Yes that's how I see it too. The simplest models/explanations are usually the best but they are never the most accurate.
Calling Dr. Dave! SVB "Foul" @ UK Open
- Thread starter 9andout
- Start date
See what happens when you go on vacation? The entire world of pool went to hell! No more vacations for you!
I disagree. I think the replays are easy enough to check on the spot if it's really that close. NBA you may be right, but this is different. I would have cared just as much if it happened to any player. That being said, I really don't care that much either way since it doesn't really affect me at all.
I keep coming back to this thread because it's such a train wreck. Cant help but watch it.
To those that are saying the three ball couldn't have moved the direction it did if it was a good hit.....
If it was a bad hit, how much of a different angle would the 3 have moved. 1 tenth of a degree? Less? I say there is absolutely no way anyone could see by eye that little of a difference. No way. Not as close of a call it was.
The ref called a foul, so it was a foul. No amount of Monday morning pool playing will change that.
What if the ref called a good hit? There would be no end of the bitching on that one too... just from different people.
To those that are saying the three ball couldn't have moved the direction it did if it was a good hit.....
If it was a bad hit, how much of a different angle would the 3 have moved. 1 tenth of a degree? Less? I say there is absolutely no way anyone could see by eye that little of a difference. No way. Not as close of a call it was.
The ref called a foul, so it was a foul. No amount of Monday morning pool playing will change that.
What if the ref called a good hit? There would be no end of the bitching on that one too... just from different people.
I think it's a healthy thing to discuss. And to be fair I think that most are discussing it with positive intentions.
assuming a bad hit, the only way for the 9 to go so high up the side rail would be a fairly thick carom of the 6, which is impossible considering where the 6 ball went (and its speed). wrong call indeed
Everyone use the YouTube settings and slow the playback of this video to .25 speed, and tell me what you see.
If this was a game some of you guys were gambling on, I think every one of you would call the foul too.
Nah, never. If you can't be sure you give it to the shooter. If it looks like a foul, you both call foul. Play people for money who understand what playing for money means. Can be $1 can be $1000 same same. Play honest. Honest is the least difficult way to get through life.
Never? Not everyone is honorable. That's all I said.
Here’s a frame-by-frame analysis. I find that inconclusive. There’s a sequence of 4 frames that interest me.
EDIT: Forgot YT link
<Frame 1 to 2>
Cuball approaches
No rail contact yet
No 3 ball contact yet
<Frame 2 to 3>
3 movement is visible
CB redirection is indiscernible
<Frame 3 to 4>
3 ball movement is still visible
CB redirection is visible
………….
If I ask myself the question “When did the cueball hit the rail?” I must first acknowledge that there is time and movement between these frames.
So I ask myself “is it possible rail contact occurred after frame 3?” The answer is yes and that would be a good hit.
I also ask myself “Is it possible rail contact occurred before frame 3?” The answer is also yes and that would be a bad hit.
Now if the CB was still heading to the rail in frame 4 and redirected in frame 5, then that would be conclusive.
But heading to the rail in frame 3 and redirected in frame 4 is inconclusive. UNLESS in frame three I can see an observable change in trajectory of the CB indicative of either ball contact or rail contact. That I cannot discern.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m comfortable saying it’s not enough evidence to indicate foul and should go to the shooter. But I personally find looking at trajectories more interesting than the frame by frame analysis in this case.
Last edited:
soyale
Well-known member
bless you
WPA Wording:
“If no ball is pocketed on a shot, the cue ball must contact an object ball, and after that contact at least one ball (cue ball or any object ball) must be driven to a rail, or the shot is a foul.”
A simultaneous ball/rail hit is the moment of contact. So a rail needs to be contacted “after” that moment. So I’d say the official answer is no.
Unofficially I can see favoring the shooter and not being nitty. I analyze this stuff because I find it interesting. I’m not all that vested in SVBs match or my own ego over the ref. I am leaning foul but in practice I’d favor the shooter.
Why was Tabb pressed up against Filler's rear end 10 feet away from the hit she was going to call? That's as bad as the call itself. You would think someone with her experience would be in position.
In BCA, simultaneous contact would be a good hit, but agree it wouldn't be for WPA.
I think you mean BCAPL/CSI, which is very, very different from BCA.
Yep... that's what I meant. Good catch.
I’ve seen CSI official rules say you can have a simultaneous hit with the legal object ball and and illegal ball. But it has the same kind of language about “after that contact” any OB or CB must contact a cushion. It doesn’t say “during or after”. I didn’t find anywhere else in the rule book that indicated otherwise. I’d believe if it’s allowed, it would only be by the common practice of a given ref or in general of favoring the shooter on a close call.
Have you seen otherwise?
I take it back. There’s a specific applied ruling for that. Not sure how I let myself overlook that.
It adds the extra caveat of the OB also being frozen. But I’d interpret that to apply to an OB not frozen too.