BAD CALLS in Pool ... FOULS that Weren't Called

[dr_dave]

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 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 could also transpire where the cue ball grazes the object ball very slightly before rail contact.

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 case, and 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.

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).

Thank you for posting this! That is a great example. I've added it to the list in the my YouTube video description.

I agree with you that this should not have been called a foul. There was no clear evidence that the cushion was hit first.

The shot reminded me of two related examples that can give some insight into the ball motion in Marlon's shot:

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Dr. Dave gave out good info.

 

[ShootingArts]

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).

This is the shot I believe. Normally a referee can judge hits by the way the balls react afterwards. The proximity of the six to the rail causes the balls to move basically just the same hit six first or rail first making this rule of thumb worthless in this case. I think the six was hit first. Even a simultaneous hit would still go to the shooter. As a result, I think a bad call here. The call isn't what wrecked Marlon, getting the bad call when he said it wasn't a bad hit did. He felt he was called a liar in front of the world and it became a matter of honor. That wrecked him for the remainder of this match and his following match after he had been playing great pool before. Soon afterwards Marlon turned to politics which has worked well for him. However, I think this incident may have been the primary cause of him leaving pool.

Just a bit of technical info here, true slow motion is shot in more frames per second than normal video. The last I knew normal video was only thirty frames a second and the frame by frame reveals the gaps. Old slow motion was shot in more frames a second, sixty the best I recall. Played at thirty frames a second then you get the slow motion effect. Now we have super slow motion that can be shot at thousands of frames a second and would have been much more likely to reveal the truth here.

I do think Marlon got a bum call. Rather he did or not, a more mature player would have rolled with it and moved on. When the referee asked him then went against what he said it wrecked Marlon. A shame, I think he would have won that tournament. Then again, perhaps his new course in life is better for him.

Hu

 

[fastone371]

On frame by frame, there is no double hit. That doesn't mean there was none; just that it may not have been captured.

************************8

 

[fastone371]

Jennifer Baretta vs. LoreeJon Hasson (Turning Stone XXXI): It was hill-hill. At around 2:34, LoreeJon played a safe and hooked Jennifer on the one ball. Jennifer kicked and hit the one ball, but nothing hit a rail. The announcers caught it, but neither player did. LoreeJon left Jennifer a shot, and Jennifer finished the rack.

When you pause and right click on the video the 3rd line down reads "copy video URL at current time" if you select that and share the link at the time of incident it will start the video at the time you paused it so people dont have to search thru the video.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Jennifer Baretta vs. LoreeJon Hasson (Turning Stone XXXI): It was hill-hill. At around 2:34, LoreeJon played a safe and hooked Jennifer on the one ball. Jennifer kicked and hit the one ball, but nothing hit a rail. The announcers caught it, but neither player did. LoreeJon left Jennifer a shot, and Jennifer finished the rack.

I thought that Loree Jon might have been distracted or blocked, but she was watching the shot carefully. On shots like this, it is useful as the seated player to remark as soon as you see there is going to be a problem and the balls are still in motion, "You still need a cushion."

 

[fastone371]

I think in the heat of battle when you replay the shot in your mind you think that your opponent got a cushion because the first contact was with a cushion. I know that even though I usually watch my opponents shots carefully I have screwed the pooch on shots like this a few times. Its like your brain remembers the cushions contact but forgets the sequence was wrong.

 

[tomatoshooter]

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).

I can't draw any conclusions based on the video but I consider that to be insufficient evidence of a foul, It appears to me that the cue ball was in contact with both at the same time. I haven't seen the rule stated with respect to rails after contact but I think if "tie goes to the runner" applies to contacting a legal ball first, it should apply here, too.

It's a sticky situation for a player to be in because once you dig in to the argument that you made a legal hit and dispute the ref's call, it's hard to back off without it looking like you were trying to cheat. In situations like that I usually tell myself it's not that important, those are the breaks, etc. just to shortcut the drama and emotional turmoil so I can keep my head focused on the game. Then again my matches aren't so close that sub-millimeter call will change the outcome nor are the stakes that high. I also don't have the mental fortitude to be a champion pool player (nor the skills).

 

[tomatoshooter]

I think in the heat of battle when you replay the shot in your mind you think that your opponent got a cushion because the first contact was with a cushion. I know that even though I usually watch my opponents shots carefully I have screwed the pooch on shots like this a few times. Its like your brain remembers the cushions contact but forgets the sequence was wrong.

I've done that. I'm looking for the ball to go into the pocket and don't even think to notice that I touched the wrong ball first.

 

[Stickman9]

When you pause and right click on the video the 3rd line down reads "copy video URL at current time" if you select that and share the link at the time of incident it will start the video at the time you paused it so people dont have to search thru the video.

