Controversial Non-Call of WRONG-BALL-HIT-FIRST FOUL - Hanoi Open - Capito vs. Lechner Quarter Final

dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
FYI, I just posted a new video that analyzes Robbie Capito’s controversial shot against Max Lechner in the recent Hanoi Open Quarter Finals. The shot, which was a foul, was called good, allowing Capito to win the game and the match, taking away Lechner’s chances for a possible tournament victory. Check it out:


Contents:
0:00 - Intro
0:45 - Background
2:49 - Being a Referee is Tough
3:59 - Tangent Lines
5:28 - Shot Re-Creation
7:56 - More Info

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
 
I saw this was foul right away. It was so easy to see. I think player should call foul to himself if referee is dumbass.
I have done it many times. This is what is wrong nowadays pool. Players don´t have REAL sportmanship.
Just to share you example that happened 2 days ago in 3 cushion WORLD CHAMPS!

Korean player Choi making nice masse point and referee called it a foul. Caudron comes and talk little with Choi and makes random shot (3:02 to3:40, he has to try shot to not make unsportmanship foul)to give inning back to him. Caudron refuses to get advantage from referees bad call.

He got some good karma and just few moments ago was crowned to new world champion of 3 cushion..

Thanks Dave i just hope some referees watch your videos!
 
Poolmanis said:
I saw this was foul right away. It was so easy to see.
Click to expand...

Same here.

Poolmanis said:
I think player should call foul to himself if referee is dumbass.
I have done it many times. This is what is wrong nowadays pool. Players don´t have REAL sportmanship.
Just to share you example that happened 2 days ago in 3 cushion WORLD CHAMPS!
Click to expand...

Obviously, it would be better if the refs can learn from mistakes like these and try to prevent them in the future so players won't need to get involved.

Poolmanis said:
Korean player Choi making nice masse point and referee called it a foul. Caudron comes and talk little with Choi and makes random shot (3:02 to3:40, he has to try shot to not make unsportmanship foul)to give inning back to him. Caudron refuses to get advantage from referees bad call.

He got some good karma and just few moments ago was crowned to new world champion of 3 cushion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that.

Poolmanis said:
Thanks Dave i just hope some referees watch your videos!
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that many of the top referees do because I have had communication with many of them.

If any refs (or players) out there want to improve their ability to recognize (and prevent) fouls, I have tons of useful resources on this topic here:

 
good explanation regarding tangent line helping determine which ball was hit first
your re creation shot has the balls too far apart in my opinion
 
Last edited:
Poolmanis said:
... Korean player Choi making nice masse point and referee called it a foul. Caudron comes and talk little with Choi and makes random shot (3:02 to3:40, he has to try shot to not make unsportmanship foul)to give inning back to him. Caudron refuses to get advantage from referees bad call. ...
Click to expand...
The audience apparently applauded Caudron's miss. They understood what was going on better than the ref. And I now know what the Korean characters are for WTF.

As for the 4-ball non-hit, that was a fairly difficult position to make a call compared to other near simultaneous hits. The cue ball is expected to go forward in either case. My feeling for the shot tells me it can't go that wide without hitting the 9 first, but that requires experience the ref may not have. The real key is the initial direction shown in the first two video frames after contact. That direction can't happen if the 4 is hit first.

An easy call to make is when the cue ball is shot along the common tangent of two frozen balls -- right between them. The cue ball obviously goes left or right giving a clear indication of the hit order. Or at least it does most of the time. I have gotten that hit to come nearly straight back from the balls, which indicates the cue ball was in contact with the balls at the same time. If the cue ball comes straight back, then you had a truly simultaneous hit. Ball-ball contacts last for about 0.1 millisecond.

A fairly deep result from physics says that the paths of the balls are a continuous function of the incoming angle of the cue ball -- it's not just one way or the other. Actually getting those in between cases is hard.
 
Bob Jewett said:
As for the 4-ball non-hit, that was a fairly difficult position to make a call compared to other near simultaneous hits. The cue ball is expected to go forward in either case. My feeling for the shot tells me it can't go that wide without hitting the 9 first, but that requires experience the ref may not have. The real key is the initial direction shown in the first two video frames after contact. That direction can't happen if the 4 is hit first.
Click to expand...

