https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zufjjNA2EIc&list=PLfaC80gLaoP9SNmaPx5LmbCdlqa3m9NIc&index=31
Look at the shot at 22:30. Does that look like a foul to you?
Look at the shot at 22:30. Does that look like a foul to you?
Foul or not
- Thread starter dmgwalsh
- Start date
It looks fine to me. A double-hit usually negates any draw and the cue-ball never goes past the perpendicular line. It stuns and then draws back which is exactly what I would expect to see with an elevated cue hitting low.
It's possible to do that shot with or without a foul. Elevating doesn't guarantee that you will get out of the double (or continuous) hit. You can judge from the action of the cue ball. He is clearly playing with draw as the cue ball pulls back after the shot. The question is whether the cue ball went forward of the expected clean hit line.
It is a little hard to determine this on an oblique video. If I were the referee I would be standing to the side perpendicular to the shot to see if the cue ball advanced through the kiss plane after hitting the object ball. On the video, you can stretch a string across your monitor through the contact point on the object ball and roughly the far side pocket. That looks close to the kiss line to me. Watch to see if the cue ball crosses the string.
I did what you said, and it looks to me like the cue ball did go sliding forward of the tangent line before the draw took. I think it is a foul.
The only reason I put this up is to help teach us what is and is not a foul. I just happened to be watching the video the other day and it looked a little hinky to me. I called something similar on Ralf last year and he did not like the call, but I think it was correct. Bob, I remember you calling a similar one on Niels a few years back.
Although I agree, you can still get a double-hit, I still don't think you're going to get the draw-action Thorsten gets here. That's not to mention, this is Thorsten. If there's one guy in the world who I trust would call a foul on himself, it's him.
Foul or no foul and reasons why
Here is what one of our league members had to say about it. He does not post on AZB, so I will put it up here. I think he gives a very good analysis of the shot, given what we have to work with.
Hi Dennis: This is difficult to call from this camera angle. If I were a referee watching that shot, I would have tried to view it from an angle closer toward the corner pocket, along the tangent line. It looks like that tangent line is maybe halfway between the corner pocket and the first diamond up on the side rail. If the cue ball appeared to penetrate that tangent line during the stroke, then it would definitely have been a foul. But from this different angle, it is not completely clear.
I think it was probably a foul, but from this camera angle, I admit that I might be wrong. I stepped through those frames one at a time, and it looks like the cue ball penetrates the tangent line by about 1/4 ball. However, the tip ball contacts occur in between frames, so the double hit can only be inferred from the cue ball action, not directly seen on the video. If that is correct, then that means a second hit occurred, but it just barely nudged the cue ball; this would have been a legal shot before the 2008 BCA rule rewrite because the old rules allowed up to 1/2 ball penetration. The new rules do not allow any penetration at all.
Just to confuse things further, if I had to call that shot from this video, I would say that it was legal. Even though I *think* a double hit occurred, there is no absolute proof of it in the video. Both tip-ball contacts (if there is a second one) are in between frames. If one contact has been in one frame, and the second contact had been in the next frame, then that would have been proof of a double hit. Or, if the camera angle had been along the tangent line, any movement of the cue ball past the tangent line would have been proof of a double hit. But neither of those bits of evidence are availalbe, and in absence of proof of a foul, the referee is supposed to rule in favor of the player.
If you are asking other people what is their opinion, I would like to hear what is the consensus.
-Ron Shepard
Here is what one of our league members had to say about it. He does not post on AZB, so I will put it up here. I think he gives a very good analysis of the shot, given what we have to work with.
Hi Dennis: This is difficult to call from this camera angle. If I were a referee watching that shot, I would have tried to view it from an angle closer toward the corner pocket, along the tangent line. It looks like that tangent line is maybe halfway between the corner pocket and the first diamond up on the side rail. If the cue ball appeared to penetrate that tangent line during the stroke, then it would definitely have been a foul. But from this different angle, it is not completely clear.
