FOUL Called on SVB at the UK OPEN

[Bob Jewett]

The "undecidable shots are deemed fair" idea first appeared in the BCA rules in the 1992 edition on page 53. It is in the section "Nine Ball (Professional Rules)", and in the subsection on playing without a referee. The wording was a little different then:

8.3 If the cue ball strikes the lowest numbered ball and another object ball at approximately the same instant and it cannot be determined which object ball was hit first, the judgement will go in favor of the shooter.​

I could not find any equivalent rule in the general rules or the rules for 8 ball in that year.

I'm pretty sure that the wording above was mine since I was the editor of that set of pro rules.

The statement of the idea is often copied from baseball -- "the tie goes to the runner". Just as in baseball, there is never a real tie at pool. In both games there are situations that are too close to call but are certainly not ties.

 

[Nick B]

Lets not forget we are probably talking about the best ref that Matchroom have on their roster. I've see another one make repeated mistakes and still be brought back. MR needs to rehire Nigel R. Nobody was better at controlling the crowds.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

It looks to me like a rail first hit would send the CB more toward the brown ball afterward. In order to follow the 3 away from the rail as it did, its angle into the rail must have been made steeper - by glancing off the 3 first.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

It looks to me like a rail first hit would send the CB more toward the brown ball afterward. In order to follow the 3 away from the rail as it did, its angle into the rail must have been made steeper - by glancing off the 3 first.

If you advance the original video viewed by the ref frame by frame, the 3 does seem to move first, in which case the shot is definitively not a foul; although, that would have taken more time to check. It is also possible the CB hit the 3 again after rebounding off the cushion (as with one of the examples in my video), but the frame rate of the video was not fast enough to capture that action.

 

[fan-tum]

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!

Jesus, not even close... foul!

 

[dr_dave]

Jesus, not even close... foul!

Sorry, but you are incorrect.

It is easy to convince oneself the shot was a foul, especially with the limited frame-rate video available; but as I clearly showed in my video, the action and look of the shot would have been the same with legal ball-first or rail-first hits (which would be too fast to see in real time or in limited-frame-rate video replay). The only way there could have been a foul is if there was simultaneous contact between the CB, 3, and cushion, which is very unlikely. And even if there was, it would be impossible to detect live or with the video available. Whenever a shot is too close to call like this, a foul should not be called.

 

[fengor]

honestly it is a foul because the ref called it a foul. The ref even went through and did his best to determine the answer and that is all you can ask.

 

[dr_dave]

honestly it is a foul because the ref called it a foul. The ref even went through and did his best to determine the answer and that is all you can ask.

That is not “all you can ask.” You can also ask that he make the correct call. He had plenty of time to think about the shot during the video review. He should have corrected the mistake of his initial call.

 

[Bob Jewett]

honestly it is a foul because the ref called it a foul. The ref even went through and did his best to determine the answer and that is all you can ask.

Well, that's one way to look at it. I think it is possible for a referee to make "an incorrect call". Do you think that's possible?

 

[fengor]

I know it is possible but the ref is the final word and on a close call they are forced to make a decision. The main thing is that there is no question it was a fould because the ref called it a foul. That does not mean he was correct just the reality of the situation

 

[fengor]

That is not “all you can ask.” You can also ask that he make the correct call. He had plenty of time to think about the shot during the video review. He should have corrected the mistake of his initial call.

from looking at the replay I can honelty say I do not know if it was a good hit or not it was very close and you even said that there isa possible way it was a bad hit. so he made a judgment call which all refs need to do and basicly it is his final decision no matter how much it is disected after

 

[straightline]

from looking at the replay I can honelty say I do not know if it was a good hit or not it was very close and you even said that there isa possible way it was a bad hit. so he made a judgment call which all refs need to do and basicly it is his final decision no matter how much it is disected after

Well the call went but the post mortem is not moot.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

Sorry, but you are incorrect.

It is easy to convince oneself the shot was a foul, especially with the limited frame-rate video available; but as I clearly showed in my video, the action and look of the shot would have been the same with legal ball-first or rail-first hits (which would be too fast to see in real time or in limited-frame-rate video replay). The only way there could have been a foul is if there was simultaneous contact between the CB, 3, and cushion, which is very unlikely. And even if there was, it would be impossible to detect live or with the video available. Whenever a shot is too close to call like this, a foul should not be called.

Not a very scientific reply. Watching your video, I don't agree that you have the balls in the same position that the match balls were. Specifically, I think SVB shot at a three ball closer to the rail than yours was, and that will significantly alter the outcome.

I also didn't ever see where you got the same cueball follow that SVB did. Kinda close, but the nuances matter.

I'm sorry to say that recently it seems that your small amount of AZB 'celebrity' seems to be going to your head.

 

[Poolplaya9]

honestly it is a foul because the ref called it a foul. The ref even went through and did his best to determine the answer and that is all you can ask.

