SVB foul vs. Kaci?

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was unable to watch that shot in slow motion, so it wasn't that useful.

Its the same video of the whole match. Just about 2 minutes later. You should be able to watch it in slow motion. If the link does not work for you, try the first link from the original camera angle, and just watch until the next rack starts and you will see the overhead replay.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I just put the overhead camera shot in .25 speed slow motion, and it looks like the CB is continuously curving from the moment it hits the first end rail, until it gets all the way to the other end rail. Then, it rebounds straight.

No foul:grin::grin::grin:
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHe9ekpIeH8

Here is the same shot from 3 cushion. This clip shows Sanchez shooting a similar shot from 3 different positions. The last of the 3 is the closest angle to Shanes cut. You can see on this last of the 3 shots, that the CB is continuously curving even after hitting all of the rails.

Obviously carom tables have much less friction, but if this was the pool table under TV lights and with 3 day old cloth, a similar ball curve should happen.
 

Bic D

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ha ha was it Tiger the TV viewers called in about, that he had moved his ball an inch or two? And it was proven from another camera angle later that it never moved? I think this was 10 years ago.

The only issue I remember involving Tiger and a TV viewer was at the Masters some years ago. He took an illegal drop on 15 and the TV viewer who called in was a former tournament director and then current champions tour golfer.

Tiger was given a 2 stroke penalty but was not disqualified from that tournament. The reason that he was not disqualified was the the TV viewer knew that if Tiger signed an incorrect card he would be disqualified so he called immediately and alerted officials.

Tiger did sign an incorrect card but they allowed him to stay because officials knew about the viewer call in and didn't do anything....originally. Later it was determined that Tiger dropped the ball about 2 yards from where he was supposed to but they allowed him to stay anyway.

Other players thought he knew exactly what he was doing and he should have DQed himself.

Was there another incident involving Tiger?
 

Flatfoot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you pause the video at the right time, you can clearly see the ball is under Shane's cue, and it has not changed direction in the least...not one iota. If you go frame by frame, you will see that neither the direction, or the speed of the ball changes even a fraction. I don't know what some of you are looking at, but there is a 0% chance that it is a foul. Keep in mind, that before I used my software, I thought it was a foul.
 

Bic D

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you pause the video at the right time, you can clearly see the ball is under Shane's cue, and it has not changed direction in the least...not one iota. If you go frame by frame, you will see that neither the direction, or the speed of the ball changes even a fraction. I don't know what some of you are looking at, but there is a 0% chance that it is a foul. Keep in mind, that before I used my software, I thought it was a foul.

You originally thought it was a foul.

You used software that changed your mind.

But, you don't know what some people are looking at.....They are looking at the same video that you thought was originally a foul. lol
 

Flatfoot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You originally thought it was a foul.

You used software that changed your mind.

But, you don't know what some people are looking at.....They are looking at the same video that you thought was originally a foul. lol

That is the point I am trying to make! There are some that are saying it is clear that it is a foul, even when they slow it down. I admit that when I saw the regular video, it looked like a foul to me. However, using software, when you pause it at just the right time, you can clearly see that it is not a foul. I don't know what those who are saying it is clearly a foul, even when they are slowing it down, are looking at.
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Comparing 3c to pool is like oranges to grapefruit.. 3c balls are such an increase in mass and the cloth and the heat...

It is like oj's glove.
That's not oj's glove.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHe9ekpIeH8

Here is the same shot from 3 cushion. This clip shows Sanchez shooting a similar shot from 3 different positions. The last of the 3 is the closest angle to Shanes cut. You can see on this last of the 3 shots, that the CB is continuously curving even after hitting all of the rails.

Obviously carom tables have much less friction, but if this was the pool table under TV lights and with 3 day old cloth, a similar ball curve should happen.
 

