine ball optical illusions that we can very clearly see are happening at the time.
It is you who are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid the obvious. There was no foul, and physics and the video evidence very strongly support that there was no foul. I knew you wouldn't answer my two questions because you can't, and in the attempt to you would have ultimately had to admit that the evidence just doesn't support a foul, and in fact pretty much says that a foul could not have occurred.
But if you or anyone else that thinks that one of the 642 optical illusion nine ball movements was caused by a foul then you will be able to explain how you can tell that one was caused by a foul when it looks just like the other 641 imaginary nine ball movements that we know for sure are happening all around it due to the video issues. You will also be able to explain how, after being hit by the shaft, the nine ball could sit there absolutely perfectly still and take a nap for a while before it decided to wake up at some later time and finally move in reaction to being hit. Both of those two things would have had to have happened in order for there to have been a foul, so explain how it would makes sense that they could have happened.
Tough to explain the impossible, isn't it? I'll be waiting.
Last edited:
All in unison with the cueball. When the CB is shot out of frame, then it's a foul. lol
Finally some brains.. thanks for the input and you’re right
I cannot believe the delusion here is next level. That’s all I can say about this wall of text haha
The nine ball clearly moved after he shot but this guys goes next level cognitive dissonance and asserts that the movement of the nine ball proves that it’s not a movement and therefore video proves it’s not a foul… show me delusion and I’ll point at it!! Craaaaaazy haha.
9 moved first. Different kind of foul. The only possibility for Django was the CB grazed the 3B at 89.999 degrees before hitting the 9B and caroming full into the 3B. The overhead seemed to show too much clearance for any kind of graze.a foul.
Really need to move on bro. I tend to agree with you. Even if the ball did move i don't think AY felt it. That being said people have dug in on this and nothing you or anyone else says is going to change anything. These 'LONG' posts are not going to change minds.
100% accurate statement ... OK, not sure about the "Even if part"
Physics would not allow for that type of movement unless the 9 ball was in a trench. Let's get Dr. Dave to replicate that "foul" but be prepared to donate generously because he might not be able to do it in a lifetime.Besides, At Large frame shows that Marcel was in the best place on earth than any human being or camera to detect any movement. Enough said, time to move on.
Last edited:
I can't believe it either, but yet here you so confident in your delusion that there was a foul here, with literally zero evidence to support that, and even worse, in the face of tons of evidence that overwhelming supports the exact opposite, that there was no foul.
No, it falsely appeared to be "moving" due to optical illusions caused by video issues when it actually was not moving at all, just like the other 641 times it falsely appeared to be "moving" right before and after that due to those same ongoing video issues. You just decided to pick one of those 642 false "movements" out at random and claim without any compelling evidence that that particular one was from a foul and was not just another one of those other 641 ongoing false "movements" happening in almost every frame before and after that too. Why would you confidently attribute that one particular nine ball "movement" as being a foul out of the middle of the 642 of them exactly like it that happen all right in a row, with a foul being something that at best you are guessing might have happened, instead of attributing it to likely being just another of the 642 false nine ball "movements," something that we know without doubt actually is happening? Makes no sense.
Listed below is the evidence supporting the fact that no foul occurred, and I might even miss some since I'm quickly going off the top of my head:
=The video does not show the shaft hitting the nine, and does not even show anything that makes it look like the shaft would have had to have hit the nine either, and those things alone make it more unlikely than likely that a foul occurred.
=Yapp was using right english on the shot, and that would make his shaft deflect away from the nine ball, not towards it, and even taken by itself this would make the foul extremely unlikely if not impossible.
=Everybody who was on site, including the referee who had the closest and best vantage point to the shot, felt that no foul occurred, and even by itself this would make the chance that there was a foul very unlikely.
=The opponent, Gorst, who had the next closest and best vantage point to the shot and was watching it intently, did not feel that a foul had occurred. Near the very end of the match and with $100,000 and the US Open title on the line, you can be damn sure that if Gorst thought that there was any chance whatsoever that Yapp had fouled he would have let the ref know he thought the shot was a foul and let the ref/s video review it and make the final call as they pretty much always do in those cases. Even when taken by itself, the fact that Gorst didn't think there was any reasonable chance whatsoever that Yapp had fouled makes it extremely unlikely that a foul occurred.
=Yapp, a guy known for being honest, did not believe he had fouled, which makes a foul unlikely even when looking at this fact by itself.
=There are video issues happening that make the nine ball falsely look like it is "moving" many, many, many times in literally most of the frames before, during, and after the shot. That fact by itself makes it extremely unlikely that any particular one of those "movements" was caused by something else since there was such a big ongoing issue with the video problems at the time.
=The fact that we can see that the nine ball does not move right away after supposedly being hit by the shaft pretty much proves, even by itself, that the foul could not have occurred. Yes, due to those ongoing video glitches the nine does falsely appear to "move" many more times after that, just as had been happening before that, but we know they were just more of the glitches since we can see that the nine didn't move right away after when it would have had to have been hit and it just isn't possible for the nine to sit there dead motionless for a while after being hit before finally deciding to move at some later time in response to that hit. You keep claiming that is what happened, because that is exactly what would have had to have happened if there was a foul, but you still can't offer an explanation for how the nine ball could sit there motionless for a while after being hit before finally deciding to move at a later time as a result of that hit (and I've asked you for that explanation multiple times and am still waiting to hear it).
