Efren foul call - Was Ref correct?
- Thread starter iusedtoberich
- Start date
On these close hits, to go by where the balls end up is wrong. A very thin hit can sometines
just wiggle the first ball and the results of the shot will be the same as if the shooter missed
the ball. IMHO the ref has to just dicide which ball was hit first and not go by the spin or direction
of the balls.
just wiggle the first ball and the results of the shot will be the same as if the shooter missed
the ball. IMHO the ref has to just dicide which ball was hit first and not go by the spin or direction
of the balls.
Pool-playing experience and common sense should tell one the answer.
I love both Keith and Efren, so I am not biased toward either player but....
that was absolutely NOT a foul.
Look at the distance the 5 ball travels.
Had Efren hit the other ball first then the 5 ball would NOT have gone as far. Pool-playing experience
Moreover, how the hell could he have overcut the 5 ball as he did if he had not hit the 5 first. Common sense
Keith gives the impression that he knew damn well it wasn't a foul, he says, "...fine with me."
BAD CALL, NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT.
Last edited:
i dont think the call would have changed anything keith had a good shot even without bih
easy out with all the balls wide open
Last edited:
Also based on where the five ball hits the side rail in relation to where the cue ball was to the five, makes it appear the hit was good.
He hit the wrong ball first...
He was using inside which is what throws the ball he hits at what seems to be more than 90 degrees, it's outside english relative to the ball he actually hits first.
so it was a foul. correct call by ref...
Jaden<----atleast imo, I wouldn't second guess someone who was there based on that grainy old film even if I thought it wasn't a foul...
He was using inside which is what throws the ball he hits at what seems to be more than 90 degrees, it's outside english relative to the ball he actually hits first.
so it was a foul. correct call by ref...
Jaden<----atleast imo, I wouldn't second guess someone who was there based on that grainy old film even if I thought it wasn't a foul...
Want to see some bad calls?
If you want to see a ref screw the pooch on some calls, check out this match with Johnny Archer and Nick Varner. Both calls were against Nick, both calls were obviously wrong based on instant replay, they were playing all ball fouls. Nick let the first one slide, the second he calls over Pat Flemming who was the tournament director. But all the while Nick acts like a professional, and maintained his composure to go on to win the match.
First call at about 17:25 second at 25:40
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TvVeMHymJc4
Chuck
If you want to see a ref screw the pooch on some calls, check out this match with Johnny Archer and Nick Varner. Both calls were against Nick, both calls were obviously wrong based on instant replay, they were playing all ball fouls. Nick let the first one slide, the second he calls over Pat Flemming who was the tournament director. But all the while Nick acts like a professional, and maintained his composure to go on to win the match.
First call at about 17:25 second at 25:40
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TvVeMHymJc4
Chuck
Wow!! That's just crazy....
the ref must be blind lol
Yeah, blind or something .. He was standing just a few feet away from Nick while staring at the ball before calling those fouls?!?
takeitdown
Banned
Johnny looks like he's going to the prom with that blue bow tie and cummerbund. Thank good they don't dress like that anymore or play all ball fouls.
I was at that tourney and Nick's shirt touched the ball on the second foul. Nick
tried to have the ref removed but Pat said no.
It is impossible for us to tell from the video whether that was a good hit or not. One possibility was that the cue ball just barely feathered the five ball, hitting it just enough that it would wiggle back and forth in position and not move more than 1/10 millimeter, and then the cue ball hit the four and then the cue ball hit the five again (backwards). That's possible.
It's also possible that the simple thing happened: the cue ball barely missed the five on the way to the four and then came off the four to hit the five.
Those two possibilities result in the same or very nearly the same action on all three balls.
So, given that the shot may or may not have been a foul, how is the referee supposed to rule? The current rules cover the situation, but from my quick glance at the 1988 rule book, there is no guidance to the ref for a shot that may or may not have been a foul.
Judging from his relatively soft/medium stroke and the fact that the 5 shot directly into the rail at about 90 degrees suggests that it had to be a good hit
Excellent point. I thought the same thing as I went down for bed last night. So despite the path of the 5, it is still possible that a foul could have occurred (if the 5 was hit twice).
So how do the current rules cover this situation?