SVB foul vs. Kaci?

spartan

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
terryhanna said:
Shane said no foul but if it was he would of called it on himself.

Kaci made a thread about it on Facebook after somebody sent him the video but he didn't complain and no sour grapes on his part, he gave Shane congrats on the win.
And said he respects SVB and thinks Shane would of called it on himself if he knew it was bad.

I think Kaci ended up deleting the thread because some of the comments got out of hand Karl Boyes said it was a foul and said Americans players are known for cheating basically calling Shane a cheater :eek:

PS After maybe 1000's of comments on Facebook about the shot, it seemed like it was a pretty even split on foul and no foul.
Click to expand...


Ball cleaner Boyes is a rabble rouser so have to discount what he says. This is same guy who changed history causing a bizarre new rule (no BIH and respot 9 ball when scratch on 9 ball) to be implemented in upcoming US Intl Open when he screamed foul after ball hit Daulton's cue after 9 went down.
One of dumbest things in pool is to expect players to call foul on themselves. That is ref's job.
Heck, if I was playing in big final with big title and money at stake, I wouldn't trust myself to call foul on myself :D
As Jay rightly pointed out, the ref was napping and was not in line of sight. In soccer, refs by hook or by crook stay in line of sight close to ball- in recent World Cup, there were few times refs obstructed play when ball hit refs but play continue.
Ref decision is final so if he was napping it is his fault , not Shane.
Ref errors in pool are getting to be too many. Are these pool refs even properly trained or certified ? :)
 
J

Jsnstanley

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The sound being referred to is the cue shaft making contact with the bridge head as it’s being removed from the shot line. The cue ball swerves after contact with the rail. Never touching anything, cue tip nor bridge.:rolleyes:
 
R

rayray

New member
fastone371 said:
2 posts in 7 years? I hope your 1st one was much, much better than this fallacy. The people that were there including Shane's opponent all said there was no foul, you seriously dont think they were watching???
Click to expand...

Yeah, 2 post in seven years, you moron..... Stevie Wonder could have called the bad hit here because you can hear the cue ball actually hit the tip of his stick......

To make it simple for you,...... In this pic Shane has lifted the bridge + his stick from the table. The cue ball goes under his tip & nicks it which cause the cue ball to deflect.

You can actually hear it so no video/photo is even needed....but here it is anyway moron.
 

Attachments

  • badhit3.JPG
    badhit3.JPG
    20.9 KB · Views: 353
easy-e

easy-e

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
rayray said:
Yeah, 2 post in seven years, you moron..... Stevie Wonder could have called the bad hit here because you can hear the cue ball actually hit the tip of his stick......

To make it simple for you,...... In this pic Shane has lifted the bridge + his stick from the table. The cue ball goes under his tip & nicks it which cause the cue ball to deflect.

You can actually hear it so no video/photo is even needed....but here it is anyway moron.
Click to expand...

Objection: speculation.
 
azhousepro

azhousepro

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Moderator
Let's easy WAY BACK on the name calling.

rayray said:
Yeah, 2 post in seven years, you moron..... Stevie Wonder could have called the bad hit here because you can hear the cue ball actually hit the tip of his stick......

To make it simple for you,...... In this pic Shane has lifted the bridge + his stick from the table. The cue ball goes under his tip & nicks it which cause the cue ball to deflect.

You can actually hear it so no video/photo is even needed....but here it is anyway moron.
Click to expand...
 
L

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It was a foul

The cueball hit the tip of the stick on the rebound. If you have a slow motion gadget on your computer you can see it.
(And for big money no player in his right mind is going to call a foul on himself at a critical point like that.)
That was the referee's responsibility and he went to sleep.
 
PoolBum

PoolBum

Ace in the side.
Silver Member
Low500 said:
The cueball hit the tip of the stick on the rebound. If you have a slow motion gadget on your computer you can see it.
(And for big money no player in his right mind is going to call a foul on himself at a critical point like that.)
That was the referee's responsibility and he went to sleep.
Click to expand...

You don't need a slow motion gadget. Just go to Settings in the lower right corner of the video on YouTube, and set it to .25 speed.

It is obvious when watching it a slower speed that his tip doesn't touch the cueball and that the cueball doesn't change direction.
 
JayKidd

JayKidd

Grammatically Challenged
Silver Member
PoolRookie said:
Anybody not biased or anybody that’s played pool or watched pool 35 plus years should know this is not a foul. Tip sound is different, that was the shaft hitting the bridge and at that speed with new cloth any small contact, especially one hard enough to make a sound would of altered speed and direction more noticeably. The altered path wasn’t caused by contact or it would have been instant not over the length of the table.
Click to expand...

Agree, if the cue ball anticipated in the impact which cause the sound we heard, it must be much more noticable on the table. If the slight cue ball curve was indeed caused by an impact with the cue tip, the sound generated would have to be nearly inaudible.
 
C

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
BRussell said:
https://youtu.be/3222FbMVzvY

Here is the finals match in the Netherlands, SVB vs. Kaci. Great comeback by SVB.

But look at SVB’s shot at 50:30. He uses the bridge and pulls it away quickly as the cue ball comes back at his stick after the shot. Turn the volume up and you can hear a noise that might be the cue ball hitting his tip, and it looks like the cue ball might deviate from its path just a little. No foul was called.

