Such a thin hit, coming from so close to the struck rail, with pool balls...and bending so where it did...? I dont buy it.
What makes a billiard ball bend, anyway?
SVB foul vs. Kaci?
- Thread starter BRussell
- Start date
Such a thin hit, coming from so close to the struck rail, with pool balls...and bending so where it did...? I dont buy it.
What makes a billiard ball bend, anyway?
Jedi mind trick?
Aside from that, ya dick!?
TightPocket
New member
These are all with the cue back on its way back towards his cue, including the first picture, where his cuetip is clearly straight. I'm not saying it is or is not a foul, but it appears that the bend in the cuestick tip end is not just from the camera. All things have to be weighed together, so I am just providing these images from slow-motion.
Nice work, taught-pawcket. Thanks for the effort.
I didn't really look too closely, but I will, and would point out Shane's elbows...indication the cue is moving away from cb
I didn't really look too closely, but I will, and would point out Shane's elbows...indication the cue is moving away from cb
rocketceo
<<< rocketceo >>>
Something new to add
Well, after reading all 140 posts so far, here's a couple of things no one has mentioned yet. First, with 25 years 3-cushion experience, along with 30+ years in pool (with many as ref and TD), I have a unique perspective from the carom viewpoint. In 3-cushion we care where the cue ball goes, and understanding "bend" is essential. So several things to clear up from prior posts.
1. This is NOT an obvious call. It is very subtle, no matter what your senses tell you. I too thought it was a clear foul at first, but then....
2. Many posts reference how the spin or English made the ball bend. Nope. English has virtually zero effect on causing bend. Most pool players -- and even some very good ones -- don't understand that bend occurs on EVERY cut shot where the CB hits the OB with high or low (NOT English), at anything beyond very slow speed. The bend occurs when the high or low causes the ball to rotate on an axis different then its rolling path, and that rotation fights to pull the CB off its path. You may not see it, or it may happen within less than an inch, but it is there. An important note is that once the friction of the cloth wins, the ball will be rotating naturally on its path, and it will not bend any further.
So how does this affect Shane's shot? First we have to address how the ball was bending. Shane's approach to the rail was at perhaps a 75 degree angle. This is usually not enough to create much bend, and it's much easier to see the bend at a 30-60 angle. Consider though that they were playing on almost new cloth with perhaps zero humidity (TV lights). On those conditions there is a lot of slide, which makes it harder for the CB to fight the rolling path. Translation: the ball can bend for quite some time, even after impact with a couple of cushions.
I analyzed the bend by looking at where the CB was heading toward the top rail. Immediately after leaving the foot rail, within a few inches it was heading pretty close to the corner where Shane is standing. Within a few more inches it was heading about a half diamond to the right of the corner on the top rail. By the time it's even with the 8-ball it has bent further, and is heading towards the chalk (about 1.5 diamonds from the corner).
Within a few more inches -- just BEFORE where the questionable contact occurs -- the CB is heading just left of the nameplate (about 1.9). It seems clear to me that the CB is STILL bending at this point, and in fact continues to bend AFTER passing the suspicious area and it finally hits the top rail at 2.1.
No crowing intended here, but carom players necessarily understand, SEE and analyze bend far better than pool players. We actually must use it, and cause it, to make certain shots, and that subtle analysis of how much bend, and where to make the bend occur, is a large part of the elegance and beauty of 3-cushion. It is clear to me that the suspicious change in direction could very well have occurred because the pool ball was STILL bending when it passed under the cue tip. Supporting this is the speed of the shot. Bend occurs faster with slower speeds, and at the speed he shot the ball, on that cloth, I would expect the "big bend" to occur right about where it does.
The "big bend?" Well, in higher speed bend shots like this during the first portion after contact the ball is moving so fast that it bends slightly, but doesn't really "take." Eventually the friction slows the ball enough that the rotation on a different axis can "grab" the cloth, and a much more noticeable bend occurs. I believe this is exactly what happened right around the suspicious contact area, and explains the altered path. If this doesn't compute, think about massé shots you've seen. The CB heads in one direction, but then a foot or 6 feet later it drastically changes direction. This effect is easier to cause with a highly elevated cue, but the same principle, to a lesser degree, happens with slightly elevated cues.
But then there's the problem of the sound. We DO hear a sound, and I think this is the big bugaboo that has created much of the controversy. I have concluded it is the cue contacting the bridge, and not the CB, for two reasons. First, the sound is loud enough to have required a meaningful hit on the CB, yet it's fairly clear that the speed of the CB was not affected. Second, the path of the CB would have been altered, yet it wasn't (by anything but the bend).
