Calling Dr. Dave! SVB "Foul" @ UK Open

[Island Drive]

The differences of reality and perception in this good/bad call, remind me of politics.

Even if someone is wrong, they are right from their point of view, no matter what.

And when someone is right....the other side will not allow their perception to agree.

Since Jewett was ''there'' in the moment, his point of view Might be important to those that won't admit they are incorrect.

When I'm wrong, I accept/learn/move on.

 

[jsp]

It's a good hit. The CB moves immediately after contact with the 3 (there is no delay). Also the amount of CB roll doesn't appear to lessen after contact.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Caudron, multiple time world champion in 3 cushion Billiards, made a video on this exact scenario. This shot comes up nearly every single game in 3 cushion. After watching his video, and looking at the direction, speed, and spin of the CB on Shane’s video, it’s a ball first contact. No foul. The video is 15 min long but he really goes into detail.

 

[Poolmanis]

Caudron, multiple time world champion in 3 cushion Billiards, made a video on this exact scenario. This shot comes up nearly every single game in 3 cushion. After watching his video, and looking at the direction, speed, and spin of the CB on Shane’s video, it’s a ball first contact. No foul. The video is 15 min long but he really goes into detail.

and Matchroom should make every referee watch it if they want to be best

 

[iusedtoberich]

I went to my table yesterday, which was full of crap, and tried the scenarios in Caudron’s video. I didn’t even get my cue out, I just lightly rolled the CB by hand into the OB. What Caudron showed is exactly what happened, for both ball first and rail first scenarios. It convinced me Shane’s hit was ball first and not a foul.

 

[CharlesUFarley]

It is hard to see with the eye, even in slow motion, but the reaction of the balls tells the whole story pretty clearly. Whether the cue ball hit the 3 first and then the rail, or it hit rail-ball-rail, the last thing it contacted was the rail. The spring of the cue ball away from the rail shows this clearly. If he had hit the rail then the 3 without contacting the rail again, the cue ball would have died and finished MUCH closer to the rail. This is what Shane was trying to explain to Marcel and he was 100% correct.

 

[Tiddler]

The question that arises in my mind is whether Matchroom will acknowledge their error in any way. They should at least have the referee write an apology to SVB and make him sit out the next couple Matchroom events.

 

[Bob Jewett]

The question that arises in my mind is whether Matchroom will acknowledge their error in any way. They should at least have the referee write an apology to SVB and make him sit out the next couple Matchroom events.

That referee is in general an excellent referee. There are not many of them around. Matchroom may want to expand their training, though.

 

[Bob Jewett]

To me this call would have been easy to make if the referee could hear the sound on the replay.

Do you mean the double click as the cue ball hit the 3 ball twice? Was that audible?

 

[Poolmanis]

Do you mean the double click as the cue ball hit the 3 ball twice? Was that audible?

i tried hear it but i could not hear it good enough

 

[Tiddler]

That referee is in general an excellent referee. There are not many of them around. Matchroom may want to expand their training, though.

Bob, I was referring to Matchroom's response to Darren Appleton's mistake prior to his drug testing. Will they be consistent?

That referee is in general an excellent referee. There are not many of them around. Matchroom may want to expand their training, though.

 

[Mich]

We clearly need a Home Office with Experienced Refs and then the On Site Refs can put on the head set and confer via Zoom with the folks in the Home Office. This is what they do in Stanley Cup. Refs on Ice can chat with the Refs in Toronto to confer and reach consensus. You would only do this in extreme difficult situations like this one with SVB.

 

[Poolplaya9]

To me this call would have been easy to make if the referee could hear the sound on the replay.

I think it is pretty rare that sound alone can be reliable enough to make a call based solely on that. With this particular shot it would be completely impossible to make a reliable call based on sound.

 

[SmoothStroke]

Upon further evalutaion of my superior skills and senses, I consider myself blind and deaf.
I see the cue ball hit the rail first, bump the 3, and the cue ball roll towards the 7, not catching the rail again.
I couldn't hear that hit if I was the cue ball.

 

[Swighey]

The question that arises in my mind is whether Matchroom will acknowledge their error in any way. They should at least have the referee write an apology to SVB and make him sit out the next couple Matchroom events.

I don't see any need for such a childish reaction from Matchroom. Referees make mistakes in all sports but are still respected. Suspending them every few weeks because they make one mistake during a 60 or 90 minute game would make the major sports a laughing stock.

This referee is excellent. Rather than attacking him, the whole of the pool community should take this as a learning opportunity, an opportunity to expand our knowledge of the game. And it's also an opportunity to recognise the deep knowledge of 3 cushion players.

This was a tough call regardless of all these factors. "Physics" as a solution is never that simple - there is far more to it than tangent lines when dealing with spherical masses rolling on surfaces through humid gases. However, this is in my opinion a "go with the shooter" situation because it appears that the physics says the shot is good - but the referee has to make a judgement based on the information available to him or her at the time.

 

[David in FL]

They should at least have the referee write an apology to SVB and make him sit out the next couple Matchroom events.

Good grief.

 

[Island Drive]

Is this the foul in question?

I don't see the cue ball move back to the rail after contacting the 3 but if it's in contact with both I believe it's legal.

Looking at this bite/video it appears to be an pinch hit carom, which is a rail/ball/rail shot. Good hit. I saw another overhead bite of the shot, it appeared to not be a good hit. Jewett got it right looking at this video.

 

[Poolplaya9]

This was a tough call regardless of all these factors. "Physics" as a solution is never that simple - there is far more to it than tangent lines when dealing with spherical masses rolling on surfaces through humid gases.

This was actually a pretty easy call to make with a little understanding of some very basic physics which really any half serious player and certainly all referees should already know anyway, and then taking a few seconds to think things out.

As the referee the hard part here is just forcing yourself to take that few seconds to actually think things out when you are feeling the pressure of all eyes being on you, and to keep the tournament rolling with as little delay as possible, and players trying to plead their cases and pressure you, etc. Of course you first have to actually have that very basic knowledge in order to be able to use it.

 

[Tiddler]

Good grief.

Read post #51

 

[Swighey]

This was actually a pretty easy call to make with a little understanding of some very basic physics

Correct. However, physics in practice is not simple (basic). There are lots of additional effects that can influence the trajectory. Some of these will probably make very little difference in practice but will be very hard to model. Hence my point that relying on the basic physics probably describing the whole situation should guide the referee towards going with the shooter.