Guilty or not guilty?
Click to expand...
Very hard to tell from the video if the cue ball contacted his bridge stick or cue tip. The clearly visible delayed change in the direction of the cue ball as it's rolling back up the table could certainly have been caused by the spin on the cue ball coming off the rail at that speed, combined with the new cloth, so I'd guess no foul occurred. Only SVB knows for sure, but you'd hope he'd have called the foul on himself if he knew either stick had contacted the cue ball.
 
Last edited:
C

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
terryhanna said:
Shane said no foul but if it was he would of called it on himself.

Kaci made a thread about it on Facebook after somebody sent him the video but he didn't complain and no sour grapes on his part, he gave Shane congrats on the win.
And said he respects SVB and thinks Shane would of called it on himself if he knew it was bad.

I think Kaci ended up deleting the thread because some of the comments got out of hand Karl Boyes said it was a foul and said Americans players are known for cheating basically calling Shane a cheater :eek:

PS After maybe 1000's of comments on Facebook about the shot, it seemed like it was a pretty even split on foul and no foul.
Click to expand...
I find it ironic Boyes claimed it was a foul, after what he did in that match vs Ralf - slamming his cue on the table cloth surface near the pocket, near the rolling cue ball, which, after watching the video, many have claimed may have possibly changed the direction of the cue ball and caused it not to scratch. The ref didn't call it and Boyes didn't call anything on himself, as he should have, and he proceeded to run out the table to win the game/match.

In my opinion, in that case, the foul should have been immediately called on Boyes by the ref, regardless of whether or not you think it caused the change in direction of the cue ball, if for no other reason than exhibiting very poor sportsmanship.
 
Last edited:
jay helfert

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
PoolBum said:
You don't need a slow motion gadget. Just go to Settings in the lower right corner of the video on YouTube, and set it to .25 speed.

It is obvious when watching it a slower speed that his tip doesn't touch the cueball and that the cueball doesn't change direction.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that information. I just watched the video at slow speed and it appears to confirm that the cue ball contacted the tip of Shane's cue. The moment where his cue tip is hidden behind the path of the cue ball is exactly when it changes direction. The "English" didn't do that and he hit a flat ball without English anyway. Watch carefully the video at .25 speed and tell me what you see. I say Shane fouled!

P.S. From where the "ref" was standing he was blocked out on this shot anyway. No chance to call it correctly from where he was. This is a common error that to this day I see many refs make. There is this concept that the referee is either not supposed to be in the players line of sight or they shouldn't block the camera's view of the shot. Both are erroneous! The ref should do his job, plain and simple. I've had this discussion with the the crews of TV shows where I've worked and they tell me that I should do my job and they will just change camera's to see the shot if necessary.
 
Last edited:
Black-Balled

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I can do a crazy shot where both CB and ob are frozen to rail and I brush side of cb with shaft, after the shot. Getting from one end of the table to the other is no problem.

The things you learn for free...
 
K

Kev

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
At first I thought it was a clear foul, however after taking a closer look (in slow-mo) the cueball doesn't seem to hit his tip. I'm pretty sure the 'tink' you hear is sound of his shaft making contact with the rest as he pulls it back up after the cueball rebouds back from the cushion.
 
Last edited:
JayKidd

JayKidd

Grammatically Challenged
Silver Member
It can be clearly seen that the cue ball is already curving right after the rebound from the rail and BEFORE the alleged path-altering-cue-contact, so there must be spin left on the cue ball after the rebound, and the direction and amount of cue ball spin pretty much fit the entire cue ball path.

If some one could do a frame by frame cue ball speed calculation, I wouldn't be surprised that it shows no obvious cue ball slowdown during the alleged foul. The science behind it is simple, with audible sound there must be "significant" energy transfer, sound is just a by-product of the transfer, it is very very unlikely the cue ball perserve all its energy(speed) after an impact like that.
 
Black-Balled

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
'Science'? Opinion, really.

That is why I mentioned my shot:
There is no sound and no perceptible speed change.
JayKidd said:
It can be clearly seen that the cue ball is already curving right after the rebound from the rail and BEFORE the alleged path-altering-cue-contact, so there must be spin left on the cue ball after the rebound, and the direction and amount of cue ball spin pretty much fit the entire cue ball path.

If some one could do a frame by frame cue ball speed calculation, I wouldn't be surprised that it shows no obvious cue ball slowdown during the alleged foul. The science behind it is simple, with audible sound there must be "significant" energy transfer, sound is just a by-product of the transfer, it is very very unlikely the cue ball perserve all its energy(speed) after an impact like that.
Click to expand...
 
Flatfoot

Flatfoot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I won't go into detail about what I do, but my profession requires that I have high quality video equipment. Although, no matter how high quality equipment is, it can only record with as much quality as whatever camera was used to record the original video. When I played the YouTube video, it seemed to me that Shane may've fouled, but I wasn't sure.

When I recorded the YouTube video with my recorder, and viewed it in slow motion, it was absolutely clear that Shane did not foul. The cue ball actually passed slightly below Shane's cue. Another thing that was obvious from the angle directly above, was that there was no deviation of the path of the cue ball, as it passed below the cue. If you view it from above, in slow motion, neither the speed or path of the cue ball, is changed, as it passes by Shane's cue.

Again...I could not see these things clearly when viewing the YouTube video.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top