I think it was probably a foul, but from this camera angle, I admit that I might be wrong. I stepped through those frames one at a time, and it looks like the cue ball penetrates the tangent line by about 1/4 ball. However, the tip ball contacts occur in between frames, so the double hit can only be inferred from the cue ball action, not directly seen on the video. If that is correct, then that means a second hit occurred, but it just barely nudged the cue ball; this would have been a legal shot before the 2008 BCA rule rewrite because the old rules allowed up to 1/2 ball penetration. The new rules do not allow any penetration at all.
Just to confuse things further, if I had to call that shot from this video, I would say that it was legal. Even though I *think* a double hit occurred, there is no absolute proof of it in the video. Both tip-ball contacts (if there is a second one) are in between frames. If one contact has been in one frame, and the second contact had been in the next frame, then that would have been proof of a double hit. Or, if the camera angle had been along the tangent line, any movement of the cue ball past the tangent line would have been proof of a double hit. But neither of those bits of evidence are availalbe, and in absence of proof of a foul, the referee is supposed to rule in favor of the player.
If you are asking other people what is their opinion, I would like to hear what is the consensus.
-Ron Shepard
Close but I think it was a foul, It looks like the cue ball slide forward past the tangent line before the draw took. That being said, I probably would not have called it as it is Thorsten and no one has more integrity than he does. So if he thought it was a good hit than its a good hit.
-Bill
-Bill
I would not call a foul if I was the referee on that shot. I'd say it's extremely rare to double hit so little on an almost straight shot that the cueball would deviate from the tangent line only a little. I see a slight cueball movement forward right after the shot, but that is most likely caused by the cueball leaving the surface of the table and hitting the object ball airborne because of the cue elevation. I think I also see a slight hop and a couple of cueball bounces.
Yes, on his 72nd ball, as I recall, right after his break shot. Apparently he did not know we were playing by the WSR.
One large problem is that the rule in all the other DCC events is that you can hit the cue ball as many times as you feel like as long as you make it look good. It is understandable that the players are confused.
In the particular case of the video in the OP, I would probably call a foul but I would have been standing along the tangent (if I had been paying attention to the run) to make sure of the penetration.
I don't think the speed was sufficient for hop to get the cue ball to move forward. With that close a shot and at that speed, the cue ball will not land very far above the equator on the object ball.
If someone with a high speed camera has some extra time it would be good to have a wide range of double hit situations to add to what Dr. Dave has already posted.
The more I watch this video, the more convinced I am it's a good hit. Thorsten is twisting to get his arm in the right angle. He's actually cutting the ball and the cue-ball is deflecting out of the way. Of course, it's a youtube video with pretty crappy resolution for slow-mo. What's more, in person, you're getting a true three-dimensional perspective of what's happening which is lost in video. So, that said, I think it's valid to think it could be a bad hit and responsible to say you had to be there to truly know. All I can say is, I see a good hit here but yes, if I were standing over the shot, maybe I would see it differently.
To me, this is one of those shots where unless you are right there viewing it from the optimum angle...it's impossible to call it a foul. Without conclusive evidence, it goes as a good shot.
-Dennis
I agree with this analysis. Not only is he twisting, but in his pre-shot alignment/aiming process, he switches from looking at (a) the line between the object ball and the ball to be struck by the object ball, and (b) the line between the cue ball and the object ball, and it is apparent that there is a fair amount of angle between those lines, meaning that he wasn't facing a push situation. The cue ball appears to go along the tangent line of this cut shot, before the backspin kicks in. Further, the amount of elevation of his cue is substantial, also removing risk of pushing the cue ball. Finally, the hit simply looks very clean.
I'm thinking this was a foul, but as others have noted, it's hard to confirm. I don't feel that the cue ball action proves that there was no double hit.
I also don't feel that Thorsten's integrity is the issue here. No player holds himself to a higher standard, but it can't be assumed that Thorsten would have necessarily known it if he fouled.
As Bob noted, the key here is for the referee to be properly placed to make the call. Without proper oversight of the shot, I don't think a foul can logically be called when it's this close.
I also don't feel that Thorsten's integrity is the issue here. No player holds himself to a higher standard, but it can't be assumed that Thorsten would have necessarily known it if he fouled.