Any one of those things taken on their own already make it anywhere from unlikely to pretty much impossible that a foul could have occurred, but when taken together they overwhelmingly show that a foul was basically impossible. To believe with any confidence that a foul happened in spite of all the overwhelming evidence against it is just bias and delusion of the absolute highest level. I think it is beyond clear that you have something against Yapp, and are grasping at anything you can to try to smear his name and tarnish his win.
And here's all the evidence that supports that a foul occurred:
Smoochie "feels" that a foul occurred just because that is the "sense that he gets", even though he can't point to any evidence whatsoever to support the belief that it is probable that a foul happened (and I say evidence that it was probable because he is claiming that there definitely was a foul, not just claiming that there is some small possibility that there could have been a foul, although he hasn't offered anything that would support even the possibility that it was a foul either).
Last edited:
Assuming you are right, this has been an eye-opening thread for me.
A critical takeaway seems to be that video replay is unreliable in officiating this kind of shot, and it seems to raise the more general question of when video replay DOES offer sufficient guidance when really close calls are in play.
Do you feel that tournament officials were correct to rely on video evidence in the controversy at the 2007 World 9ball semifinal noted and replayed in post 162?
I didn't see it live. I'd like to know where the referee was standing to watch this shot. Anyone?
Post #192.
If anybody is having to assume whether I am right or not about there being video issues causing the nine ball to look like it was moving when it was not, then it can only be because they were too lazy to spend the one minute to advance through the frames of the video I posted in post #138 because I invited everybody to look and see for themselves.
I've linked it again below for the convenience of those that have changed their mind and decided they can now spare the one minute. Watch it on a computer and put it full screen in the highest quality. The first 60% or so of the video is just a still picture from before the original video starts playing, but just before the video starts playing at about the 60% point pause it and use the period and comma keys to advance frame by frame all the way to the end of the video (it doesn't take long to do, just seconds). What you will see is that the nine ball has the false illusion of "moving" very clearly due to video issues in most of the frames before, during, and after the shot that whole time until the end of he video.
I'm also now less confident than I used to be on video evidence to support that a ball was hit based on the tiniest ever so slight almost imperceptible wiggle in place, because as we've now seen that could be from a little illusion glitch in the video under certain circumstances. And obviously if there are other known examples of false ball movements in a particular video, as there were in the video above, then that particular video really becomes particularly suspect for its reliability in being able to determine any actual real ball movement.
I think you can still have pretty solid confidence if you see no wiggle at all though because that likely shows that there wasn't a hit nor were there any video issues either one. It is only when you see the slightest hint of barely perceptible movement that there might be any doubt.
All told, I'm of the opinion that any time they are less than certain about a call, refs should always use all the evidence that is available to them including video replay (within reason and when it's warranted, etc), for all types of calls including these kind, and then like always, based on the totality of the evidence, the ref just has to make a call and if they just can't tell with any reasonable certainty then the call goes to the shooter.
Depends on what you mean by correct and rely. I don't know that the video review was even really needed in that case if there were a well qualified referee (although it was probably smart to use it anyway if for no other reason than to inspire more confidence from the live and viewing audiences that the correct call was indeed made since it was so close), as it seemed pretty clear to me already based on the resulting ball travel patterns, but as noted above my opinion is that any time a ref is less than certain about a call they should consult the video evidence (especially from say the quarterfinals on, and especially in a televised or streamed event).
I'm also in favor of allowing the players to request a video review, within reason (say the quarterfinals on, and say one request allowed per player per match or something along those lines), regardless of what the ref believes or how firmly he believes it. Then, as always, based on the totality of the evidence the ref makes a call, and if he doesn't have reasonable certainty about it then the call should go to the shooter.
On a side note, I am also of the opinion that all refs of professional events should have to pass a very comprehensive referee proficiency exam administered by Bob Jewett or Dr. Dave before they are allowed to ref because the majority are lacking in at least some basic knowledge and understanding (usually on the physics of how balls react in various situations, and to a lesser extent on the rules) that will ultimately lead to bad calls that could have been prevented if they just had some basic knowledge and understanding. The refs themselves are of course always of the belief that they have the requisite knowledge, but they just don't know what they don't know. Just too much incompetence out there in the ref ranks, including in the head ref for Matchroom pool who was and probably still is one of the very worst.
Even refs for national and state league events, or even local refs as far as I am concerned, should at least be able to show they can ace all the quizzes at the following two links before being allowed to ref anything.
NV B.61 - Pool rules quiz for referees and players, with Bob Jewett - Dr. Dave Pool Info
(based on the WPA World Standardized Rules) Use the scoring sheet to record all of your answers and comments. For an online automatic-scoring version, along with supporting resources, see: Online Pool Rules Quiz part 1 (shots 1-29): part 2 (shots 30-69): part 3 (shots 70-100): Use the answer...
drdavepoolinfo.com
Examinations and Quizzes - Dr. Dave Pool Info
NOTE – All quizzes and exams assume the WPA “official rules of pool.” See also from Bob Jewett: Online Versions NOTE – Before taking the Pool Physics Quiz, you should be familiar with basic pool and pool physics terminology (e.g., tangent line, cut angle, squirt, swerve, throw, etc.) and the...
drdavepoolinfo.com
Last edited:
Just what I thought. He was behind Yapp, out of position to call that shot. Being in the right position often makes all the difference on close shots. Only a few referees understand that. I always told the players I'm going to get where I need to be to see the shot clearly (even directly in their line of fire if necessary) and I will stand still. I think that for the most part they accepted that and allowed me to do my job. I took officiating in major tournaments very seriously and didn't want to make any mistakes. I liked to feel that I had not missed one call during an entire tournament. Even one mistake was a bad week for me.
I think we have a contender.