BasementDweller

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This is nothing more than a he said -- he said situation. There were at least 4 or maybe 5 other players present at this match and they have all stated that they don't even remember the shot in question and this includes the referee. The accused as stated he did not foul on that shot.

So the only reasonable conclusion we can draw here is that he fouled. :grin-square:
 

Curt

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The only issue I remember involving Tiger and a TV viewer was at the Masters some years ago. He took an illegal drop on 15 and the TV viewer who called in was a former tournament director and then current champions tour golfer.



Tiger was given a 2 stroke penalty but was not disqualified from that tournament. The reason that he was not disqualified was the the TV viewer knew that if Tiger signed an incorrect card he would be disqualified so he called immediately and alerted officials.



Tiger did sign an incorrect card but they allowed him to stay because officials knew about the viewer call in and didn't do anything....originally. Later it was determined that Tiger dropped the ball about 2 yards from where he was supposed to but they allowed him to stay anyway.

players thought he knew exactly what he was doing and he should have DQed himself.



Was there another incident involving Tiger?






Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
 

PoolBum

Ace in the side.
Silver Member
This is nothing more than a he said -- he said situation. There were at least 4 or maybe 5 other players present at this match and they have all stated that they don't even remember the shot in question and this includes the referee. The accused as stated he did not foul on that shot.

So the only reasonable conclusion we can draw here is that he fouled. :grin-square:

Quod erat demonstrandum!
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
It definitely hit the cue.
He might not have felt it because of the interaction of the cue and bridge.
I think the jury is split on the actually hitting part. I'm not sure and I've watched from both angles.

I've played shots like this one where I had to get the bridge out of the way quickly and I've been unsure whether I fouled or not. If the cue ball hits stick or bridge solidly, it slows down a lot. In the video the cue ball does not seem to slow down or at least very little. If I had been playing the shot my conclusion as a player probably would have been that I had not fouled because the cue ball went pretty much where I expected.

However, I think Jay is right and a foul could have been called on the referee. In my view, he should have been much closer to the shot and probably perpendicular to the line of the shot, not standing behind it, but in the flow of play it is sometimes hard to realize early enough where you need to be and get there without sharking the player. If I had been the ref and in position, and I couldn't be sure whether there had actually been contact, I would have judged by the cue ball's action, which looked OK, more or less.

For a little extra wrinkle, go back to the video and watch what the cue ball does as it rolls into position for the five ball (off the eight ball). That should also be a foul but I don't know who to call it on.
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Comparing 3c to pool is like oranges to grapefruit.. 3c balls are such an increase in mass and the cloth and the heat...

It is like oj's glove.
That's not oj's glove.

What's the difference? You got a pool cue, balls on the table. All you gotta do is get the feel of it.

:grin-square::grin-square::grin-square:
 

gregcantrall

Center Ball
Silver Member
I think the jury is split on the actually hitting part. I'm not sure and I've watched from both angles.

I've played shots like this one where I had to get the bridge out of the way quickly and I've been unsure whether I fouled or not. If the cue ball hits stick or bridge solidly, it slows down a lot. In the video the cue ball does not seem to slow down or at least very little. If I had been playing the shot my conclusion as a player probably would have been that I had not fouled because the cue ball went pretty much where I expected.

However, I think Jay is right and a foul could have been called on the referee. In my view, he should have been much closer to the shot and probably perpendicular to the line of the shot, not standing behind it, but in the flow of play it is sometimes hard to realize early enough where you need to be and get there without sharking the player. If I had been the ref and in position, and I couldn't be sure whether there had actually been contact, I would have judged by the cue ball's action, which looked OK, more or less.

For a little extra wrinkle, go back to the video and watch what the cue ball does as it rolls into position for the five ball (off the eight ball). That should also be a foul but I don't know who to call it on.
I have been in situations where it seemed like there was no contact but the ball moved. I see this as very similar. The contact was so slight and glancing I would expect no sound or feeling. I would have no problem with either call on that shot.
 
Top