Foul or not
- Thread starter dmgwalsh
- Start date
Yes, that's a good point. The main point is that Souquet's claim that there would ever be just one way to play this sort of shot is insupportable.
Last edited:
If the cueball hits the object ball airborne, it will hop forward. I agree the cueball didn't follow the tangent line right after the contact.
I think everyone need to bear in mind that the ref needs to be 100% sure the shot is a foul in order to call a foul.
Good discussion. :thumbup:
My initial reaction, after watching the video, was that the combination of the angle of the shot (making "push" less likely), the significant elevation of cue, and the use of a short stroke that just didn't have the appearance of a stroke capable producing a double hit or push, all added up to a legal stroke. I was actually pretty surprised by the number of responders saying that they thought the shot was a foul. So I went back and looked at the movement of the cue ball relative to what the tangent appeared to be, and even after giving what I thought was considerable benefit of the doubt as to where the tangent line might be, I started to think that there was no way the cue ball had not crossed the tangent line. I then I stopped my lean in the direction of concluding that that there had been a foul when I had this thought: how much room is there between the cue ball and the object ball? If it is even a little bit more than what one might think -- and remember, we have only one camera angle -- that really changes what the tangent line possibilities might be. How many times have you watched a video of a match and thought, based on the first camera angle, that a ball didn't have a lane to a pocket, only to be really surprised to see, based on another camera angle, that the ball easily had a path to the pocket? So, I think that the apparent certainty on the part of some responders about where the tangent line lies is a bit unfounded. Bottom line for me -- it might be a foul, but we can't really know.
I do not agree that the cue elevation angle was steep.
More than one post here has said that a double hit would have negated the draw, so the obvious draw effect means this was a good hit. This is not true. I see shots like that happen often, and I'm sure I could produce one in the first few tries.
Also, I hope that all of us, when in an official referee capacity, would disregard the player's reputation for integrity (or otherwise) when making a call like this. I'm not talking about rich choosing to stay seated. We have all been asked to watch a shot and make a call. It's a serious responsibility and should be as unbiased as possible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also, I hope that all of us, when in an official referee capacity, would disregard the player's reputation for integrity (or otherwise) when making a call like this. I'm not talking about rich choosing to stay seated. We have all been asked to watch a shot and make a call. It's a serious responsibility and should be as unbiased as possible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
seems like hardly anyone paid attention to what mjantti said about cue ball, if airborne, could cross the tangent line and still there could be no foul incurred. Mind you, Mikko was working as a referee at European championships, so he might know something about ruling.
To me the shot looked totally legal (I watched it only once). Like someone mentioned earlier, the ref should be 100% certain theere was a foul, otherwise there wasn't . I'm friends with another EPBF referee and he was talking about the approach they are taught, and it's close to this one. What I'm driving at, one can not keep on rewinding the doubtful episode and watch it over and over again in slo-mo trying to make right decision. Either a referee or a youtube viewer must make a call at the very instant the shot was made. And if you are not absoultely sure the foul is there, then let it go. Just my 0.02
To me the shot looked totally legal (I watched it only once). Like someone mentioned earlier, the ref should be 100% certain theere was a foul, otherwise there wasn't . I'm friends with another EPBF referee and he was talking about the approach they are taught, and it's close to this one. What I'm driving at, one can not keep on rewinding the doubtful episode and watch it over and over again in slo-mo trying to make right decision. Either a referee or a youtube viewer must make a call at the very instant the shot was made. And if you are not absoultely sure the foul is there, then let it go. Just my 0.02
I agree this post 100% and i know Mjantti personally and he knows most about physics of pool and good and bad shots here in Finland(i don´t count myself in
:wink