Foul or No Foul??
- Thread starter jsp
- Start date
Looks like the ref was in the right place to watch the shot. The shot was not a foul.RRfireblade said:Immedatley following the shot , look who has the best view of the whole thing.
Last edited:
admitting defeat
You know, as much as I hate to do it, I think I have to admit defeat.
I think what is misleading about the video is exactly how much he is jacked up, and exactly where he hit the CB.
I set up the shot here at home, and shot it dozens of times. As I thought, there is absolutely no way the CB would NOT move backwards if you hit the CB center or below center (in reference to the slate).
However, if you jack up at about 30 degrees or so and aim down at the top-half of the CB, you can mimic the CB behavior displayed on the video. You can make it hop and move slightly forward, but only if you hit the top-half of the CB, which is what Orcullo seems to have done.
My error is that I just assumed that he was jacked up more than he was, and that he hit the center or bottom-half of the CB. Because of the close proximity of the CB to the rail, he would have to jack up significantly to even hit the CB equator. And because of the poor camera angle, it looked like he was more jacked up than he actually was.
Also, you really have to try to double-hit the CB given that separation.
So my answer now is that he didn't foul. Thanks for all the posters who made arguments for both sides. It was a nice exercise.
You know, as much as I hate to do it, I think I have to admit defeat.
I think what is misleading about the video is exactly how much he is jacked up, and exactly where he hit the CB.
I set up the shot here at home, and shot it dozens of times. As I thought, there is absolutely no way the CB would NOT move backwards if you hit the CB center or below center (in reference to the slate).
However, if you jack up at about 30 degrees or so and aim down at the top-half of the CB, you can mimic the CB behavior displayed on the video. You can make it hop and move slightly forward, but only if you hit the top-half of the CB, which is what Orcullo seems to have done.
My error is that I just assumed that he was jacked up more than he was, and that he hit the center or bottom-half of the CB. Because of the close proximity of the CB to the rail, he would have to jack up significantly to even hit the CB equator. And because of the poor camera angle, it looked like he was more jacked up than he actually was.
Also, you really have to try to double-hit the CB given that separation.
So my answer now is that he didn't foul. Thanks for all the posters who made arguments for both sides. It was a nice exercise.
Sorry to add one more opinion here. It appears that he used center ball on the shot, and being jacked-up translates into slight draw.
Very close, but I would say that he fouled the shot. The reaction on the seven makes no sense with that type of english. The cue ball should have come back off the seven, which it may have and he (very quickly) hit it again.
Just my opinion.
Danny K
Very close, but I would say that he fouled the shot. The reaction on the seven makes no sense with that type of english. The cue ball should have come back off the seven, which it may have and he (very quickly) hit it again.
Just my opinion.
Danny K
Last edited:
I looked at this again closely, and it appears that he double hit the ball. I would have no qualms about calling a foul on the shot.
I understand the reluctance of the referee, though, it being case game and all. It would have definitely caused some fireworks to call it a foul.
If you watch closely, there's a delayed reaction to the stroke and cue ball action.
Danny K
I understand the reluctance of the referee, though, it being case game and all. It would have definitely caused some fireworks to call it a foul.
If you watch closely, there's a delayed reaction to the stroke and cue ball action.
Danny K
Danny Kuykendal said:
It's very easy to shoot a stop shot when shooting down at the cueball bridging off the rail, especially when the object ball is just a few inches away.
I don't think Orcullo was trying to draw the cueball. If you look at the still in post #61 from RRfireblade you can see why. The 6 is up at the other end of the table. If he draws the cueball he is not going to hit the 7 as full, and his cueball will travel further down table away from the 6. If he draws off the 5 even more than that he could miss the 7 completely and get snookered behind the 7. In either case using draw takes him further down table away from the 6.
Orcullo was playing a kind of stun stop shot, where after contacting the 5 the cueball runs full into the 7 and stays there in position for the 6. I can execute the same shot shooting it the way he shot it with no problem.
I'm not so concerned about his intent but what I actually saw in the video. Watch carefully.
The cue tip seems to hang on the ball a little and the completion of the shot seems delayed.
Anyway, this was dismissed on the forum here as being a good hit, and I really doubt that it was.
Danny K
The cue tip seems to hang on the ball a little and the completion of the shot seems delayed.
Anyway, this was dismissed on the forum here as being a good hit, and I really doubt that it was.
Danny K
One more thing about this shot. If you look at the distance between the cue ball and object ball, it's about six inches, but when you factor in the size of the cue ball the pool cue is only about 3 1/2 inches from the cue ball when (in my opinion) it is hit again.
So it would be relatively easy to hit it again.
What can happen here is that the cue ball is coming back slightly and then nudged again with the cue ball.
Totally within the realm of possibility.
Danny K
So it would be relatively easy to hit it again.
What can happen here is that the cue ball is coming back slightly and then nudged again with the cue ball.
Totally within the realm of possibility.
Danny K
Danny Kuykendal said:
I am talking about what we see in the video. I think the description I gave accurately describes his intent and how he executed the shot, i.e., what we see in the video.
