Foul or No Foul??

The cue ball didn't necessarily jump. But if you notice the cue ball moves through the seven, and with the stroke used the cue should have come back towards Dennis.

It would hit the five, the seven and move slightly towards him.

If you watch carefully, there's a delay in the shot, and that's the time it takes for the cue ball to hit the five, come back and hit the cue and continue on through the seven.

Even with high english the reaction would have been different than what happened.

I wouldn't be so adament but to me it's very obvious.

Danny
 
I think if you run thru it frame by frame a few times it would be more obvious to you what happened. :) You have to run it a few times by the frame to get it to stop at good points (do to the qulatiy) but when you do you can clearly see the CB jump fully into the 5 and continue into the 7 with no other movement. There is a hair of a frame were you can see the cue tip clearly out of the way after the stroke. You do have to catch the frames just right but you can see when you do.
 
Let's see if this works . . .

http://premium1.uploadit.org/rrfireblade//TheShot.SWF


In the first frame if you watch the CB shadow , you can see that it's in the air after the hit and stays so untill it hits the 5. The Cue has not extended past the 1 1/2" or so of follow through after the hit.

Then , the CB bounces into the 7 on the way down to the table yet still in air and still at the same distance from the cue in the background. Watch the shadows.

The CB lands and rolls only forward after that as the cue is pulled off to the side.

It also appears that the CB hits the 5 on the way up and that is what imparts the forward roll.


Whew . . . that was too much work. :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sde
WesleyW said:
No foul. Even if it hit the 7-ball first. If you can't decide, it's always the favor of the player.
Click to expand...

Not so...
The old MPBA rules require that the lowest ball be contacted first...any simultaneous hit was a foul. That is not to say that in current competition that such a hit is a foul, but rather that there have been rulesets where a foul would occur. Who knows, there may be others in the future, too?

Oh...and it was a good hit, no doubt about it.
 
RRfireblade, don't know your name, but you seem like a nice guy. I see a foul in your slo-mo. Great how you did that, by the way. I wish I were so computer savvy.

The pool cue moves out of the way after the ball is contacted a second time. The position of the seven keeps the cue ball at the same position of where it was after immediate contact with the five.

Why this is different than a double hit on the cue by itself, is that the cue ball is held up by the seven, so the distance between the cue tip and cue ball has been lessened by a full ball (2 1/4"). If you measure that by the picture shown in a previous post, that only leaves about a ball width for the cue to stroke without fouling.

The double hit happens very quickly, because of the proximity of the balls. Usually a ref can't see the double hit, she (in this case) especially couldn't see it from where she was standing. You can only hear it.

So the cue tip needs to travel only about two plus inches to reach the cue ball a second time.

It happens very quickly, I know, but I still see a foul.

I've looked at your video quite a bit, and I still see the cue tip there after the seven starts to move.

There, I finally noticed the cue ball change directions in the slo-mo.

See if you can see the cue ball change directions. The natural path of the ball, if moving forward would have been between the seven and five. It looked as though the cue ball was going to stop, though.

Notice the cue ball change directions. The cue ball, I believe hit the seven a second time.

Tough call. Your video difinitely made it more interesting.



Danny K
 
It's cool , and thanks.

I guess we just see different things and will have to agree to disagree then.

I can easily see the shadow of the cue tip on the table not moving maybe an 1" or so away from the rail untill he pull the cue out of the way in which the shadow of it follows off the table. At this time can I see the shadow of the cue ball is almost on top of the 5 ball which we know is 5-6" away at that time.

But it could all be in my mind too. :)
 
Thanks for the objective exchange of ideas. It's tough for me to see a good hit with the delayed reaction of the balls. But maybe this is in my mind as well.

Danny
 
I think everyone is overlooking the fact that you can see by the spots on the ball that he hit it with top left (from his point of view). Yes, it did jump into the 5 ball at it's fastest speed, but after contact all that was left was the spin he put on it. the ball doesn't go backwards at all, it has a very small pause when it hits the 7 and then the spin grabs. I just can't understand how this is anywhere close to a foul...
 
If you look at the original video, and the cue ball only, it looks like a foul. It looks like the cue ball hangs with the other balls.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is only my opinion.

Danny
 
Danny Kuykendal said:
If you look at the original video, and the cue ball only, it looks like a foul.
Click to expand...

Which is why it's a good thing the ref didn't look at the cue ball only, but also the tip -- which was nowhere near it!

Danny, I do want to keep this debate light-hearted, so I hope you don't take offense, but there's a big contradiction in what you're saying. You say the double hit happened "very fast", so fast that the eyes might deceive, and that the reaction of the CB must be taken into account to judge it. But then you say the CB came backwards off the 5 at least 2 inches (and I'm convinced it would have to be more like 3.5") to make the second contact with the cue! How did the CB get back to where the tip stopped an instant after contact with the 5, with no visible backward motion?

The tip's follow-through is clearly visible, and it doesn't go further than a ball's width, meaning if the CB and 5 are 6" apart, the tip stops at least 6" from the 5. The CB bouncing back off the 5 would have to cover at least 3.5" backward to get to the tip, and if that had happened, there'd be a prolonged delay between the tip hitting the CB and the CB spinning all the way back to the tip. This clearly does not occur.

I challenge you to set up this shot and double-hit the CB the way you see it on the video. I guarantee the only way you might be able to produce a similar shot that contains a double hit is by following through at least 3 times as far as is seen in the video.

-Andrew
 
Andrew, I measured the ball-widths away from the cue to the 5-7 and that equals about 2 ball widths, or 4 1/2 " from edge to edge.

OK, I'll set it up today and shoot it. Maybe I'm wrong but it still looks like a foul to me. I have definitely fouled balls that are this distance apart.

I will gladly admit it if I'm wrong, though.

Danny
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top