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

[Bob Jewett]

... but will be very hard to model. ...

Virtual Pool has a pretty good model that I think would have covered this shot.

But I think that experience with this kind of shot, especially at 3-cushion, would have helped a lot more than the physics. Beyond that, simply wondering what would have happened if the cue ball had come in a little to the left or right of the actual line would have gotten to the right answer. The actual line looked like it could have been a simultaneous hit on ball and rail.

 

[Swighey]

The actual line looked like it could have been a simultaneous hit on ball and rail.

There certainly appears to be a possibility of a simultaneous hit and then the ball remaining in contact with the rail as the rail compresses before the balls hits the 3 again. If I understand the rules correctly, this would be a foul. It's only a possibility though so in the absence of a future super duper high definition zillion frames per second camera it's go with the shooter for me.

 

[ChrisinNC]

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.

It sure looks like it hit rail first to me, but a referee would not have access to a close up slo motion

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.

I agree, looking at the slow mo close up, it appeared to me like it hit the cushion first before it hit the object ball. At any rate, this would’ve been an extremely tough call either way for a referee even if he was right on top of it.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... it appeared to me like it hit the cushion first before it hit the object ball....

And the cue ball came in at a shallow angle and knocked the 3 away from the cushion. The cue ball would have returned to the rail after hitting the 3.

 

[jay helfert]

I watched this again on FB, on someone's super slo-mo cam. On there it appears to be a good hit. It's one of those little "ticky" billiard type shots that are so difficult to see. In this case I, like so many others, would give it to the shooter since it is too close to call otherwise.

 

[dnschmidt]

I'm so fucking tired of instant replays. I love NBA basketball and now I've got to put up with 10 minutes a game of refs talking to Secaucus, NJ to figure out if it's a flagrant foul. THAT'S WHAT REFS ARE FOR. If it looks like a foul it's a foul. Shane's hit, or lack of one, looked like a foul to me and the ref called it. That should end the discussion. PLAY THE GAME. If the refs screwed up tough shit. They are human too. I HATE INSTANT REPLAYS. Also you have to admit that part of the controversy was that the beloved Shane got his ass beat and god knows that's impossible so he must have been cheated. If the opposite would have happened to FSR nobody would give a shit and that's the cold hard truth.

 

[dr_dave]

Hey Dave. I think the world needs a break down video. In your super duper slo mo.
TIA!!!

Sorry for the late reply. I just got off a 5-day rafting trip on the Yampa river in Utah and I had absolutely no contact with the outside world.

Anyway, I just viewed the video and here is my response:

Playing the video back frame-by-frame, it appears that sidespin is picked up by CB before the 3 moves. This indicates the cushion was hit first. The CB appears to have hit the 3 while still in contact with the cushion, and both balls appear to leave the cushion together. If this were the case, and if there were conclusive visual proof of this, the shot would be a foul. However, it is also possible the CB instead contacted the 3 after leaving the cushion and then returned to the cushion very quickly (too quickly to see with the limited frames of video), in which case the balls would have appeared to move the same way. If this were the case, the shot would not be a foul. Regardless, from the limited video evidence, there is no conclusive proof there was a foul, so the shot should have been called good. I personally think the CB hit the 3 while still in contact with the cushion, in which case nothing was driven to a cushion after OB contact. This would be a foul; but again, the video does not provide conclusive proof that this happened, so the foul should not have been called.

BTW, here is a related shot from the Video Encyclopedia of Nine-ball and Ten-ball (VENT) showing how a ball hitting the cushion and another ball at the same time can follow the OB away from the rail:

 

[MattPoland]

Originally I thought good hit. The replays led me to believe the CB came at the 3 thin and followed the same path out. But the original view stands out to me. It does look like the 3 was hit full-ish and the CB drifts off on a tangent-ish more so rolling 30 degree angle-ish path toward the 7 in a manner that doesn’t need a rail again to get there.