I have watched it very carefully, more than a few dozen times now, and I think the video is rather conclusive that he didn't foul (especially given the fact that you can see his cue tip does not move at all after he gives a very short follow through, and that the cueball never comes close to his cue tip after contacting the 5, which is approximately 4-5 inches away from where he contacted the cueball).
Sorry, He's only about 3 and 1/2 inches from the cue ball when he hits it a second time and the cue ball hits the seven. Remember, when the cue ball stops on the five, he's closer to the cue ball with his tip, especially if the cue ball is coming back some.
I agree that it's a very close and hard call, but my first and general reaction is that it was a bad hit.
What happens with the tip (in the split second of the entirity of the shot)
is that it stays right there throughout the shot.
I've witnessed too many of these double hits to agree that it's a good hit.
Just my opinion.
Danny K
I agree that it's a very close and hard call, but my first and general reaction is that it was a bad hit.
What happens with the tip (in the split second of the entirity of the shot)
is that it stays right there throughout the shot.
I've witnessed too many of these double hits to agree that it's a good hit.
Just my opinion.
Danny K
Last edited:
What's more interesting is that no one takes the integrety of the player , the interest of the opponent looking on , the Official standing dead in line of sight , TWO announcers extremely focussed on the shot due to the considerable trouble this rack has been and IDK how many spectators all at the edge of thier seat watching in earnest and not one single person in the whole event even thought it was close enough to a foul make a comment or question it as a possibilty from the layout.
RRfireblade said:What's more interesting is that no one takes the integrety of the player , the interest of the opponent looking on , the Official standing dead in line of sight , TWO announcers extremely focussed on the shot due to the considerable trouble this rack has been and IDK how many spectators all at the edge of thier seat watching in earnest and not one single person in the whole event even thought it was close enough to a foul make a comment or question it as a possibilty from the layout.
Yes, I mentioned all of this earlier. If there was any question at all about a foul they would be talking about it and analyzing the shot in slow-motion replays. The referee had a very clear look at the shot, and I'm certain that if we saw it from the side view you would see that his cue tip is not close to double hitting the cueball.
I don't believe the ref was close enough to see it, for one thing, and since the opponent didn't object there was no reason to call attention to it.
In the end, who knows?
If you look from the side, at the picture that was posted and measure the cue ball in relation to the space in between you realize there's not a whole lot of space in there. You might have a cue ball and a half?
Once you move the cue ball to touch the five that doesn't give a lot of room for the cue to stroke through the balls.
It would be plausible for it to be a double hit. And the appearance of the actual shot looks like the cue tip hit it twice. That's all I'm saying.
Just because the announcers don't say anything doesn't mean they didn't see it. And maybe they didn't see it. I'm sure we've all seen bad hits in tournaments that go unnoticed, even by the opponents.
God only knows now.
In the end, who knows?
If you look from the side, at the picture that was posted and measure the cue ball in relation to the space in between you realize there's not a whole lot of space in there. You might have a cue ball and a half?
Once you move the cue ball to touch the five that doesn't give a lot of room for the cue to stroke through the balls.
It would be plausible for it to be a double hit. And the appearance of the actual shot looks like the cue tip hit it twice. That's all I'm saying.
Just because the announcers don't say anything doesn't mean they didn't see it. And maybe they didn't see it. I'm sure we've all seen bad hits in tournaments that go unnoticed, even by the opponents.
God only knows now.
Last edited:
Danny Kuykendal said:
That wouldn't explain why the announcers said nothing about it being a possible foul. If there was any question at all they would bring it up, and they would then show replays of the shot to analyze it.
You can see on the video exactly where his (very short) follow through ends up, and you can see that he never moves his tip forward again after that. He does not follow through near the 5.
The thing is, he doesn't have to move the tip forward again to hit it again. I've had many double hits where the cue ball comes back and hits the tip as it finishes the stroke.
I believe that's what happened here.
This happens in a matter of a fraction of a second.
If you listen to the commentary, one of the announcers laughs after the shot, as if he might call attention to the hit, but doesn't.
Even still, a ref with a good eye would see this.
I'll let my tournament director, Wayne Norcross look at it this week and see what he says. He's refereed many pro tournaments and should have an immediate reaction to it.
Wayne played in some of the open straight pool tournaments in the 70s with Crane, Balsis, Kelley, etc. and later on refereed many pro tourneys.
He may call it a good hit but I doubt it.
Danny
I believe that's what happened here.
This happens in a matter of a fraction of a second.
If you listen to the commentary, one of the announcers laughs after the shot, as if he might call attention to the hit, but doesn't.
Even still, a ref with a good eye would see this.
I'll let my tournament director, Wayne Norcross look at it this week and see what he says. He's refereed many pro tournaments and should have an immediate reaction to it.
Wayne played in some of the open straight pool tournaments in the 70s with Crane, Balsis, Kelley, etc. and later on refereed many pro tourneys.
He may call it a good hit but I doubt it.
Danny
Just so I understad what your saying , you believe he jumped the CB into the 5 and it bounced off the 5 and back into the cue tip and then rolled to it's final position ?