It's a good hit.
Foul or no foul? You be the ref.
- Thread starter jason
- Start date
Good hit but it was close. My first instinct was good hit. But I was able to pause it right before the hit and right after contact with the 2. And it could have easily been called wrong. When I was able to pause it right after contact with the 2ball the 7 ball was starting to move just not as far in relation to the cb. This was extremely close.
All of this is true. It is possible that a extremely thin initial contact on the 7-ball took place before the 2, we have all at times had the "wiggle" shot where you barely hit a object ball to the point that it does not actually move, but contact is still made.
But there is no way you can see that, even on the video. Refs are supposed to only call fouls when they know a foul has been commited, if you are not sure and it is too close to call the shot is considered good.
I am at work so I can't watch the video but it looks like his opponent is disputing if it was a good hit or not. I would guess his opponent is a lot stronger than a league player and he didn't know......
Looked too close to be positive that it was a foul, so it should be called a clean hit. I think when Raj immediately stands up that it influenced Ken to call it a foul.
Good hit tough camera angle.
Last edited:
i agree it was a good hit
i don't agree with him changing the call though. sure it's a big call, whatever, he made the call and thats that.
or if perhaps he changes his call without looking at the video, thats fine as well, I just dont agree with changing the call based on watching it on video...even if it was the right change
i don't agree with him changing the call though. sure it's a big call, whatever, he made the call and thats that.
or if perhaps he changes his call without looking at the video, thats fine as well, I just dont agree with changing the call based on watching it on video...even if it was the right change
You make a valid point especially since "instant replay" is only available on a couple tables. There should be a rule about this in the future.
Actually, when the shot was reviewed, everybody immediately agreed that the hit was good. It was that obvious.
As far as whether or not it should have been done, that was up to TD Ken Shuman, who was also the referee. I do agree that there were several matches on about 30 other tables that did not have the luxury of checking the video.
I think is was a good hit, but, the ref.said it was a foul. Wrong or right it was a foul and is should continue as a foul.If you want to have videos to watch the truth then keep only the videos. This is a main problem not only to billiard games but in almost all kind of sports.Some of them uses technology (fotofinish,tennis etc.) by official rules.
This is the same guy that Shawn Putnum complained to at the US open in 2009. After he drilled the 9 ball in the corner pocket I racked the balls 1/4 inch above the center of the spot the next rack.
Shawn looked at the balls and realized I had racked them just a little bit higher but still almost in the center of the spot.
After breaking the balls and having the corner ball rattle in the corner this time he came back to me and said that , that was the last time I was going to high rack him.
The next time I racked he looked at it and complained. I replied that it was a good rack.
Shawn went and got this guy and he told me I had to move it back to the exact center of the spot for Shawn.
I asked him why I had to custom rack for Shawn. I was not happy.
Maybe I was right. Is he?
This bad call on Hatch is rediculous. If I was Hatch I would have went balistic. In a high profile tournament like this they need to have someone that has a clue referee.
Not only can this call change the outcome of the match but the mental anguish it causes for the wronged player is huge.
If this was done to my opponent I would tell him to keep shooting. Putting this referee in his place and making the game right.
I hope that is what happened?
I watched the rest of the video.
Glad to see they got it right.
Shawn looked at the balls and realized I had racked them just a little bit higher but still almost in the center of the spot.
After breaking the balls and having the corner ball rattle in the corner this time he came back to me and said that , that was the last time I was going to high rack him.
The next time I racked he looked at it and complained. I replied that it was a good rack.
Shawn went and got this guy and he told me I had to move it back to the exact center of the spot for Shawn.
I asked him why I had to custom rack for Shawn. I was not happy.
Maybe I was right. Is he?
This bad call on Hatch is rediculous. If I was Hatch I would have went balistic. In a high profile tournament like this they need to have someone that has a clue referee.
Not only can this call change the outcome of the match but the mental anguish it causes for the wronged player is huge.
If this was done to my opponent I would tell him to keep shooting. Putting this referee in his place and making the game right.
I hope that is what happened?
I watched the rest of the video.
Glad to see they got it right.