Thanks. Good to know.

 

[fastone371]

FYI, I just posted a new video that demonstrates how to detect common fouls in pool and shows examples from pro matches where bad calls were made. Check it out:

Contents:
0:00 - Intro
0:54 - Detecting Fouls
---- 1:00 - no rail
---- 1:11 - double hits
---- 2:52 - wrong-ball first
3:52 - Double Hit Bad Calls
7:05 - Wrong Ball First Bad Calls
8:40 - No Rail Bad Calls
9:35 - Wrap Up

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!

Another great video Dr. Dave and a great subject to cover as well, well done!!!!

 

[dr_dave]

Another great video Dr. Dave and a great subject to cover as well, well done!!!!

Thanks! I only wish more people were watching it (especially those who really need to) so they can benefit. Here's another video I wish we could somehow require all pool players (especially league players) to watch:

 

[dr_dave]

If you guys know of other bad or questionable calls that were made in pro pool matches, please post post time-stamp video links for us to check out and discuss. Thanks!

FYI, I am still compiling interesting, questionable, and bad calls from pro tournament matches. The list is now up to 21 examples. All video links can be found here:

Examples of Interesting, Questionable, or Bad Calls​

I will continue to add to the list as I and others find more.

Enjoy!

 

[cjr3559]

Found this Crane v Lassiter match during the Legendary Pocket Billiards Stars Tournament from 1983 I believe.

Double hit on the 6 ball at 1:55

A total of four HoFer’s playing, refereeing, and commentating and nobody caught it

Ultimately the non-call was incidental to the outcome.

 

[straightline]

I think frozen ball pushes were allowed at the time. They still are in some circles. Under those rules, lock up safeties may offer little protection.

 

[ShootingArts]

Found this Crane v Lassiter match during the Legendary Pocket Billiards Stars Tournament from 1983 I believe.

Double hit on the 6 ball at 1:55

A total of four HoFer’s playing, refereeing, and commentating and nobody caught it

Ultimately the non-call was incidental to the outcome.

They were giving the legends some slack in these matches still that was a surprising noncall.

I think frozen ball pushes were allowed at the time. They still are in some circles. Under those rules, lock up safeties may offer little protection.

The balls weren't frozen. Perhaps something that should have been called before the shot.

Hu

 

[dr_dave]

Found this Crane v Lassiter match during the Legendary Pocket Billiards Stars Tournament from 1983 I believe.

Double hit on the 6 ball at 1:55

A total of four HoFer’s playing, refereeing, and commentating and nobody caught it

Ultimately the non-call was incidental to the outcome.

Thanks. I've added a link to the list on the Bad Call Examples resource page.

 

[straightline]

They were giving the legends some slack in these matches still that was a surprising noncall.


The balls weren't frozen. Perhaps something that should have been called before the shot.

Hu

That's right. I didn't even check. Since we're perhapsing, perhaps Crane played the technicality. (?)

 

[Bob Jewett]

Found this Crane v Lassiter match during the Legendary Pocket Billiards Stars Tournament from 1983 I believe.

Double hit on the 6 ball at 1:55

....

I reffed in the 1980 World 14.1 Championship (Varner won over Sigel in the finals) in New York City. In that tournament, the rules that the tournament management was using were that if you could not actually see the tip hit the ball a second time, the shot was fair. Really. Ball action had nothing to do with the shot. I suspect the same people were involved with the Legends tournament. No one viewing this video can see the cue stick hit the cue ball a second time. Fair shot. And from what I could tell, all the East Coast players were fine with that kind of shot.

It's important to know the rules for an event. Sometimes that requires that you be at the players' meeting.

 

[ShootingArts]

I reffed in the 1980 World 14.1 Championship (Varner won over Sigel in the finals) in New York City. In that tournament, the rules that the tournament management was using were that if you could not actually see the tip hit the ball a second time, the shot was fair. Really. Ball action had nothing to do with the shot. I suspect the same people were involved with the Legends tournament. No one viewing this video can see the cue stick hit the cue ball a second time. Fair shot. And from what I could tell, all the East Coast players were fine with that kind of shot.

It's important to know the rules for an event. Sometimes that requires that you be at the players' meeting.

Strange! That eliminates most double hits. Still, if that is the rule, that is the rule. I do believe in attending all competitors meetings when I am competing. People complain about things that come up in play that they would have known about had they went to the meeting.

A bit of a side note, I was aware of many more double hits with my CF shaft. Either it didn't do nearly as quick of a job getting out of the way or the stiffness let me feel the double hit a lot more often.

Hu