No, that is not all you can ask. You can ask that they also have some basic understanding of how ball collisions work so that they can actually make educated rulings instead of incorrect ones due to ignorance about how balls react. I don't think asking that they have the knowledge to properly do their job is too much to ask at all, nor should you.

from looking at the replay I can honelty say I do not know if it was a good hit or not it was very close and you even said that there isa possible way it was a bad hit. so he made a judgment call which all refs need to do and basicly it is his final decision no matter how much it is disected after

The problem is that he made the very clearly wrong judgement call out of ignorance. When you do not have compelling evidence that a foul has occurred, not that it might be possible that a foul occurred but you really can't tell, but actual compelling evidence that a foul occurred, if you don't have that then it has to ruled as not being a foul.

The only "judgement" that could possibly be reasonable here was to rule it as not being a foul, and if he doesn't have the knowledge to have been able to call this fairly obvious one correctly (and he clearly doesn't because he called it incorrectly) then he has more learning and training to do before he is ready to be a referee, especially on events of this caliber. I know he is a pretty decent referee in other respects but this one really wasn't all that hard and showed a clear lack of knowledge and understanding and you just can't have refs out there in events like this that have a clear lack of knowledge and understanding of the basics.

 

[PoolBum]

I know it is possible but the ref is the final word and on a close call they are forced to make a decision. The main thing is that there is no question it was a fould because the ref called it a foul. That does not mean he was correct just the reality of the situation

Saying that it was a foul and saying that it was a foul because the ref called it a foul are not the same thing. If you recognize the possibility that the ref can make a mistake, then it is never the case that a shot is a foul just because the ref called it a foul.

 

[KissedOut]

I'd have liked to see what a topnotch 3C ref would have made of this, since they have a lot more experience in determining the order in which things are hit due to the intrinsic nature of the game.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I'd have liked to see what a topnotch 3C ref would have made of this, since they have a lot more experience in determining the order in which things are hit due to the intrinsic nature of the game.

I think anyone with significant 3-C experience -- obviously including tickies -- would have said there was cushion after ball contact. There are some tickies that might be the simultaneous case, but I think most refs would judge by the action of the cue ball, and the SVB shot looks like a good ticky or no worse than ball-first which would also be OK at pool.

 

[fengor]

My main question is the path of the cue ball which is clearly the only way you can determine this hit. In my mind since the cue ball goes in almost the exact same path as the cue ball it was clearly not a ball first unless it was super super thin hit. From the video form dr dave it apears that with a ball first hit ist extends the line of the cue ball further up table and if it was rail first that tends to extend the path up table so I would say at best it was a simutanius hit or it was a dead full hit which would cause the cue ball to follow through the ball so it seems it is eaither a simutanius hit or a foul. I would ask people who know the rules better than me , if a ref is present does reasonable doubt go to the shooter or does the ref make the call.

 

[Poolplaya9]

My main question is the path of the cue ball which is clearly the only way you can determine this hit. In my mind since the cue ball goes in almost the exact same path as the cue ball it was clearly not a ball first unless it was super super thin hit. From the video form dr dave it apears that with a ball first hit ist extends the line of the cue ball further up table and if it was rail first that tends to extend the path up table so I would say at best it was a simutanius hit or it was a dead full hit which would cause the cue ball to follow through the ball so it seems it is eaither a simutanius hit or a foul.

Your wording isn't the greatest but if you are saying what it sounds to me like you might be saying then you are also still lacking some basic understanding of the physics of ball collisions and should go through all of Dr. Dave's materials that you can in order to fully acquire that knowledge.

I would ask people who know the rules better than me , if a ref is present does reasonable doubt go to the shooter or does the ref make the call.

Did you read the thread? And are you aware who Bob Jewett and dr_dave are?

If it is that you are not familiar with them, Bob is the most all around knowledgeable person on all things pool in the world by a mile (and even previously helped write the rules), and Dave is right there on knowledge of the physics and rules as well among other things. If it is that you did not read the thread, myself and a bunch of others as well as Bob and Dave in posts 41 and 46 among others clearly state that if there is not enough evidence to be able to conclusively show that it was a foul then it cannot be called/ruled a foul. The "benefit of the doubt" does indeed always go to the shooter (aka tie goes to the runner) so if there is doubt then it cannot be ruled a foul, or said another way, if it could have been a good hit then it has to be treated as a good hit.

It is that fact (coupled of course with the basic understanding of the physics of ball collisions which would allow you to determine here that there was just no way to know one way or the other with any certainty) is what makes this such an easy call to make--no foul.

 

[fengor]

I am quite familiar with bob jewitt and the rule he quoted clearly stated playing without a refferee so I am not sure you read the thread. I would assume that with a refferee than the refferees point of veiw superseeds anything