I think this was just a confluence of the sound and the big bend happening in the same area, fooling the eyes into believing what you were seeing. If you don't really get "bend" it is easy to misinterpret what happened. If you look at this again on 1/4 speed, and note where on the top rail the CB is headed, as you see it head from just right of 0, to .5, to 1.5 and eventually 2.1 you will SEE the true path of the CB.
Finally, kudos to Kaci for good sportsmanship and handling of the aftermath. I think Shane and the ref have both been handed a lot of unnecessary flak, although I agree it is understandable. This is easily the most difficult shot I have ever had to call, as can be seen by the number of very knowledgeable and expert posters who are in disagreement, and the fact that it's still arguable even with slow motion video. Follow the "bend" minutely as I have suggested, and I think you will find the truth.
Well, after reading all 140 posts so far, here's a couple of things no one has mentioned yet. First, with 25 years 3-cushion experience, along with 30+ years in pool (with many as ref and TD), I have a unique perspective from the carom viewpoint. In 3-cushion we care where the cue ball goes, and understanding "bend" is essential. So several things to clear up from prior posts.
1. This is NOT an obvious call. It is very subtle, no matter what your senses tell you. I too thought it was a clear foul at first, but then....
2. Many posts reference how the spin or English made the ball bend. Nope. English has virtually zero effect on causing bend. Most pool players -- and even some very good ones -- don't understand that bend occurs on EVERY cut shot where the CB hits the OB with high or low (NOT English), at anything beyond very slow speed. The bend occurs when the high or low causes the ball to rotate on an axis different then its rolling path, and that rotation fights to pull the CB off its path. You may not see it, or it may happen within less than an inch, but it is there. An important note is that once the friction of the cloth wins, the ball will be rotating naturally on its path, and it will not bend any further.
So how does this affect Shane's shot? First we have to address how the ball was bending. Shane's approach to the rail was at perhaps a 75 degree angle. This is usually not enough to create much bend, and it's much easier to see the bend at a 30-60 angle. Consider though that they were playing on almost new cloth with perhaps zero humidity (TV lights). On those conditions there is a lot of slide, which makes it harder for the CB to fight the rolling path. Translation: the ball can bend for quite some time, even after impact with a couple of cushions.
I analyzed the bend by looking at where the CB was heading toward the top rail. Immediately after leaving the foot rail, within a few inches it was heading pretty close to the corner where Shane is standing. Within a few more inches it was heading about a half diamond to the right of the corner on the top rail. By the time it's even with the 8-ball it has bent further, and is heading towards the chalk (about 1.5 diamonds from the corner).
Within a few more inches -- just BEFORE where the questionable contact occurs -- the CB is heading just left of the nameplate (about 1.9). It seems clear to me that the CB is STILL bending at this point, and in fact continues to bend AFTER passing the suspicious area and it finally hits the top rail at 2.1.
No crowing intended here, but carom players necessarily understand, SEE and analyze bend far better than pool players. We actually must use it, and cause it, to make certain shots, and that subtle analysis of how much bend, and where to make the bend occur, is a large part of the elegance and beauty of 3-cushion. It is clear to me that the suspicious change in direction could very well have occurred because the pool ball was STILL bending when it passed under the cue tip. Supporting this is the speed of the shot. Bend occurs faster with slower speeds, and at the speed he shot the ball, on that cloth, I would expect the "big bend" to occur right about where it does.
The "big bend?" Well, in higher speed bend shots like this during the first portion after contact the ball is moving so fast that it bends slightly, but doesn't really "take." Eventually the friction slows the ball enough that the rotation on a different axis can "grab" the cloth, and a much more noticeable bend occurs. I believe this is exactly what happened right around the suspicious contact area, and explains the altered path. If this doesn't compute, think about massé shots you've seen. The CB heads in one direction, but then a foot or 6 feet later it drastically changes direction. This effect is easier to cause with a highly elevated cue, but the same principle, to a lesser degree, happens with slightly elevated cues.
But then there's the problem of the sound. We DO hear a sound, and I think this is the big bugaboo that has created much of the controversy. I have concluded it is the cue contacting the bridge, and not the CB, for two reasons. First, the sound is loud enough to have required a meaningful hit on the CB, yet it's fairly clear that the speed of the CB was not affected. Second, the path of the CB would have been altered, yet it wasn't (by anything but the bend).
I think this was just a confluence of the sound and the big bend happening in the same area, fooling the eyes into believing what you were seeing. If you don't really get "bend" it is easy to misinterpret what happened. If you look at this again on 1/4 speed, and note where on the top rail the CB is headed, as you see it head from just right of 0, to .5, to 1.5 and eventually 2.1 you will SEE the true path of the CB.