 

[straightline]

Originally I thought good hit. The replays led me to believe the CB came at the 3 thin and followed the same path out. But the original view stands out to me. It does look like the 3 was hit full-ish and the CB drifts off on a tangent-ish more so rolling 30 degree angle-ish path toward the 7 in a manner that doesn’t need a rail again to get there.

The inscribed lines and angles are incorrect and misleading - further indicating the folly of trying to determine the quality of hit. Jogging the youtube player does however show that from this angle, the ball moved a hair in time before the cue ball completely nestled into the cushion. I think the term "nestled" while nitty, is relevant because cushion contact has no defined parameters.
Good hit.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Originally I thought good hit. The replays led me to believe the CB came at the 3 thin and followed the same path out. But the original view stands out to me. It does look like the 3 was hit full-ish and the CB drifts off on a tangent-ish more so rolling 30 degree angle-ish path toward the 7 in a manner that doesn’t need a rail again to get there. ...

The cue ball hit the cushion or the three first unless we have the unlikely "hit the 3 while still in the cushion" scenario Dr. Dave mentioned above. If it hit the rail first, then it hit the 3 on the rail side, not full. You can tell from the angle the 3 leaves -- it is not along the reflected path of the cue ball. If it hit the 3 on the rail side, it would have immediately returned to the very close rail. It certainly could not have followed the 3 directly without ever returning to the rail.

 

[straightline]

One more thing, on VLC frame advance, once the three ball moves there is no further movement from the cueball until the frame where it visibly leaves the cushion.
Split hit to the player.

 

[Chili Palmer]

There is no way the CB rolls that way if it hit the 3 AFTER the rail. If it hit the rail and ball at the same time then tie goes to the player - no foul.

If we're mixing other replay technologies (NFL, etc.) where the call is made then must be reversed then - foul. However wrong the initial call was, it was called a foul and replay couldn't determine otherwise, that I agree with so, in this match the correct thing was done.

However, I've been in this situation. I played a safe once where the OB could NOT be touched in the direction of play (confirmed by multiple by-standers) but the ref called a foul and when I discussed the physical limitations (CB could NOT move in that direction if good hit) he knew it (as well as mot people observing) but he still called a foul and he knew he was wrong. Ironically, the next, and last, time I played in that tourney I went undefeated and chopped the pot at 2 AM - f' em.

Oh, and that REF is/has reffed BCA tournaments in Vegas since that incident - that's a sad situation.

 

[PoolBum]

However, I've been in this situation. I played a safe once where the OB could NOT be touched in the direction of play (confirmed by multiple by-standers) but the ref called a foul and when I discussed the physical limitations (CB could NOT move in that direction if good hit) he knew it (as well as mot people observing) but he still called a foul and he knew he was wrong.

Some referees are notoriously unimpressed by the laws of physics.

 

[Chili Palmer]

Some referees are notoriously uninformed by the laws of physics.

I went ahead and fixed that for you

I will add, that most referees are guys that love pool, that’s all fine and dandy but, that doesn’t mean they understand the physics or technicality of it. Just because the lady is sitting behind the DMV desk does NOT mean she’s an expert.

In order to be a good ref you have to understand how balls interact with each other (get your mind out of the gutter) and in my opinion, and most importantly, you must be able to NOT make a rash decision.

Similar to my theory that the best pool player to have ever lived has/will/never have picked up a pool cue, just because you’re a REF doesn’t mean you’re good at what you do. I’ve interviewed 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people (and hence, I’ve become experienced and cutthroat) in a multitude of industries, there’s a HUGE difference between WANTING the job and being GOOD at the job.

Successful people can tell the difference between the two.

 

[Island Drive]

Sorry for the late reply. I just got off a 5-day rafting trip on the Yampa river in Utah and I had absolutely no contact with the outside world.

