Good Hit or Bad Hit?

3RAILKICK said:
[/B]



Jay, when you have to make a hit call, do you want to know what they are going to do?

Does that help you to be in the right position to see the balls interact?

Do you look for likely CB or OB(s) paths after the shot to help determine the order of collisions, if any? ie: good hit/bad hit?

Do they teach this stuff to referees?

thanks


recent example:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=5259558#post5259558


...still a little butt hurt;);)
Click to expand...

First of all I'm not sure what they teach to prospective referees, although the top guy for years has been Bill Stock, one of the top officials in the country. I have taught a few guys who were seriously interested in becoming a tournament official.

On your second question, "Does it help to be in the right position to see the balls interact?" You're damn right it does! And here's the key, you want to be in position to see the cue ball coming toward you, not away from you. Many officials today don't understand that basic concept. You also need to get close to the action and cannot shy away from being in a player's line of sight. Just stand still and don't move! You can't make a good call when you're ten feet away from the point of contact or on the other side of the table!

To continue, yes it can be very beneficial to watch the path of the balls after contact. That can be telling on a close hit. Finally, if it appears to close to call, you must call a good hit. You can't call a foul that you didn't see! Almost every time, you'll KNOW when a foul has occurred. Also, when a player is kicking from distance, make sure a rail is contacted after the hit. I've seen too many refs snooze on this one. Both balls (cue ball and object ball) may be rolling for some distance but neither ball reaches a rail. Pay attention!
 
Looked like a bad hit to me but either way he left an easy out. Edit - good hit when I replayed it and stopped the video.
 
Last edited:
Niels's incredulity face was funny, like thinking "OMG Wtf is happening here?!"... really a class act he didn't say a word and accept the bad call without any arguing. This is a real pro.
 
peppersauce said:
Not to mention it would've been impossible for the one ball to take the path it did if he hadn't clipped it going in.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The cue ball had to have hit the one ball twice. The first got the 7 moving out of the way and the second got the one ball moving. For this particular call the ref didn't have to be close to the shot but it might have helped if he could not understand the action of the one ball.
 
Last edited:
Good hit. Furthermore, the ref easily could have been in a position to move in closer given it was a 2 rail kick. I.e. start out of Neils peripheral vision but as soon as the stroke was made, move in over the contact. In other cases where it is going to be a close call and either hit straight on or a single rail, then the ref is in a position where they do not want to be in the shooters peripheral vision standing over the table, but they may not have enough time to jump to the table to watch the contact. Regardless, this was not the case of the latter.
 
Definitively a good hit. Ref made a bad call. Cue ball ran directly into the one ball and then the rail. Easier to tell on full screen. In my opinion, ref was out of position to make the call. If he had been on the bottom rail, it would have been an easier call.

Lyn
 
I'll buck the trend and say it looks bad to me. Two reasons:

1. The CB comes off perpendicular to the rail. If it had hit the ball before the rail, I feel it would have bent forward when it left the rail slightly, as the topspin on the CB would have taken effect on the rail, since it was coming at the OB from a decent angle.

2. The OB I feel if it was hit first, it was lining up on a carom angle with its frozen ball, that the OB would have caromed into the rail after contact. Instead, it caromed away from the rail, which makes sense if the CB hit the rail first, and the approached the OB from the left side.

I may very well be wrong:):) Its just how I see this shot.
 
iusedtoberich said:
I'll buck the trend and say it looks bad to me. Two reasons:

1. The CB comes off perpendicular to the rail. If it had hit the ball before the rail, I feel it would have bent forward when it left the rail slightly, as the topspin on the CB would have taken effect on the rail, since it was coming at the OB from a decent angle.

2. The OB I feel if it was hit first, it was lining up on a carom angle with its frozen ball, that the OB would have caromed into the rail after contact. Instead, it caromed away from the rail, which makes sense if the CB hit the rail first, and the approached the OB from the left side.

I may very well be wrong:):) Its just how I see this shot.
Click to expand...
The one ball can't move that far unless it was hit twice. The first time it was hit the seven was started, the second time the one started moving. The only way it could have been hit twice was both before and after the cushion.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The one ball can't move that far unless it was hit twice. The first time it was hit the seven was started, the second time the one started moving. The only way it could have been hit twice was both before and after the cushion.
Click to expand...
This is convincing, and a great illustration of the value of being able to read after-contact ball movement. It should be taught to all referees.

pj
chgo
 
Bummer

Another bad call. Need instant replay. Neils is a class act and one of the worlds best players.
 
51:45

Bob Jewett said:
The one ball can't move that far unless it was hit twice. The first time it was hit the seven was started, the second time the one started moving. The only way it could have been hit twice was both before and after the cushion.
Click to expand...