Finally, kudos to Kaci for good sportsmanship and handling of the aftermath. I think Shane and the ref have both been handed a lot of unnecessary flak, although I agree it is understandable. This is easily the most difficult shot I have ever had to call, as can be seen by the number of very knowledgeable and expert posters who are in disagreement, and the fact that it's still arguable even with slow motion video. Follow the "bend" minutely as I have suggested, and I think you will find the truth.
Gentlemen, I just duplicated Shanes shot WITH almost the identical CB curve, on my 6 your old Simonis 860. I will upload the video. I might try a few more takes first.
The shot DOES need a slight bit of inside to avoid the 9. At least for me.
EDIT: I shot it a few more times, and I can actually get the "abrupt curve" to begin after the side pocket! I will keep trying and upload a few good video examples later.
Last edited:
These were my feelings in a nutshell.
The sound was due to the cue hitting the bridge, and was too loud to be the CB hitting the cue considering there was no noticeable change in CB speed.
Good post.
8ballhotshot
New member
Absolutely no foul was committed. (Without any doubt in fact)
I watched the video over a few times also in super slow motion and you can clearly see that SVB finds his target on the cue ball then changes his grip on the bridge and immediately instead of pulling the cue back instead he uses the bridge to lift the tip over the cue ball. So you’re totally off on calling this a foul. Totally off.
Nice...thread has taken a turn toward the awesome.
iusedtoberich,
Thanks for making the effort. I wait with great anticipation for your video..
Otherwise, the takeaway for some other posters here is this:
If you don't play at a certain level, then it might be best to not comment on stuff you are unfamiliar with. In this particular case, those of us who've played any significant amount of three cushion, with some decent 5+ runs, were 100% sure this ball path was possible without any foul, but people without this experience seemed to be equally sure, but without real world results to back up their opinion.
Oh, and for anyone who was 100% sure this ball path was not possible, look me up at Derby in January. You are guaranteed some cheap action, if you'd like it.
Short Bus Russ
Thanks for making the effort. I wait with great anticipation for your video..
Otherwise, the takeaway for some other posters here is this:
If you don't play at a certain level, then it might be best to not comment on stuff you are unfamiliar with. In this particular case, those of us who've played any significant amount of three cushion, with some decent 5+ runs, were 100% sure this ball path was possible without any foul, but people without this experience seemed to be equally sure, but without real world results to back up their opinion.
Oh, and for anyone who was 100% sure this ball path was not possible, look me up at Derby in January. You are guaranteed some cheap action, if you'd like it.
Short Bus Russ
Excellent analysis and explanation! Case closed.
More like Laurel and Hardy.
https://youtu.be/VpPeN6ZUgJs
Above is a good attempt of mine to duplicate Shane's shot. I have lines drawn on my cloth with a sharpie, so its easier to see curves on my table. It looks like the CB is moving away from the sharpie line from the rail until about the 2nd diamond (where the bridge head was). Then after that point, it seems to be moving into the the sharpie diamond line.
I have a lot more clips that might show the curve better. But I'm hungry and have to eat. I've been messing with this shot for a couple hours now. There are a LOT of tiny changes that make it different. If I get the CB airborne more, I can move the curve point past the side pocket. But upon watching Shane's shot carefully, it did not seem to get airborne.
I ALSO have one clip for later where I 100% clipped the CB with my bridge head. I felt it in my hand and heard it clear as day. Upon looking at that video, the CB path did not seem to be affected, and it was impossible for me to see the foul advancing the original video one frame at a time (I'm at 30 frames per second).
I will try more shots later and maybe make a good video edit of the possibilities, if I decide to spend more time on this
Above is a good attempt of mine to duplicate Shane's shot. I have lines drawn on my cloth with a sharpie, so its easier to see curves on my table. It looks like the CB is moving away from the sharpie line from the rail until about the 2nd diamond (where the bridge head was). Then after that point, it seems to be moving into the the sharpie diamond line.
I have a lot more clips that might show the curve better. But I'm hungry and have to eat. I've been messing with this shot for a couple hours now. There are a LOT of tiny changes that make it different. If I get the CB airborne more, I can move the curve point past the side pocket. But upon watching Shane's shot carefully, it did not seem to get airborne.
I ALSO have one clip for later where I 100% clipped the CB with my bridge head. I felt it in my hand and heard it clear as day. Upon looking at that video, the CB path did not seem to be affected, and it was impossible for me to see the foul advancing the original video one frame at a time (I'm at 30 frames per second).
I will try more shots later and maybe make a good video edit of the possibilities, if I decide to spend more time on this
C'mon man, that's clearly a foul!
