Vic's CLARIFIED version: Bob runs the table to the ball before the 8, the 4. While potting the 4, bob crashes into the 8 with the cueball, causing the cueball to go in. The cueball colliding with the 8 [after hitting the 4 ball first] ALSO CAUSES THE 8 TO GO IN. Vic then sweeps the table as the game is clearly over.
Vic continued to describe the results of the shot as "Bob scratched on the 8"...
Both parties described it as a scratch. Bob: I scratched on the 4. Vic: No, he scratched on the 8!
Bob never at any point realized he made the 8. He thought, as I did, that vic mistook the 4 for the 8. Vic brought the balls up before anyone but him knew the 8 had gone down, or at least that is what he claimed to my friend. It's the only explanation that makes all the pieces fit.
Even with Vic's newest explanation things still smell real fishy from where I sit and the pieces do not in fact fit together very well at all. There is however an explanation where all the pieces do fit together perfectly, and as a result seems much more likely to be the truth of what actually happened.
Literally one and only one thing mattered in the shot, and that thing was that the 8 ball was sunk out of turn. Yet Vic never once mentioned that. He didn't mention it to you, he didn't mention it to Bob, and he didn't even mention it even after you were ruling against him. When Vic is trying to argue that he has won the game, why on earth wouldn't he mention the one and only thing that would actually back up and justify his argument? Of course Vic would have argued with "but he made the 8 ball early/out of turn" if that is actually what he believed had happened, but that isn't what he believed at the time. At the time he thought Bob had been on the 8 and shooting at the 8, and subsequently made it but also scratched which of course would be a loss of game.
That's why Vic was using an argument that otherwise would not have mattered in the least if he knew that Bob had been on the 4 ball, namely that Bob "scratched on the 8"? That's why Vic was making an arguing for something that had not even occurred, namely Bob "scratching on the 8". Bob didn't scratch on the 8, Bob scratched while shooting the 4, but Vic didn't realize that at the time, otherwise that argument would make zero sense. At that moment Vic thought Bob was on and shooting at the 8, and all Vic knew is that after the shot was over both the 8 ball and the cue ball had gone into pockets and Vic thought Bob had lost because he "scratched on the 8".
That's also why Vic never felt the need to elaborate past "Bob scratched on the 8" as it was literally self explanatory based on what Vic believed had happened. That's why at the time of the incident Vic never conceded the fact that Bob had been shooting at the 4, because at the time he had in fact thought Bob was shooting at the 8. That's why Vic never mentioned that the 8 was made out of turn, literally the one and only thing that would have mattered, because he had thought Bob was on the 8 and shooting at the 8. That's why Vic's one and only repetitive argument was regarding how Bob "scratched on the 8", because he thought Bob had in fact been on the 8 and had scratched while shooting at the 8 which would be a clear loss of game. That's why Vic couldn't understand how you could possibly rule against him for Bob scratching on the 8 when it is so clear cut that it is a loss of game when you scratch on the 8. Now all the pieces actually fit.
Maybe Vic was pulling a move all along, but more likely it wasn't until later that Vic became aware/convinced that Bob really was shooting at the four. You are almost certainly right, Vic probably thought the 4 was the 8. Vic knew in his heart that he could be mistaken because he didn't have the best view and/or the lighting wasn't the best or he hadn't been paying careful attention etc and he couldn't in his heart say for sure which ball Bob had been shooting at or whether or not the 4 was even on the table. That coupled with the fact that he was hearing from too many places with too much confidence that Bob had in fact been on the four made him come to accept it after the fact. Vic was also seeing that literally nobody was siding with him and that's when he fully realized what had actually happened and how bad he had messed up. But rather than admitting the truth about having been mistaken about which ball Bob had been shooting and that he had just flat messed up regarding his claims and had pushed them much too strongly considering he didn't actually know what had happened and had basically just been guessing, Vic instead decided to try to save face and come up with a new story about how he knew Bob had been on the 4 but he had raked the balls because the 8 had been made out of turn--even though at the time he never once mentioned that the 8 ball had been made out of turn, and even though at the time his one and only argument was about how it was a loss since Bob had scratched on the 8. It's pretty clear which scenario all the facts actually fit real nice and cleanly.