Last edited:
who knows for sure that the seven wasn't brushed by the cue ball first?
This shot reminds me of a handful of other close calls. It appears obvious that the seven was hit last but can anyone prove it wasn't hit first also? A touch is a hit. Back when the cloth was a bit deeper I touched many a ball that rocked back into the same depression it was in to begin with and many more moved a tiny fraction of an inch. This still happens now although it isn't as common.
If the positions of the two ball and seven ball were reversed, how many would call with absolute certainty that the two ball wasn't brushed on the way in? Particularly as the ref on the scene without benefit of replay? The end position of balls can and does lie sometimes. The force of the first hit is tiny the force of the second hit much bigger. We see this often when a ball is near a rail, brushed before the cue ball hits the rail, and then hit solidly when the cue ball rebounds from the rail. If neither ball hits a rail after the second contact it is often called a foul.
Hu
This shot reminds me of a handful of other close calls. It appears obvious that the seven was hit last but can anyone prove it wasn't hit first also? A touch is a hit. Back when the cloth was a bit deeper I touched many a ball that rocked back into the same depression it was in to begin with and many more moved a tiny fraction of an inch. This still happens now although it isn't as common.
If the positions of the two ball and seven ball were reversed, how many would call with absolute certainty that the two ball wasn't brushed on the way in? Particularly as the ref on the scene without benefit of replay? The end position of balls can and does lie sometimes. The force of the first hit is tiny the force of the second hit much bigger. We see this often when a ball is near a rail, brushed before the cue ball hits the rail, and then hit solidly when the cue ball rebounds from the rail. If neither ball hits a rail after the second contact it is often called a foul.
Hu
I was watching the game and was sure that there was no foul at the time. The path of the 7 ball is always the best indicator. I just put it into full screen to get a better view. The frame rate is slow, but it is closer than I thought but still no foul.
Not a foul I voted, I saw the shots couple of times, I do agree that its hard to determine sometimes...specialy under the atmosphere of the tournament and being a referee there, it's hard because he have to make a decision instantly.
But I saw it and I say its No foul, basicaly judging by the reaction from the 7ball, and the reaction from the cueball it is clear to me that its not a foul, if you watch the 7 ball clearly and the hit of Hatch, you can see that there is noway the 7ball will be headed into that direction by that speed taken into consideration the speed of the shot "On cueball" you can cut the 7ball to that direction but either the 7ball will be slower, or the shot must be faster for the 7ball to head into that direction with that speed.
and for that I say its not a foul, clearly the 7ball heading to that direction in a velocity that say to my mind its a reaction because the cueball hitted the 7ball after hitting the 2ball, which throws it in that direction in that percise speed.
just imo.
But I saw it and I say its No foul, basicaly judging by the reaction from the 7ball, and the reaction from the cueball it is clear to me that its not a foul, if you watch the 7 ball clearly and the hit of Hatch, you can see that there is noway the 7ball will be headed into that direction by that speed taken into consideration the speed of the shot "On cueball" you can cut the 7ball to that direction but either the 7ball will be slower, or the shot must be faster for the 7ball to head into that direction with that speed.
and for that I say its not a foul, clearly the 7ball heading to that direction in a velocity that say to my mind its a reaction because the cueball hitted the 7ball after hitting the 2ball, which throws it in that direction in that percise speed.
just imo.
I just saw the diagram Jason posted. Good job there but the viewing angle will skew the lines you drew. If the image was from directly above, then 90 degrees is actually closer to where the 7 ball rested than where your line indicates. I got lucky while replaying it on around the 6th time. The frame stopped exactly at the point of impact with the 2 ball. Still no foul. Even if a high speed camera was used and it was found that both balls were struck at the same time it would still be a fair shot. As many stated before though... the 7 ball does not lie. Referees are taught to draw an imaginary line in these circumstances BEFORE the shot is made. This way they have a reference point to compare with where the ball rests after the shot is made. Unfortunately this ref was not asked by Raj to watch the shot closer and so had to act after the fact, without setting this reference point.
Its was a good hit!,there are a lot more closer hits then that one!