As Bob noted, the key here is for the referee to be properly placed to make the call. Without proper oversight of the shot, I don't think a foul can logically be called when it's this close.
I was the scorer on that run. I can’t remember my thoughts before the shot but I imagine they went something like this: “If he fouls he will call it on himself.” I say that because I made no attempt to position myself by the tangent line. I probably felt that no matter how I positioned myself he would be in a better position than me to know if he fouled and that he would be honest about it. That’s no excuse for me taking the easy way of trusting him. If it had been someone other than Thorsten, without his sterling reputation, I might well have done the same. Let’s face it - these guys play pool for a living and I’m an amateur with virtually no referee experience. I can call obvious fouls in a league game, but I lack the self-confidence to disagree with and overrule a world champion on a close call like this.
Now that I’ve seen the shot a few times on video I still don’t know if it was a foul. It does appear that it might have gone forward of the tangent line but by very little. In real time you only see it once and it happens fast. I really wonder how the official ref on the TV table would have called it. If I had been perfectly positioned to see the shot I probably would still have been indecisive and let Thorsten make the call on himself.
Now that I’ve seen the shot a few times on video I still don’t know if it was a foul. It does appear that it might have gone forward of the tangent line but by very little. In real time you only see it once and it happens fast. I really wonder how the official ref on the TV table would have called it. If I had been perfectly positioned to see the shot I probably would still have been indecisive and let Thorsten make the call on himself.
It is difficult to tell from the video. I was just watching it the other day and was wondering and thought I would throw it out there to see what other more experienced people might think.
We have the Derby in a short while and we may need to be able to make some calls.
I kind of wanted to make sure that everyone(especially Bob Jewett) agreed that if it had been a straight hit, not at an angle and if the player jacked up, and tried to apply low, but the ball squirted forward first, even a small distance before backing up, then in that instance, it would have been a foul. This video clip was not a perfect example of that scenario.
You are all right that given our video it is hard to tell exactly what the angle was and where the tangent line is, but most agree that if it crossed the tangent line, then it was a foul.
I have seen both Ralf and Niels argue that ruling and it is hard to resist them in the heat of the competition. Ralf said something like, That's the only way I could shoot it, to which I replied, if you are that close, then maybe you can't shoot it. He then said something about how fouls were being called in the rest of the tournament. I said we just try to call them according to the rules up here in the Straight Pool Run.
Anyway, excellent analysis of the hypothetical by those of you who chose to discuss the issues. :thumbup:
I hope I don't blow too many calls come Derby time.
We have the Derby in a short while and we may need to be able to make some calls.
I kind of wanted to make sure that everyone(especially Bob Jewett) agreed that if it had been a straight hit, not at an angle and if the player jacked up, and tried to apply low, but the ball squirted forward first, even a small distance before backing up, then in that instance, it would have been a foul. This video clip was not a perfect example of that scenario.
You are all right that given our video it is hard to tell exactly what the angle was and where the tangent line is, but most agree that if it crossed the tangent line, then it was a foul.
I have seen both Ralf and Niels argue that ruling and it is hard to resist them in the heat of the competition. Ralf said something like, That's the only way I could shoot it, to which I replied, if you are that close, then maybe you can't shoot it. He then said something about how fouls were being called in the rest of the tournament. I said we just try to call them according to the rules up here in the Straight Pool Run.
Anyway, excellent analysis of the hypothetical by those of you who chose to discuss the issues. :thumbup:
I hope I don't blow too many calls come Derby time.
I'll just add another thought, though it's irrelevant to the question of whether it was a foul. If I had positioned myself perfectly and honestly thought it was a foul and called it as such, I might have had to go into the witness protection program. Though there weren't many watching the immediate reaction of the crowd was "Awesome shot!". And it was awesome, whether it was a teeny double-hit or not. Like I say, irrelevant, but it has to be admitted that it was quite a shot.
Thing is, Dennis, that the cue elevation angle can always be increased to the point that the foul is more easily avoidable, so Ralf's contention can be dismissed. Yes, the cue ball control is diminished when you get close to vertical, but sometimes that's the price you have to pay to play a legal shot.