This call was a little tough to make live; but after careful instant-replay video review (with multiple views available), they should have gotten the call right.

Bob Jewett said:
A fairly deep result from physics says that the paths of the balls are a continuous function of the incoming angle of the cue ball -- it's not just one way or the other. Actually getting those in between cases is hard.
Click to expand...

I tried really hard (about 50-70 shots) to get some of those "in between" cases; but as you point out, it is extremely difficult. Regardless, the "non-in-between" results are clear.
 
The live ref could have made a mistake in the moment and/or not been paying close attention. Understandable. But during the replay after Max challenged, whoever called it a good shot should be fired.

Good job on the video. The only minor issue is during the intro you said he would have probably won that game (def true) AND the match. That game would have made the score tied 8-8 in a race to 10.
 
iusedtoberich said:
The live ref could have made a mistake in the moment and/or not been paying close attention. Understandable. But during the replay after Max challenged, whoever called it a good shot should be fired.
Click to expand...

“Fired” might be a bit strong, but I agree that the foul should have been recognized during a careful video review.

iusedtoberich said:
Good job on the video.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

iusedtoberich said:
The only minor issue is during the intro you said he would have probably won that game (def true) AND the match. That game would have made the score tied 8-8 in a race to 10.
Click to expand...
I might have exaggerated a little, the foul call certainly would have given Max a good chance at the game and match, and maybe even a chance at the title.
 
Baby Huey said:
So much in our game requires good sportsmanship. And, even when that is present one can believe they played correctly even though they committed a foul.
Click to expand...

I would guess Capito knew he fouled, but it is impossible to know for sure. A clean hit (which he expected) looks very different.
 
dr_dave said:
FYI, I just posted a new video that analyzes Robbie Capito’s controversial shot against Max Lechner in the recent Hanoi Open Quarter Finals. The shot, which was a foul, was called good, allowing Capito to win the game and the match, taking away Lechner’s chances for a possible tournament victory. Check it out:


Contents:
0:00 - Intro
0:45 - Background
2:49 - Being a Referee is Tough
3:59 - Tangent Lines
5:28 - Shot Re-Creation
7:56 - More Info

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
Excellent Exhaustive Analysis Doc!!👍🏻 Tangent line paths are indisputable!!
 
Tangent lines is not the job of the referee. The referee's job is to decide whether there was a legal hit or not, and if there is no obvious foul then the referee's job is to not call a foul. If technology is available but it is still unclear then the referee should always call no foul.
 
It's hard to argue with the tangent line argument but from the top view, it looks like the 4 moved before the 9.
anyway, with this being so hard to tell, it was a good call by the ref.
 
iusedtoberich said:
He def knew. Then gave some BS excuse (paraphrasing from my memory) "I wasn't watching the cb."
Click to expand...
I agree that’s any good player shooting this shot should know right away the CB motion was not even close to what a good player would expect with a good hit if a shot that full.
 
Swighey said:
Tangent lines is not the job of the referee. The referee's job is to decide whether there was a legal hit or not, and if there is no obvious foul then the referee's job is to not call a foul. If technology is available but it is still unclear then the referee should always call no foul.
Click to expand...
There is no tech needed on many shots, and it is referees job know the behavior of cueball on foul shots IF he want to be good referee, as Marcel probably wants. That 4 ball shot cueball can go forward but the speed that cueball have after hit is clear evidence of foul. Slow speed on shot and cueball have lot of speed and going to left tells there is 2 thin hits on balls, If it would hit 4 first cueball would not have much speed left. very simple. No need tech we all know that is foul instantly. You don´t need to see contact, ball behavior is enough.

edit: and every good player know that is foul instantly. Capito was just capitalizing dumb referee mistake..
 
Last edited:
Swighey said:
Tangent lines is not the job of the referee. The referee's job is to decide whether there was a legal hit or not, and if there is no obvious foul then the referee's job is to not call a foul. If technology is available but it is still unclear then the referee should always call no foul.
Click to expand...
A qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable ref most definitely observes CB motion to detect fouls, especially with double hits and this type of shot where tangent line motion tells all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top