soyale
Well-known member
can you include your source please? not that i doubt you, just for clarification. this is the CSI ruleset?
Calling Dr. Dave! SVB "Foul" @ UK Open
- Thread starter 9andout
- Start date
Sorry, yes. The context switched to the CSI (BCAPL) rule set.
Pinch shot!
catscratch
Registered
Yes, you could hear it in the full speed video. Hard to call a foul knowing that I heard a double click.
That would mean the cueball wedged in and maybe oscillated for a bit. In one of the clips (I can't recall which) the cueball doesn't begin rail induced spin until after the three is on its way. As Dr. Dave pointed out in his video, there's no way to pinpoint the event in question.
I'm not sure what you are referring to in this video. Please explain what she got wrong.
No, you think you are hearing a double click but for hits this incredibly close you simple cannot rely on what you think you hear as your ears and mind and other acoustic properties can play tricks on you. It is not uncommon that provably good hits will sound bad and vice versa.
For any shot where the sound and your ears would actually be reliable enough to be able to depend on to use to call it one way or another it would would probably also be completely obvious based on how the balls reacted or completely obvious to the eye as well and so you would call it based on those instead since they are so much more reliable (generally in that order of reliability preference as well). I don't know that there will ever be an opportunity where your ears alone can be reliable enough to call a shot one way or the other when nothing else definitely can.
Last edited:
That used to be the best easy way to do it but now you can just pause a youtube video and use the "period" and "comma" keys to advance the video forward and backward one frame at a time. This works so much better for analyzing things like this.
What I see is that in the frame where the three first appears to move you can't tell for sure if the cue ball is touching the rail or not. It looks to me more like it isn't yet but it is just too blurry to be able to tell for sure. In this particular case neither the ball reactions or your eyes (and certainly not your ears) can tell for sure whether this was a good hit or not and so the ruling should have been "no foul" since you have to be able to conclusively show a foul before you can impose the penalty of a foul.
No, the honest knowledgeable people would not be calling a foul. For sure there are far too many people who will sell out their integrity when it benefits them but it certainly isn't everybody.
Last edited:
He is saying that the shot at 48:30 wasn't a foul. His post had the wrong time.
I love Michaela but she needed to be on the other end of the table to see this shot properly. You want to see the ball coming toward you, not away from you. Many refs are concerned with blocking the view of the TV camera and often the directors will remind them about this. My response was always that as the match referee I will get in the best position possible to watch a close shot and they can show it with a different camera, PERIOD!
I think he meant to say 48:30 (about where the video time stamps to) instead of 38:30 and he is saying that for the shot at 48:30 Michaela should have positioned herself right over the shot instead of staying back behind Filler about 10 feet away.
See my post 111 just above yours. Thanks
Yeah our posts crossed being three minutes apart. I must have either forgotten to refresh or took a break during my post though because I hadn't even seen easy-e's post above yours that was 13 minutes before mine where he had already mentioned the time mistake!
Good hit. She was 10 feet away and got the call wrong.
I looked at the shot multiple times, tough call.
In this case I'd give it to the shooter.
A near split hit, with inside cueing, giving the 9 allot of ball speed and making it appear to be hit first.
As far as I remember, split hits go to the shooter.
As Jay said, ref was NOT in the correct spot.
Bingo!
.
In this case I'd give it to the shooter.
A near split hit, with inside cueing, giving the 9 allot of ball speed and making it appear to be hit first.
As far as I remember, split hits go to the shooter.
As Jay said, ref was NOT in the correct spot.
Bingo!
.
I think shots like that are especially tricky to call. I often form a mental model of what should happen and what could go wrong. In both I predict ball paths and reactions.
Scenario 1: You pocket the 2.
Two hit full. Cueball follows between the tangent line or rolling 30 angle and either clips the 6 and maybe the 9 doesn’t move at all, or you clip more of the edge of the 9 and that goes high on the side rail… perhaps at a dribble.
Scenario 2: 9 is clipped first
9 goes flying out tracking a little lower in the rail. Maybe the 6 is moved by the 9, maybe not. And the two ball is hit 3/4 full and goes rocketing 1-2 diamonds high on the side rail.
Then you look at the shot and see ball behaviors that look like Scenario 2 and call foul.
And maybe you forgot to consider scenario 3 where either (a) Filler misses pocketing the 2 or (b) never could make the 2 and was planning on clipping it thin all along. Assuming it was a good hit (assuming not scenario 2) you have to ask yourself how different is the 9-ball movement between scenario 1 and 3. Will scenario 3 have a hot 9-ball or a dribbling 9-ball? If you imagine dribbling/high then this shot is a foul. If rocketing/low then you this shot is good.
I think it’s pretty easy for me to see how this could be ruled good or bad just depending on what’s in the mind of the ref. Because for me I tend to need to do that mental prep first because a shot happens too fast to solely trust my eyes in the moment. Standing in a better position can help your eyes see more, but I think it’s your mental model that’s likely to decide your call. I don’t cringe at this one going either way.
Scenario 1: You pocket the 2.
Two hit full. Cueball follows between the tangent line or rolling 30 angle and either clips the 6 and maybe the 9 doesn’t move at all, or you clip more of the edge of the 9 and that goes high on the side rail… perhaps at a dribble.
Scenario 2: 9 is clipped first
9 goes flying out tracking a little lower in the rail. Maybe the 6 is moved by the 9, maybe not. And the two ball is hit 3/4 full and goes rocketing 1-2 diamonds high on the side rail.
Then you look at the shot and see ball behaviors that look like Scenario 2 and call foul.
And maybe you forgot to consider scenario 3 where either (a) Filler misses pocketing the 2 or (b) never could make the 2 and was planning on clipping it thin all along. Assuming it was a good hit (assuming not scenario 2) you have to ask yourself how different is the 9-ball movement between scenario 1 and 3. Will scenario 3 have a hot 9-ball or a dribbling 9-ball? If you imagine dribbling/high then this shot is a foul. If rocketing/low then you this shot is good.
I think it’s pretty easy for me to see how this could be ruled good or bad just depending on what’s in the mind of the ref. Because for me I tend to need to do that mental prep first because a shot happens too fast to solely trust my eyes in the moment. Standing in a better position can help your eyes see more, but I think it’s your mental model that’s likely to decide your call. I don’t cringe at this one going either way.
Like Jay said, if the ref was if the correct spot.!
You got your time stamp wrong too. I call a foul on you.
Okay but don't use Tabb's method. Did you notice Filler jumped up on the shot when Tabb squeezed in behind him?You got your time stamp wrong too. I call a foul on you.
Last edited: