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

[Gatz]

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.

Well after seeing this a million times, it's a good hit. If you put your pointer at 19seconds and let the shot play out then hit 19seconds again and let shot play out. You'll see the cueball slightly grazes the 3 ball before hitting the rail.

Took me quite a few times replaying it back to find a good spot to keep your eyes at in order to see the 3 move before cueball hits rail.

 

[Quesports]

Well after seeing this a million times, it's a good hit. If you put your pointer at 19seconds and let the shot play out then hit 19seconds again and let shot play out. You'll see the cueball slightly grazes the 3 ball before hitting the rail.

Took me quite a few times replaying it back to find a good spot to keep your eyes at in order to see the 3 move before cueball hits rail.

By golly I believe your correct.

Would you like a like reaction or a frowny mad one on your post??

 

[Jimmorrison]

Yes, you don’t even have to see it. Go by direction the balls travel. Pretty sure that’s what SVB was indicating, with his hand gestures

 

[westcoast]

In fairness, that was a very difficult call. Probably didn't make a difference in the game or the match- FSR still had a shot in the side and Shane misplayed his leave for the 3 badly.

 

[skogstokig]

In fairness, that was a very difficult call. Probably didn't make a difference in the game or the match- FSR still had a shot in the side and Shane misplayed his leave for the 3 badly.

yes, FSR had a fairly easy shot even without ball in hand, and was playing better overall in that particular match. it was a freak foul in the sense that even slo-mo in HD didn't clear the fog. i doubt a simular situation will arise anytime soon

 

[Cornerman]

Tough call here. First of all (and I've probably said this a million times) the referee MUST be in position to make the correct call here, and he obviously wasn't. This is the kind of shot you often see in billiards where the cue ball contacts the object ball near the rail and immediately touches the rail again, or MAYBE NOT! On this particular shot it is hard to see or even discern that the cue ball re-contacted the rail after hitting the three ball. In that case it is a foul.

I think he was right on top of this shot and immediately called no rail. Like literally above the shot since it was hit slowly.

 

[fastone371]

If you play frame by frame you can most definitely see the 3 move from cue ball contact then the cue ball hits the rail, good shot, no foul.

 

[Tennesseejoe]

If you ( the referee) cannot definitely determine it was a foul the call should be considered a good hit. Every shot is considered good until an infraction is discovered.

 

[skogstokig]

If you ( the referee) cannot definitely determine it was a foul the call should be considered a good hit. Every shot is considered good until an infraction is discovered.

it's understandable he couldn't see the rail hit and called foul, it even looked like it in slow replay. but logic contradicted it. torbjörn blomdahl would have called it right, but not because of supreme eyesight

 

[Island Drive]

Again, I did not see rail/ball rail.
I saw rail ball, then cb towards the 7.
If it was a rail/ball rail shot, then the cue ball would of hit the right side of the 7 ball.
Like I said before, the cue ball was rolling with left side cueing, and did NOT hit the 7 from underneath.

 

[Mick]

I saw rail ball, then cb towards the 7.

The sequence went: ball, rail, ball. The 3 almost doesn't move at first contact, but you can see the cueball change directions before it hits the rail.

 

[Double-Dave]

As Shane himself mentioned on Facebook, it is impossible for this shot to be a foul.

Let's for the sake of argument agree that the cueball did not touch the 3-ball first but hit rail first. What then is the tangent line of the cueball? Exactly, the tangent line of the cueball is back towards the rail and that's exactly where it went.

Now, maybe/probably the cueball just grazed the 3-Ball aswell just before hitting the rail, but that doesn't matter. After hitting the rail and hitting the 3-Ball again there is only 1 direction for the cueball to go and that is along the tangent lint back into the rail.

 

[Vahmurka]

In a thread discussing this shot on Matchroom Pool FB page AZB's own Marek posted a good frame-by-frame slo-mo he composed on his smartphone. And only then it is visible (only by the dots of the moving cue ball!) that it barely brushes the 3 on the way to the cushion.
And what makes this shot pretty unique IMO is that then there was kind of a double hit, as the cue ball got jammed between the 3 and the cushion, and so the cue ball rebounded from the rubber to follow the 3. It was possible because of the thinnest of the hits on the 3, so it did not (visibly) move and at the same time allowed such a split hit.
So the ball was hit first, and only then there was a rail contact, but all the intricacies were impossible to glance live. Even slow motion replays required some serious tweaking to discover them! I think for this reason the call could be either foul or no foul and up to the referee's discretion (and should we not forget about a preference of a doubt, or how do you call that; when not 100% sure the decision is in favor of a shooting player).

Also for the above mentioned details I assume this particular shot would be very difficult to reproduce, if at all possible. Even shooting the cue ball directly towards the ball (not off the rail or two). First, one needs to brush the object ball so slightly, and after that the cue ball should nest right between the object ball and cushion. Can't imagine how many tries it could take

 

[Island Drive]

The sequence went: ball, rail, ball. The 3 almost doesn't move at first contact, but you can see the cueball change directions before it hits the rail.

To clarify what rail ball rail means from my generation of playing Varner....and playing in two world events etc. etc. And the way JJ thinks is this.

Definition of rail/ball/rail.

When you 1st strike the cue ball and it hits the rail the meaning starts the wording Rail. (the first contact point).

Next, when the cue ball continues and strikes the object ball it's called Ball.

3rd, after cue ball contacts the ball it then must go back to the Rail.

Thus, your cue ball hits the rail first, then contacts obj ball second and returns back to the rail 3rd.



I'm not saying this to be mean, derogatory or anything bad, I'm just explaining it, as simply as I can.
There are many new comers on this site that may of Never heard this term before, I'm just trying to Help.

In all my yrs Mick, I've Never heard it told the way you did.



bm

 

[Island Drive]

FYI, Ball rail is a good hit....

 

[Mick]

Not really sure what you're getting at. The cueball hits the 3 before it (the cueball) hits the rail. It then hits the 3 a second time. Most responses seem to assume it only hit the 3 once.

 

[9Ballr]

Referee made a call. The rest doesn't matter.
Keep playing the game and by all means, for the players, get over it. Don't be psychologically affected by this.
By the way I think the referee did a fantastic job in general, whether technically right or technically wrong, don't care, he was great.
Loved the part where he told Jason to stay out of this.
Weird that he would have to.
Big kudos to the referee!!!

 

[Bob Jewett]

Referee made a call. The rest doesn't matter.
Keep playing the game and by all means, for the players, get over it. Don't be psychologically affected by this.
By the way I think the referee did a fantastic job in general, whether technically right or technically wrong, don't care, he was great.
Loved the part where he told Jason to stay out of this.
Weird that he would have to.
Big kudos to the referee!!!

No. The call was wrong. The shot was not a foul. It was not an easy call and the situation was confusing, but he missed it.

 

[straightline]

The initial "movement" of the three seems to be camera induced. IOW, the entire shot changes perspective incrementally. Whether this is due to auto focus, or image stabilization/correction, IDK.
YouTube player will toggle frames via the period and comma keys and you can check this effect quite easily. When the three appears to move initially, the reddish border at the top right also toggles. Further, as you toggle through the frames surrounding this event, it becomes clear the whole image re-renders incrementally. There is no feathering or three ball movement of any kind until the obvious contact in question.

 

[catscratch]

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