Thanks. I've added it to the list in the YouTube video description.
BAD CALLS in Pool ... FOULS that Weren't Called
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Thanks. I've added it to the list in the YouTube video description.
Thanks. I just made the correction and changed the link.
Last edited:
I can't believe they still got the call wrong after reviewing the video! The good hit was so obvious.
On frame by frame, there is no double hit. That doesn't mean there was none; just that it may not have been captured.
Also explains the delay in draw action.
So just that I have it clear. There's circumstances that may have resulted in Oi's shot being legit, but clear video/audio that illustrates SVB fouled...?
I need to stop opening this thread...lol
Anybody have any others to suggest? The list has grown to a total of 12 additional examples!. They are all listed and linked in the YouTube video description under "Other Bad, Questionable, or Interesting Pro Tournament Calls." I will post the final list here after new suggestions stop coming in here and via YouTube and Facebook comments.
As shown in my video, the CB would not have gone forward like that with a single hit. Based on the motion of the CB, the double hit was obvious. See the video and the double hit foul resource page for more info.
Watched both videos and I don't disbute your explanation. However I still think there's opprotunity for Oi's shot to be legit. Noting the jacked up stroking angle. My point is, I find it funny that there could be potential circumstances that may make Oi's hit good, but it's considered a definitive foul. However we actually do have definitive prove of SVB's foul and it's coined a 'near foul'.
Screams bias to me, but you're not a person I'd label in that manner.
Good points. FYI, I've updated the wording on these:
- Oi likely double hit in the 2022 Arcadia Arizona Open
- VanBoening likely foul while using the bridge in the 2018 EuroTour
BTW, when you wrote "clear video/audio that illustrates SVB fouled," I thought you were referring to the SVB elevated draw shot in my video. That's what I assumed when I wrote: "The CB would not have gone forward like that with a single hit. Based on the motion of the CB, the double hit was obvious." Sorry for any confusion.
My apologies for not specifically calling out the SVB video I was calling into question.
No worries. Just as when interpreting rules and calling fouls, we need to be very careful with our reading, observations, and physical understanding.
On Shane's elevated draw stroke, we don't know if it went forward of the tangent line. To me, it looks like it went along the tangent line into the six ball and then along that tangent until the draw grabbed. Here is an example that I think is close to the same shot.
On Oi's shot, you can hear a ball hopping a couple of times. If the cue ball was in the air when it struck the one ball, I think this could explain it's motion.
Here are some examples that you highlight on one of your pages where the cue ball goes forward on the table but is not a foul. If the cue ball is in the air, the tangent line could be forward in relation to the 2-D table.
On Oi's shot, you can hear a ball hopping a couple of times. If the cue ball was in the air when it struck the one ball, I think this could explain it's motion.
Here are some examples that you highlight on one of your pages where the cue ball goes forward on the table but is not a foul. If the cue ball is in the air, the tangent line could be forward in relation to the 2-D table.
Last edited:
I do mention this in my video, but I also explain that the CB would not have gone as forward as it did without a double hit since the tangent line into the 14 would have resulted in a fairly square hit. The 14 definitely makes the call tougher, but I still think the call is still clear. The shot was a double-hit foul.
The CB definitely hopped, and that could make it naturally move forward some, but I don't think it hopped high enough to move it forward that much. However, I admit that with only the top-view camera angle, it is tough to determine if there was a foul or not just from the video. I still think it was a double hit, but I certainly wouldn't call a foul from the limited video evidence.
Thanks for the links. I have featured both of these shots in videos before, and I have plenty examples of the CB jumping forward (and not) on both legal and illegal elevated hits in the videos on the double-hit foul resource page.
Last edited:
As long as you were elevated or shooting away from the ball mostly no foul would be called (years ago). Not that that was right, but most people I watched played by those rules.
Nowadays the video from slow motion is impossible to argue with.
I have to admit unless you really pay attention double hit shots are easy for me to miss. Great thread Dave!
And maybe now more people know what to look for to make proper calls.
I thought more people would be interested in this video on YouTube and Facebook, but it is getting less views than normal. I suspect the people who probably need to watch this sort of thing the most are unfortunately the ones not watching.
And maybe now more people know what to look for to make proper calls.
I thought more people would be interested in this video on YouTube and Facebook, but it is getting less views than normal. I suspect the people who probably need to watch this sort of thing the most are unfortunately the ones not watching.
Correct!
And calling fouls correctly for us amateurs is sometimes a big hassle (having to enforce the rules mid game). So the struggle is real!
Your simple explanation is helpful (I now understand).
If you are interested in getting views post a video on how to get away with slugging the rack...
If you are interested in getting views post a video on how to get away with slugging the rack...
Just do the opposite of everything in the bulleted list under the video here:
And if you want to create a non-tight rack to your advantage, see:
The shot occurs from 5:05 to 9:13, in real time and slow motion, and from various angles, at the link below (although only one of the angles, the first one where the camera is closest, is even half useful). As always we also have the option of playing both the close up real time shot and the close up slow motion replay of it at one quarter speed with the youtube settings (shift/comma and shift/period are the keyboard shortcuts for that or you can do it with the "settings" gear icon at the bottom of the video). Youtube also allows you to pause a video and advance it forward or backward a single frame at a time by using the (,) or (.) keys (comma and period keys) while the video is paused. The rest of the video after the 9:13 mark is behind the scenes video of both of the players and tournament officials and Kevin Trudeau etc discussing the shot between themselves and with various others and is partially in English and partially in Tagalog.
Here is another video showing the shot once in real time and once in slow motion from that same best close up angle just in case somebody wants to be real technical and see if one of the videos had dropped frames that were still present and not dropped in the other video (I only did the frame by frame on the first link).
Below will be some of my random thoughts and analysis regarding the shot. First, it seems to me that the referee wasn't real confident about it being a foul based on the fact that he does not immediately and loudly call foul best I can tell, and also it appears that instead he quietly says something to Marlon which I can't hear but what I'm guessing based on their mannerisms might have been something along the lines of "that was a bad hit, right?", hoping that Marlon might confirm if it was a foul since the ref doesn't have full confidence and/or to see and gauge Marlon's reaction to the question which the ref would in turn use to sway his own confidence level a little more one way or the other.
It has nothing to do with whether the shot was good or not in actuality, but there is no question in my mind that Marlon was 100% sincere in his belief that it was a good hit. Marlon did also have the best view of the shot (the ref was fairly close but Marlon was a little closer and had a little better angle). Obviously a referee can't rely on a player's word or judgement though but I do think Marlon's belief was sincere for whatever that is worth.
I analyzed the shot four ways: how it looked to the eyes in real time, how it looked in youtube's quarter speed slow motion, how it looked when advanced frame by frame, and then based on how the balls reacted. To my eyes, in real time, the hit looks good to me, but the confidence level is not high. Doing both the real time shot and the slow motion replay at one quarter speed in youtube, the shot also looks good to me but again the confidence level is low. Going frame by frame gives no usable information at all. In one frame there is zero indication that that cue ball has yet hit the rail or the object ball either one (although it is a hair width from the object ball), but in the very next frame the cue ball is obviously already rebounding from the rail and the object ball has clearly already started to move as well, so unfortunately the frame by frame provides no information about which might have been struck first as they both were struck in between the same two frames.
Judging things by how the balls reacted is where it gets a bit more interesting. One of the keys (in one sense, but a further mystery in another sense) to this thing in my view is how the cue ball and object ball literally stay glued to each other as they are traveling away from the rail. That tells me that it is impossible that the cue ball struck and then rebounded completely off the rail prior to hitting the object ball. Had that occurred the cue ball would have either stopped more or less dead at contact with the object ball, or only followed at a slower speed and after a delay.
So in a sense, on the surface, the ball reactions seem to favor a good hit being a lot more likely than a bad hit since a foul as described above can be ruled out. But we still have to explain why the two balls stayed glued together as they traveled away from the rail which wouldn't be expected to happen with your standard clean good hit. One possible explanation is that the cue ball hit the rail first, and because of the angle it entered the rail, it was able to come into contact with the object ball while the rail was still compressed, and when the rail sprung back out it was pushing both balls together while they were frozen together and so they stayed frozen together as they left the rail. The same basic shot (where the rail and both balls end up in simultaneous contact with the rail "rebounding" both balls together) could also transpire where the cue ball grazes the object ball very slightly before it first makes contact with the rail (and then the rest still transpires as described above).
At the end of the day I think the officials clearly made the wrong call here based on two factors. The bottom line is things are too close to call on this particular shot with any certainty, both live in person, and on the video replays, and when that is the case the "tie goes to the runner" and the player maintains possession of the table. Second, because of the action of the two balls staying glued to each other as they traveled away from the rail, I think a typical "clear" foul can be summarily ruled out based on the ball reactions and worst case is that all three of the rail and both balls were in contact with each other at the same time at some point during the shot and there is no way to know whether the rail or object ball was hit very slightly first in such a case, so again, tie has to go to the runner
Maybe somebody has a better explanation for how the cue ball and object ball could have stayed glued to each other as they traveled away from the rail if the rail and both balls where never all in simultaneous contact with each other at any point during the shot but that is the only explanation for it that occurred to me off the top of my head.
Here is another video of the behind the scenes drama and discussions for those interested. It is mostly the same behind the scenes footage that was in the first link but there is just a little bit of extra footage in this one that wasn't in the first one (but I'm not exactly sure which parts those are so I don't know if is anything good or worth watching this for).
Last edited: