What he said.
Earl v MD, was it a bad hit?
- Thread starter steev
- Start date
What he said.
Surprising how many won't do the obvious, isn't it? There is NO question that it was a bad hit.
That's true at normal speed. But, if you watch it by going frame by frame, it becomes very obvious that it was a bad hit.
Are you sure from the video that the cue ball did not just barely brush the 1 going in, moving it just a half a millimeter and then hit the nine and then came off the nine and hit the 1 again? I think such a double hit on the 1 -- such as is recorded somewhere on Dr. Dave's site -- is nearly impossible to detect live let along on a low-res video.
I'm not saying that the double hit is likely, but it is possible.
Not true. If it hit the one first (as it seems it *did* when slow motioning the video), it had forward roll on it, and hit the 9 pretty full. The direction the cueball travels is completely consistent with a full hit on the 9 with some follow. Likewise, the one cuts at a not so sharp angle and hits the five, which then makes it go sideways...giving the illusion when watched at full speed that it started out going in that direction. I think a case could be made either way. I watched this shot live and at first I thought it was a good hit, but then changed my mind. After seeing the video, I think it was indeed a good hit.
KMRUNOUT
The video does not have a frame at the point of contact. There is a frame before contact, and in the next frame both balls are in motion. There is plenty of room for speculation here. The evidence available lends itself reasonably to both interpretations. The one interpretation that is *definitely* wrong is that there is NO question haha.
KMRUNOUT
Good hit.
Can't see anything that would allow me to call it bad. Earl had the best position to see the hit. Mike was way down at the end away from the one-nine, while Earl was close and up over the contact. While not a fan, I trust Earl to be honest in this situation.:thumbup:
I think I can see Mike's nipple at 4:40.46. :wink: Hope the women and children didn't see that.
Can't see anything that would allow me to call it bad. Earl had the best position to see the hit. Mike was way down at the end away from the one-nine, while Earl was close and up over the contact. While not a fan, I trust Earl to be honest in this situation.:thumbup:
I think I can see Mike's nipple at 4:40.46. :wink: Hope the women and children didn't see that.
I have to say good hit...
The reason I give for it being a good hit is that the nine is positioned in front of the one relative to the cueball's incoming direction and the one obviously goes forward, if the CB caromed off the nine first, the one would have gone straighter off to the side than it did...
Jaden
The reason I give for it being a good hit is that the nine is positioned in front of the one relative to the cueball's incoming direction and the one obviously goes forward, if the CB caromed off the nine first, the one would have gone straighter off to the side than it did...
Jaden
There is no way to tell from your picture what the order of events is. You are speculating...unless you have other frames of video not present in the youtube post. If you have those, please share them.
KMRUNOUT
I must have a lower quality, lower frame rate youtube video than some of you. I know that for the vast majority of people, they are happy to convict with "sorta good" evidence. I also find the expression "no doubt" to be grossly overused and misused. You may believe that it is a bad hit. But there is PLENTY of room for doubt. Don't go into a law career lol.
KMRUNOUT
I like you, but if post #30 isn't enough for you, don't go into a career as a referee.
I like you, but if post #30 isn't enough for you, don't go into a career as a referee.
I agree that pool referees and lawyers and judges observe a different level of "proof". "No doubt" probably means different things to both groups.
The quality of the photos in post # 30 are not good enough to clearly see the right edge of the 1 ball with respect to the red line. Likewise, I just watched a show on the Discovery channel last night about how photos from different angles can produce all sorts of false visual tricks and illusions. I'm not saying anyone is trying to fool anyone, just that the evidence is not a slam dunk in either direction. I'm actually pretty surprised that so many think it is. No worries either way.
KMRUNOUT
I understand opening up MS Paint is beyond the capabilities of some forum members on AZ, so here I have helped.
Here is the same 5 ball in the three frames
notice that it has not moved...just like the 1ball in the first two frames.
Here is the same 5 ball in the three frames
notice that it has not moved...just like the 1ball in the first two frames.
Last edited:
Why do you reject my scenario in which the cue ball just barely, barely, ever so thinly brushed the one before hitting the nine? In fact the one ball could have moved a tenth of a millimeter between the two pictures and you would not be able to see it.
Bob, I could never reject your scenario. However, taking a probabilistic approach to this and combined with the video, I think we can end up with a similar conclusion.
I hope that you will agree with me that nothing is certain, in anything, and that entropy will always get in the way. Therefore all possibilities are valid, just some more likely than others.
Looks like some of you are getting confused because the angle of the picture can only show the balls overlapping, and you can't clearly see the distance between the cb and the one. However, all you have to do is look at the angle the cb is coming in. Then look at the cb/1 when the 9 has just moved. You SHOULD be able to then clearly see that there has to be at least 1/32" between the cb and the one ball. The cb/1 are not touching, look at the shadows under the balls. That also should clearly show that they aren't touching when you take into account the angle of the camera shot.
What also is proof is the fact the once you can see the one has moved, look at the circle on it with the number 1 in it. In the picture, that circle has not changed position at all. That means that it was a fairly full hit on the one to make it skid at initial contact. If it had been skimmed, the ball would have rotated immediately.