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

[JPB2]

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.

I did not research every possible rule, but I did look at the WPA rules, the WPA rule regulations, and WNT rules. I will posit that no instant replay is allowed. Why? Because there is no rule for it. Video replay is allowed when an area referee did not see a shot. There does not appear to be a corresponding rule for a refereed match. (WPA Rules). If I am incorrect I am happy to be shown the rule. If it’s going to be used a brief rule should allow it and set forth the procedure IMO.

I also see more and more Fran’s wisdom of not allowing a player to call a foul on themselves in a reffed match. Counterintuitive at first maybe, but a player who benefits from a ref blowing the call should not have to answer for a lack of integrity.

 

[GideonF]

all us pretty 'good players' say thanks for the backhanded cheap shot. if i was the ref here i would have called it good. guess i'm just not the poindexter type. i've been called in a gillion times over the yrs. to call a shot and i've never had one complaint and i didn't know a fkng thing about tangent lines. guess i'm just a born natural ref who either never got it wrong or the players were as clueless as i was.

I have had players (and sometimes a TD) watch shots and clearly get the call wrong. I have never complained to them - if you call a ref you have to live with their decision whether it’s right or wrong.

So I wouldn’t be so sure no one ever thought you got it wrong. Based on your comments on this post, I would respectfully never ask you to watch this type of shot.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I did not research every possible rule, but I did look at the WPA rules, the WPA rule regulations, and WNT rules. I will posit that no instant replay is allowed. Why? Because there is no rule for it. Video replay is allowed when an area referee did not see a shot. There does not appear to be a corresponding rule for a refereed match. (WPA Rules). If I am incorrect I am happy to be shown the rule. If it’s going to be used a brief rule should allow it and set forth the procedure IMO.

I also see more and more Fran’s wisdom of not allowing a player to call a foul on themselves in a reffed match. Counterintuitive at first maybe, but a player who benefits from a ref blowing the call should not have to answer for a lack of integrity.

This a good point, and maybe explains it. Perhaps "instant replay" is not allowed, and only the ref's immediate call can be used?

And/or, if instant replay IS allowed, maybe the ref's "protocol" is to only use it for stop motion ball contact, and not CB/OB paths.

We'd need first hand knowledge of the ref's protocol to know this.

If this is the case, it's actually way better than the ref blowing this call AFTER viewing the video replay.

 

[sjm]

Regardless of the letter of the law, there is precedent for this kind of video review when the presiding referee is unsure of the call. The most famous case was when a close hit call was reviewed in the Peach vs Bustamante World 9-ball semifinal. It erased what would have been a match-ending shot by Bustamante and Peach went on to win the match and the World 9ball championship.

Video review, while uncommon, is part of the game, as are other things not found explicitly in the rules. All the credit to those who elected to review this at the Hanoi Open, but the ruling made was absurdity itself.

 

[GideonF]

I also see more and more Fran’s wisdom of not allowing a player to call a foul on themselves in a reffed match. Counterintuitive at first maybe, but a player who benefits from a ref blowing the call should not have to answer for a lack of integrity.

I strongly disagree with this. I think we need a cutlure shift in pool. In snooker, pros routinely call fouls on themselves even with a ref standing right there - double hits, feathering the CB, touching another ball. Or telling the ref to move the CB to a worse position on a foul and miss.

Indeed, in a smiliar situation to the Capito one, I recently saw a pro ask the referee to look at a replay to make sure he had hit the colour and not a red (or vice versa, I don’t remember). As it happens, the hit was good but he wanted to make sure he didn’t benefit from a missed foul.

It’s not like other sports where the ref’s decision is judgment (eg what is a foul in football or basketball).

 

[Bob Jewett]

This a good point, and maybe explains it. Perhaps "instant replay" is not allowed, and only the ref's immediate call can be used?

And/or, if instant replay IS allowed, maybe the ref's "protocol" is to only use it for stop motion ball contact, and not CB/OB paths.

We'd need first hand knowledge of the ref's protocol to know this.

If this is the case, it's actually way better than the ref blowing this call AFTER viewing the video replay.

Well, it may not be explicitly allowed in a refereed match, but the WPA regulations say for an unrefereed match, if there is a dispute between the players as to what happened, the ref is empowered to use all available resources to come to the best decision, including video review.

It may be better to leave the procedure up to the event organizer, but my inclination is to use video when available. I know I have made at least one bad call that could have been corrected if video had been available. The player shot quickly along an unexpected line.

 

[GideonF]

The most famous case was when a close hit call was reviewed in the Peach vs Bustamante World 9-ball semifinal. It erased what would have been a match-ending shot by Bustamante and Peach went on to win the match and the World 9ball championship.

Another high profile example I can think of is when Mika called an obvious combo vs De Luna and the ref didn’t hear the call. They listened back to the tape and heard Mika call it. Imagine the injustice if the ref just hadn’t heard the clear call and Mika lost his turn because the ref couldn’t go listen to the tape!

 

[straightline]

If the ref called the balls frozen, the player didn't understand the call. As I mentioned, it is absolutely forbidden at 3-cushion to shoot into a frozen ball. The player certainly saw the balls as open.

I'm not sure what the ref said before the shot.

At carom, if the balls are close, the ref will indicate touching or not. If they are touching, the player has the option of having the two balls spotted or shooting away.

The commentary says something like "prozen" and the ref indicated with pinched fingers. He did this a second time before the guy shot. Maybe the guy was on Texas Express rules?

 

[JohnnyOzone]

No, it is not the referee's job to know the behavior of the cueball. Never has been and never will be. You do need to see contact - because which ball was actually hit first is what the judgement should be based on according to the rules of the game. You can't make decisions on "ball behavior" because then you'd be making judgements about situations way more complex than this based on what "probably" or "everybody knows" happened.

Can't disagree more

 

[Electric Boogaloo]

Yes and no. The referee's job is to be the judge, not the judge and jury.

So let's skip forward 100 years to the two best players ever playing 9 ball, a game that has been almost "solved" by today's standards. Instant replay technology is used on every single shot and happens so quickly that it's effectively real time. Both players (and their peers) "know" that it was probably a foul because of cueball motion but the replay (at 2 million frames per second) still shows a simultaneous hit - do we call a foul? No. Never. Judge not judge and jury.

Sounds like a really disappointing episode of “The Twilight Zone”

 

[GideonF]

The commentary says something like "prozen"

Is the commentary Filipino?

 

[straightline]

Is the commentary Filipino?

Ainorite? It's Korean I think.

I forgot to post the clip lol.

It's circa 1:54 - a few seconds after the start of this clip.

 

[JPB2]

I strongly disagree with this. I think we need a cutlure shift in pool. In snooker, pros routinely call fouls on themselves even with a ref standing right there - double hits, feathering the CB, touching another ball. Or telling the ref to move the CB to a worse position on a foul and miss.

Indeed, in a smiliar situation to the Capito one, I recently saw a pro ask the referee to look at a replay to make sure he had hit the colour and not a red (or vice versa, I don’t remember). As it happens, the hit was good but he wanted to make sure he didn’t benefit from a missed foul.

It’s not like other sports where the ref’s decision is judgment (eg what is a foul in football or basketball).

I think I was wrong citing Fran on this one. I went back and looked at the thread from August I was thinking of and I don’t think she said what I thought. We were discussing a different but somewhat related issue. I don’t know what she might say about this situation.

That said, speaking for me, I think it is nice for players to call fouls on themselves in certain situations and I think we should do it in our games. I’ve done it in the low level stuff I play etc…. However, I do not think in a reffed match we should question a players integrity when a ref blows a call like this one. That’s what I’m getting at.

 

[JPB2]

Well, it may not be explicitly allowed in a refereed match, but the WPA regulations say for an unrefereed match, if there is a dispute between the players as to what happened, the ref is empowered to use all available resources to come to the best decision, including video review.

It may be better to leave the procedure up to the event organizer, but my inclination is to use video when available. I know I have made at least one bad call that could have been corrected if video had been available. The player shot quickly along an unexpected line.

I think it is a real problem that it is allowed in an unrefereed match and not mentioned in a reffed match. The logical interpretation IMO is that video review in a reffed match is not allowed. I know that it is used and can be beneficial. That is why the rule should be extended to a reffed match as well as unreffed I think.

 

[GideonF]

I think I was wrong citing Fran on this one. I went back and looked at the thread from August I was thinking of and I don’t think she said what I thought. We were discussing a different but somewhat related issue. I don’t know what she might say about this situation.

That said, speaking for me, I think it is nice for players to call fouls on themselves in certain situations and I think we should do it in our games. I’ve done it in the low level stuff I play etc…. However, I do not think in a reffed match we should question a players integrity when a ref blows a call like this one. That’s what I’m getting at.

I guess the issue here from my perspective is when whether there is a culture shift of the kind I’m talking about.

At the moment, you could probably draw a distinction between a player touching balls, feathering etc where the player may feel it and the ref may not see it (I would probably include double hits here too), where I think the player clearly SHOULD call the foul on himself, and hits like the Capito one where the ref is in a position to make the call and the ref’s judgment is wrong. In the later case, I can see a player saying that at this stage the call is up to the referee. I don’t prefer it but it is a defensible position, IMO.

 

[straightline]

I guess the issue here from my perspective is when whether there is a culture shift of the kind I’m talking about.

At the moment, you could probably draw a distinction between a player touching balls, feathering etc where the player may feel it and the ref may not see it (I would probably include double hits here too), where I think the player clearly SHOULD call the foul on himself, and hits like the Capito one where the ref is in a position to make the call and the ref’s judgment is wrong. In the later case, I can see a player saying that at this stage the call is up to the referee. I don’t prefer it but it is a defensible position, IMO.

But for the bettors, there go I...

I'm not a player but surely you can see it gets gnarly, even without fraud.

 

[GideonF]

But for the bettors, there go I...

I'm not a player but surely you can see it gets gnarly, even without fraud.

If you’re trying to dump a match that way, you’re not doing a good job. Just touch the balls more clearly or feather the CB 2 inches and not a mm. Or just miss the ball or hook yourself.

So I don’t think what I’m proposing carries any real risk on that front.

 

[straightline]

If you’re trying to dump a match that way, you’re not doing a good job. Just touch the balls more clearly or feather the CB 2 inches and not a mm. Or just miss the ball or hook yourself.

So I don’t think what I’m proposing carries any real risk on that front.

I'm not a hussluh so I'll take your word for it. Many likely scenarios though. Guys who are likely to screw up can do a a tiny cue ball foul just to lose a railbird. If no one calls it, simply get off the shot and claim. They can still resume winning the match in question.

 

[7stud]

Of course he knew. It was that obvious. Many would have called the foul on themselves. The only person in the entire civilized world that thought this a good hit was Marcel, and his call showed both lack of knowledge and lack of experience.

My tally is three:

Marcel
garczar
skor