Foul That Cost Kelly Fisher the World 8-Ball Title … Was It the Correct Call?

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
FYI, I just posted a new video that discusses and analyses the foul called against Kelly Fisher in the Finals of the recent Women’s 8-Ball World Championship that gave Chezka Centeno the match victory and the world title. Check it out:


Contents:
  • 0:00 - Intro
  • 0:50 - The Call and Review
  • 2:00 - Shot Analysis
  • 3:15 - Similar Situation
  • 4:11 - Re-Creation and Conclusions
  • 6:23 - Wrap Up
Supporting Resources:
As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
 
Excellent as always.

My one quibble would be what the standard should be for any video reviewers.

Your video suggests that any video reviewers would need to conclude that there was no way the CB could have contacted the cushion after hitting the 6. I agree that this should be what the referee is initially trying to determine.

But to me where there is a referee in good position to make the initial call, and makes the call based on something you can clearly see with the naked eye (like CB hitting the rail or not) you should need clear evidence that he or she got it wrong to overturn it. (Like the standard for video review in the NFL).
 
IMO, a refereee would be visually challenged to observe this shot and be able to discern the fractional contact and speed at which the balls move short distances and still be able to confidently and accurately declare a foul or safety without the assistance of high speed video replay. The human eye even at 20/20 vision is susceptible to not noticing the imperceptible contact without high speed replay and magnification. Anyone disagreeing likely has some Falcon breeding in their family tree because without video, shots like this are a coin flip you get it right on the call. BTW, my vision is 20/20 without glasses.
 
Bavafongoul said:
IMO, a refereee would be visually challenged to observe this shot and be able to discern the fractional contact and speed at which the balls move short distances and still be able to confidently and accurately declare a foul or safety without the assistance of high speed video replay. The human eye even at 20/20 vision is susceptible to not noticing the imperceptible contact without high speed replay and magnification. Anyone disagreeing likely has some Falcon breeding in their family tree because without video, shots like this are a coin flip you get it right on the call. BTW, my vision is 20/20 without glasses.
Click to expand...

I hear you on certain shots. But to me this was slow enough that a well positioned ref should have been table to see if the CB got the rail.

Next time Dr Dave can have Bob J or someone else try to make the call live.
 
wacokid9ball said:
too close to call, ref is right
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that make the ref outta line? There is no appeal process either.
That ventured, it looks like the ball went back towards the cushion and stopped a hair short. That would leave a gap to ponder - still 50/50; players favor.

Me< I've seen enough Twilight Zone and lean towards vice/evil, telekinesis if you need physics.
 
By the way, although I can’t find it right now Andy Goldstein shot a similar kick shot against Michael Yednak but the CB did come back and get a rail. I believe they had failed to get a ref so it was deemed a good shot (but the video does make it clear it was good).
 
Why don’t they have a camera on the lights directly above the table looking straight down at the playing surface? The referee was way out of position too, IMO. He could have walked closer to the table after Kelly had struck the cue ball and got a much better view of the balls and rail…

She was extremely gracious afterward, got my respect in a big way!!!!
 
Quesports said:
Why don’t they have a camera on the lights directly above the table looking straight down at the playing surface? The referee was way out of position too, IMO. He could have walked closer to the table after Kelly had struck the cue ball and got a much better view of the balls and rail…

She was extremely gracious afterward, got my respect in a big way!!!!
Click to expand...

You can see from Dr Dave’s video that they did had an overhead camera. Hopefully that view was available to the referee or whoever was doing the replay.

On the positioning issue, I think this is an issue of how the referees are trained. My guess is that they are trained to stay out of the players line of shot (which is generally a good thing but sometimes they need to put the call first). I know in snooker it annoys fast players like O’Sullivan because the ref stands behind him and has to walk around to spot the balls, which slows him down.

Here the ref was pretty close and approached the table as the CB got close to the hit. But like Dr Dave said he could have been in position earlier.
 
GideonF said:
Excellent as always.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

GideonF said:
My one quibble would be what the standard should be for any video reviewers.

Your video suggests that any video reviewers would need to conclude that there was no way the CB could have contacted the cushion after hitting the 6. I agree that this should be what the referee is initially trying to determine.
Click to expand...

What the ref saw live up close is also taken into consideration.

GideonF said:
But to me where there is a referee in good position to make the initial call, and makes the call based on something you can clearly see with the naked eye (like CB hitting the rail or not) you should need clear evidence that he or she got it wrong to overturn it. (Like the standard for video review in the NFL).
Click to expand...

I like the way it is now, where the benefit of any doubt goes to the shooter, regardless of the initial call.
 
Bavafongoul said:
IMO, a refereee would be visually challenged to observe this shot and be able to discern the fractional contact and speed at which the balls move short distances and still be able to confidently and accurately declare a foul or safety without the assistance of high speed video replay. The human eye even at 20/20 vision is susceptible to not noticing the imperceptible contact without high speed replay and magnification. Anyone disagreeing likely has some Falcon breeding in their family tree because without video, shots like this are a coin flip you get it right on the call. BTW, my vision is 20/20 without glasses.
Click to expand...

The ref could have been closer and looking more straight down, but I think the action of this shot was slow enough to be able to see if there was a gap between the CB and cushion as the CB approached the cushion.
 
dr_dave said:
It is too difficult to make a call like this from the video footage available. Seeing a shot like this live and up close is much more reliable.
Click to expand...

That’s my point on the standard of review! If the ref made the call live and up close that it was a foul, it shouldn’t be overturned because the video evidence available is not good enough to make a definitive determination that it WAS a foul. You should need clear evidence that the ref got it wrong, not just “we can’t tell if he did or didn’t from the bad video, so the call is overturned”.
 
Quesports said:
Why don’t they have a camera on the lights directly above the table looking straight down at the playing surface? The referee was way out of position too, IMO. He could have walked closer to the table after Kelly had struck the cue ball and got a much better view of the balls and rail…
Click to expand...

For an overhead camera to help with a shot like this, it would need to be extremely high-resolution so the view could be zoomed up dramatically with good quality. And even then, the angle of the view might still be inadequate.

Quesports said:
She was extremely gracious afterward, got my respect in a big way!!!!
Click to expand...

Agreed. Kelly showed a lot of class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top