Yapp’s Controversial Tournament-Winning Shot in the 8-Ball World Championship … Was it a Foul?

[Bob Jewett]

... What was the bizarre rule?

Curiously enough, it was that if you could not actually see the tip hit the ball a second time, you could not call a double hit. Physics be damned. And that's the rule I used. Richie Florence was the victim of one of the most obvious double hits one could hope to see, except it was too fast to see, of course. What I said was, "39", which was the ball count. The shooter said, "You made a good call." Ritchie was irritated.

 

[GideonF]

She, and it looked like a brain fart. You know there are sharks everywhere.

The “he” in my sentence (that Yapp was in the road and he couldn’t see the shot) was FSR. FSR couldn’t see the hit - the ref could see the hit but just blew it.

 

[straightline]

The “he” in my sentence (that Yapp was in the road and he couldn’t see the shot) was FSR. FSR couldn’t see the hit - the ref could see the hit but just blew it.

Ok. Miner badden. He did crane for a look like it mattered to him. Let it go obviously. Maybe he's turning into Hunter Lombardo Speaking of Hunter Lombardo, if he had ferocity, he'd be ferocious.

Propeller head thinks maybe ref was waiting for the 8 to stop short and she got hypnotixed in the moment. 'Course speculation always goes way past collusion...

 

[maha]

Curiously enough, it was that if you could not actually see the tip hit the ball a second time, you could not call a double hit. Physics be damned. And that's the rule I used. Richie Florence was the victim of one of the most obvious double hits one could hope to see, except it was too fast to see, of course. What I said was, "39", which was the ball count. The shooter said, "You made a good call." Ritchie was irritated.

worked that way for decades and was fair as it applied to both sides. the ref calls it as he sees it.

if you want to put physics in it to get always the perfect absolute call, then you need to add cameras.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... if you want to put physics in it to get always the perfect absolute call, then you need to add cameras.

Most physics-based calls don't require cameras; they just require understanding.

There are some calls that require cameras to get right, but the "benefit of the doubt" clause can take care of those at the expense of a few uncalled fouls. I think cameras should be used wherever possible.

 

[maha]

do you really want refs to make calls on what they think the physics is of the shot or the aftermath of it?

what if balls are close and you get a legit force follow and the ref says the physics say your ball cant go that far forward so its a foul.
or many other situations. your understanding and his may be entirely different.

how about a ref. on a seesaw two guys equal weight one is sitting on it and another gets on and it goes up. wouldn't he rule that the guy who just got on is heavier?

two guys have a contest to see who can suck more water up a long tube. at 34 feet they both cant suck up any more. so the ref rules its a tie as they are exactly equal in sucking power.

how much physics are a normal pool ref. supposed to know or be able to understand.

 

[Kris_b1104]

9 pages of this is wild.

 

[maha]

https://www.eetimes.com/the-laws-of-physics-in-billiards/

here is a simple understanding of some billiards physics any ref. should at least be required to understand. at a starting point for them.

do you think its hard to find a ref now that is any good,

 

[mareh]

Why even heve referees. Let the players battle it out. The last man standing....

 

[freds]

do you really want refs to make calls on what they think the physics is of the shot or the aftermath of it?

...

how much physics are a normal pool ref. supposed to know or be able to understand.

Well, at least some. I take your point though, the question is "how much"?

To reduce it to the absurd, say a player is trying for the thinnest of hits, and drives the cue ball at break speed. It rockets past the object ball, there's on way you can directly see whether there is contact or not - I don't believe you would argue that the ref can't make a call based on the physics of whether or not the object ball moves?

If the ref knows the physics, they should be able to use it make the call. If they think they know the physics but don't, maybe they'll make the wrong call - just like if they don't know the physics and make the wrong call based on what contact they think they see. That's the nature of referees.

I've got no problem with any ref saying "too close for me to call". But if these types of ball interactions were more widely understood it would reduce the number of those.

 

[Swighey]

do you really want refs to make calls on what they think the physics is of the shot or the aftermath of it?

Agree 100% with this. There's a reason why particle physicists (who are amazing mathematicians) ask even more amazing mathematicians to explain to them the outcomes of their experiments. Likewise, a referee needs a camera to make a decision based on the physics. Asking a referee to use their eyes to make a decision based on theirs or someone else's understanding of physics adds way to much pressure to an already difficult job.

 

[dquarasr]

Those here saying cameras should be added might not have watched Dr Dave’s video.

In many instances, a “regular” camera’s frame rate is insufficient to capture the instant of a hit. Often Dr experienced the hit happening between frames.

It is likely not feasible to install super-high speed cameras except for finals, and even that may be cost prohibitive.

 

[Swighey]

Those here saying cameras should be added might not have watched Dr Dave’s video.

In many instances, a “regular” camera’s frame rate is insufficient to capture the instant of a hit. Often Dr experienced the hit happening between frames.

It is likely not feasible to install super-high speed cameras except for finals, and even that may be cost prohibitive.

...in which case the referee should revert to watching for contact between the balls. If they are unsure, go with the shooter.

 

[maha]

refs make mistakes. that is part of the game. it happens in all sports and can work for you or against you.

many shots come up that are too close to call. so the tie goes to the runner here and the shooter gets his point.
it works both ways. only when it goes against you do you complain.

if the opponent doesnt bother to go up and watch or ask the ref to watch closely that is on him. if he isnt allowed, then that is a fault in the rules.

 

[Swighey]

If it's too close to call then it's too close to call. There is really no need for a referee, or a group of observers, to use the "physics" to influence said referee's decision based on observation of which ball was contacted first. "We know best" or "I just know" isn't objective.

I have the utmost respect for those here who back up what they say with real data, real physics, real interpretations - probably more respect than they realise, at least two of them are heroes and bordering on legends with their analysis of the game of pool. There are shots that lowly me "can" call when I referee but I don't. I guess we will never know how well the referee in question "could have" called Yapp's "foul" but they didn't. In real time it's close, really really close - they can't, or a least shouldn't, call it. Video replay as an aid to the referee of course changes everything. Same in all sports. But it wasn't used (I hope it will be eventually in all pro tournaments because the technology is becoming really cheap and really available).

By all means, analyse the shot. But let the referees do their job.