FOUL Called on SVB at the UK OPEN

[PoolBum]

Everybody except Queen Elizabeth has weighed in on this thread..

She told me emphatically that she thought it should not have been called a foul. Oh, and she wants to thank Dr. Dave for the excellent videos.

 

[dr_dave]

She told me emphatically that she thought it should not have been called a foul. Oh, and she wants to thank Dr. Dave for the excellent videos.

Tell her thank you for me. She sounds smart.

 

[KissedOut]

The ref has the final call not the players when a ref is in use. I can't believe all this drama over a call that we need to study frame by frame and still not sure. There's bad calls in all sports ..just ask the New Orlean Saints!

No one is saying they should go back and replay from that point with a reversed ruling. The purpose of doing a close analysis is first to determine the truth of the matter and second to learn from it. I don't see any drama, I see thoughtful detailed analysis by a couple of the smartest guys on this board.

 

[KissedOut]

She told me emphatically that she thought it should not have been called a foul. Oh, and she wants to thank Dr. Dave for the excellent videos.

And Paddington Bear agrees with her.

 

[Guy Manges]

FYI, I just posted a new video that analyzes Shane Van Boening's controversial kick shot from the 2022 UK Open that was called a foul. Spoiler alert: The call was bad. Check it out:

Content:
0:00 - Intro
1:13 - The Rules
1:46 - Possible Shots
---- 1:54 - ball-first
---- 1:59 - cushion-first
---- 2:35 - split hit
---- 2:52 - cushion compression example
---- 3:41 - super-slow-motion examples
4:25 - Was the Call Right?
6:26 - Wrap Up

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

Enjoy!

Doc, The WPBA Rules director will tell you the same thing he told me about rulings, they are arbitrary, I hope thats not so... Guy

 

[dr_dave]

Doc, The WPBA Rules director will tell you the same thing he told me about rulings, they are arbitrary, I hope thats not so... Guy

What does "arbitrary" mean? Random?

I would think any referee (or any pool player) would agree the call was wrong if they watch and listen to my follow-up video with an open mind:

 

[straightline]

Any refs have an opinion?

 

[Bob Jewett]

Someone above asked about what they would do in 3-cushion. Here is a shot that is very similar to SVB's. On this shot, the player is intending for the cue ball to go end rail, side rail, ball, side rail, second object ball. He needs to get three cushion contacts before the last ball. According to the commentators it was probably a good point but not scored in that order. The referee had a different opinion.

Start at 18:14 if your browser doesn't take you there automatically....

Evidently, video review is not allowed in this event.

 

[straightline]

Went frame by frame. It went short, feathered white, long, kiss, long, point. The commentary knew immediately by the mechanics of the shot.
Is there a provision for the incoming player to pass?

 

[KissedOut]

Went frame by frame. It went short, feathered white, long, kiss, long, point. The commentary knew immediately by the mechanics of the shot.
Is there a provision for the incoming player to pass?

I've seen, on several occasions, where a ref called something no point but the opponent agreed with the shooter that it was a good point, and the point was given. It happened in a Blomdahl match, recently. That's why when this came up before I said I was a little disappointed with Dani for not intervening. It's also why it is crazy that there is no provision for video review in 3c.