Suspect at first glance, but there is also much that cannot be seen from the camera angle, as is the case with so many of these posted "foul/no-foul" videos. Sometimes it's obvious, but rarely does the camera angle simulate anything in the same area code as a proper referee position, and frequently the camera angle can actually give false indications. That is why, in CSI play, Applied Ruling 10-6, second paragraph, states:
"Referees are neither required nor necessarily encouraged to consider video evidence. If a referee chooses to consider video evidence, no call will be overturned unless the video, in the judgment of the referee, provides clear and convincing evidence. In particular, the referee must be certain that the angle provided by the camera does not provide an illusion concerning the angles resulting from the contact of the balls, which may appear deceptive, particularly from low camera angles and certain camera positions."
That ruling was written after a day spent with Dr. Dave reviewing our referee training methods and physics training protocols. The video of one of the two questions on the video ref test that I has missed the first time through was bugging me, and after breaking the video down with him for about 5 minutes I was able to demonstrate how the camera angle was potentially deceptive and/or illusory.
However, I digress. While, again at first glance, it looks like a foul, and if forced to bet the house I would lay it on the foul, there is another possibility.
IF the CB was frozen to the 14 (we cannot know, since it was not declared, but not impossible), and IF the tip placement on the hit was substantially to the shooter's left of the line of centers between the CB / 10-ball (which we absolutely cannot know for certain), then I can reasonably see the resulting CB path as clean with respect to the CB/14 interaction while also still legal with respect to the 10.
In 9 years of training referees I have probably probably hit a thousand masses during demonstrations, and If I learned anything in doing those demonstrations it is this: while still subject to the laws of physics, when the stick goes vertical the CB does things that are completely unexpected with respect to anything that might be expected. And when you are a referee watching the hit, and that CB comes off the collision with Out-Of-This-Universe spin, especially side-spin, you better be damn sure of what happened before you open your mouth.
Not sayin' it wasn't a foul...probably was. But I won't hesitate to also say that if you think you can be 100% sure from looking at this video clip and not even admit the possibility that it was clean, then I don't want you on my referee team. Because you haven't learned Rule 1 of calling fouls, which is: if you can't be sure, then you cannot call the foul. Period.
Referee: FOUL!
Player: Why?
Referee: I don't know. Just didn't look right.
Doesn't cut it.
Of course, the rule set also matters. As observed by the inestimable Mr. Jewett, at Derby City, who knows?
Probably a foul, but just my .02.
"Referees are neither required nor necessarily encouraged to consider video evidence. If a referee chooses to consider video evidence, no call will be overturned unless the video, in the judgment of the referee, provides clear and convincing evidence. In particular, the referee must be certain that the angle provided by the camera does not provide an illusion concerning the angles resulting from the contact of the balls, which may appear deceptive, particularly from low camera angles and certain camera positions."
That ruling was written after a day spent with Dr. Dave reviewing our referee training methods and physics training protocols. The video of one of the two questions on the video ref test that I has missed the first time through was bugging me, and after breaking the video down with him for about 5 minutes I was able to demonstrate how the camera angle was potentially deceptive and/or illusory.
However, I digress. While, again at first glance, it looks like a foul, and if forced to bet the house I would lay it on the foul, there is another possibility.
IF the CB was frozen to the 14 (we cannot know, since it was not declared, but not impossible), and IF the tip placement on the hit was substantially to the shooter's left of the line of centers between the CB / 10-ball (which we absolutely cannot know for certain), then I can reasonably see the resulting CB path as clean with respect to the CB/14 interaction while also still legal with respect to the 10.
In 9 years of training referees I have probably probably hit a thousand masses during demonstrations, and If I learned anything in doing those demonstrations it is this: while still subject to the laws of physics, when the stick goes vertical the CB does things that are completely unexpected with respect to anything that might be expected. And when you are a referee watching the hit, and that CB comes off the collision with Out-Of-This-Universe spin, especially side-spin, you better be damn sure of what happened before you open your mouth.
Not sayin' it wasn't a foul...probably was. But I won't hesitate to also say that if you think you can be 100% sure from looking at this video clip and not even admit the possibility that it was clean, then I don't want you on my referee team. Because you haven't learned Rule 1 of calling fouls, which is: if you can't be sure, then you cannot call the foul. Period.
Referee: FOUL!
Player: Why?
Referee: I don't know. Just didn't look right.
Doesn't cut it.
Of course, the rule set also matters. As observed by the inestimable Mr. Jewett, at Derby City, who knows?
Probably a foul, but just my .02.