Anyway, I just viewed the video and here is my response:

Playing the video back frame-by-frame, it appears that 1st bite sidespin is picked up by CB before the 3 moves. This indicates the cushion was hit first. The CB appears to have hit the 3 while still in contact with the cushion, and both balls appear to leave the cushion together. If this were the case, and if there were conclusive visual proof of this, the shot would be a foul. However, it is also possible the CB instead contacted the 3 after leaving the cushion and then returned to the cushion very quickly (too quickly to see with the limited frames of video), in which case the balls would have appeared to move the same way. If this were the case, the shot would not be a foul. Regardless, from the limited video evidence, there is no conclusive proof there was a foul, so the shot should have been called good. I personally think the CB hit the 3 while still in contact with the cushion, in which case nothing was driven to a cushion after OB contact. This would be a foul; but again, the video does not provide conclusive proof that this happened, so the soul should not have been called.

BTW, here is a related shot from the Video Encyclopedia of Nine-ball and Ten-ball (VENT) showing how a ball hitting the cushion and another ball at the same time can follow the OB away from the rail:

Dave, I looked at two different videos and formed two different responses.
The 1st bite I saw, what the ref had replayed for him in the moment, that was the overhead shot.

The second bite, was from a horizontal position, because of that I came up with a different conclusion.
Would of been helpful if the ref was able to look at two different perspectives overhead & horizontal.

Now it's water under the Yampa bridge and what's done is done.

I'll be in Yampa this next week for the twins BD.

 

[Poolplaya9]

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.

What did you mean by "additional effects" that are outside of the physics, can you give an example? To me the "additional effects" are just more of the physics (because all the effects are part of the physics) but perhaps there is something that isn't occurring to me.

I definitely agree that when there are no means by which a shot can be determined to be good or a foul for whatever the reason (usually because there are both foul and good hit example possibilities that could explain all the ball movements) then the "tie goes to the runner" and no foul should be called. Speaking of which, that fact allowed this to be an easy call to make (no foul).

 

[Poolplaya9]

It sure looks like it hit rail first to me, but a referee would not have access to a close up slo motion

I agree, looking at the slow mo close up, it appeared to me like it hit the cushion first before it hit the object ball. At any rate, this would’ve been an extremely tough call either way for a referee even if he was right on top of it.

It is only an extremely tough call to make if you are trying to rely on seeing which was hit first, but it would be silly to try to rely solely on that when you have other tools at your disposal, namely looking at how all the balls reacted and using your physics knowledge to try to find the explanation/s for those movements. If you have and use the physics knowledge of what could explain the movement of all the balls then it is actually a pretty easy call to make when you consider that if it can't definitively be shown to be a bad hit, and could have possibly been a good hit, then no foul can be called.

 

[jsp]

There is no way the CB rolls that way if it hit the 3 AFTER the rail. If it hit the rail and ball at the same time then tie goes to the player - no foul.

I agree.

I think there is an easy way to test this on the table. Place an OB in the middle of the table. Roll the CB directly into the OB such that OB moves the same distance as the 3 ball in the video (~2 balls' width). Observe what the CB does after collision. If it was a foul and the 3 ball was the last thing the CB contacted, then the CB in your test setup would react the same way it does on the video. Look specifically at how far the CB rolls after contact.

I'm at work so I don't have my table to test it out. But my gut feeling is that the CB will not follow the OB as closely as it does in the video. That means the rail, not the 3 ball, was the last thing the CB contacted (in the video), which means no foul.

 

[soyale]

It certainly could not have followed the 3 directly without ever returning to the rail.

this is the only part that matters.

 

[westcoast]

I'm so fucking tired of instant replays. I love NBA basketball and now I've got to put up with 10 minutes a game of refs talking to Secaucus, NJ to figure out if it's a flagrant foul. THAT'S WHAT REFS ARE FOR. If it looks like a foul it's a foul. Shane's hit, or lack of one, looked like a foul to me and the ref called it. That should end the discussion. PLAY THE GAME. If the refs screwed up tough shit. They are human too. I HATE INSTANT REPLAYS. Also you have to admit that part of the controversy was that the beloved Shane got his ass beat and god knows that's impossible so he must have been cheated. If the opposite would have happened to FSR nobody would give a shit and that's the cold hard truth.

I agree- it may be better if all sports stopped with the replays or at the very least had a maximum of 1 minute to make a decision so you don't have these long drawn out processes.