It might take several attempts, but replay the shot hitting the K key(pause) on the keyboard at different times(pausing the screen and displaying the time) until you pause the screen at exactly the point where 51:45 seconds begins, you'll notice an interesting thing. The cueball is frozen to the rail and the one never appears to have moved and the cueball is at a position frozen on the rail it could never be if it were to have hit the one, even slightly,first.

With the screen paused at this exact moment of 51:45, hit the J key (for jump back)
and notice how far the one is off the rail then hit the L key (for leap forward) and you'll notice no difference in the one from the rail. Repeat hitting the J and L key to verify what your eyes are seeing then tell me what you think.

There's another thing or two also. The seven doesn't appear to have moved but more importantly the cueball is tucked into the rail at a position where it couldn't be if it were to have hit the one first.

Based on this evidence I think it was a very close but GOOD call by the ref.
Canwin
 
Last edited:
canwin said:
It might take several attempts, but replay the shot hitting the K key(pause) on the keyboard at different times(pausing the screen and displaying the time) until you pause the screen at exactly the point where 51:45 seconds begins, you'll notice an interesting thing. The cueball is frozen to the rail and the one never appears to have moved and the cueball is at a position frozen on the rail it could never be if it were to have hit the one, even slightly,first.

With the screen paused at this exact moment of 51:45, hit the J key (for jump back)
and notice how far the one is off the rail then hit the L key (for leap forward) and you'll notice no difference in the one from the rail. Repeat hitting the J and L key to verify what your eyes are seeing then tell me what you think.

There's another thing or two also. The seven doesn't appear to have moved but more importantly the cueball is tucked into the rail at a position where it couldn't be if it were to have hit the one first.

Based on this evidence I think it was a very close but GOOD call by the ref.
Canwin
Click to expand...

As Bob Jewett said, the path of the one ball is proof that it was a good hit. If the cue ball hit the rail first and barely grazed the one ball on the way out, the one ball would have been cut almost directly into the three ball (or is that the seven?) and would have stopped dead right there (the one could not have gone up table at speed as it did). If the cue ball hit the rail first and caught the one ball more full on the way out instead of just grazing it then the one ball would have followed the tangent line off of the three ball and that would have put it on a path toward the six ball, probably hitting the near side of the six if it made it that far. The ONLY way the one ball could have gone in the direction that it did, and at the speed/distance that it did, was if it were hit twice, and it could have only have been hit twice if the first hit was on the way in, and the second hit was on the way out after the cue ball hit the rail.

But if you don't have enough knowledge of how the balls react for the above to be the proof in your own mind, using your method of pausing the youtube video (hitting the "k" key) you can actually see for yourself that it is a good hit. All you have to do is go full screen on the video and pause it when the cue ball is still about a foot away from the one. Now if you hit the "k" key twice as fast as you can it advances the video a couple of frames and then pauses it again. By doing this several times in a row, you can get the video paused when the cue ball is just an inch or two from the one ball. Then the next pause will show that the three ball has started to move and the cue ball is against the rail. Since the one ball was initially off the rail, the only way that the three ball could be moving while the cue ball is still against the rail would be if the cue ball had already hit the one ball into the three ball before the cue ball reached the rail. So there is your second proof.

But you will also notice that the one ball has not yet moved, and that is because since it was barely grazed it was cut directly into the three, and since they were frozen or nearly so, the one just stays right there. On your next double tap you will hear the sound of the second collision as the cue ball hits the one a second time after leaving the rail and you will then see that the one ball has now started to move due to this second collision. That is the third proof.

Another way you can see that it is not a foul and that the cue ball hits the one ball two times, once on the way in, and once on the way out, is to go to this site:
http://www.youtubeslow.com/
Now place this URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLSV1Ui7_pE into the box and click "slow it". You will see where it has now loaded the youtube video. Below the video click on "1/4 speed" and then play the video. As soon as it starts playing go full screen. It will be playing in slow motion, slow enough that you can clearly see the cue ball hit the one ball, the three ball starts moving, the cue ball then hits the rail, bounces off and hits the one ball a second time which then finally gets the one ball moving now that the three ball has moved out of the way. This slow motion where everyone can see with their own eyes is proof number four. But the path and speed of the one ball told it all to begin with as it was literally an impossible path without being hit twice by the cue ball.
 
Last edited:
Poolplaya9 said:
As Bob Jewett said, the path of the one ball is proof that it was a good hit. If the cue ball hit the rail first and barely grazed the one ball on the way out, the one ball would have been cut almost directly into the three ball and would have stopped dead right there (the three could not have gone up table at speed as it did). If the cue ball hit the rail first and caught the one ball more full on the way out instead of just grazing it then the one ball would have followed the tangent line off of the three ball and that would have put it on a path toward the six ball, probably hitting the near side of the six if it made it that far. The ONLY way the one ball could have gone in the direction that it did, and at the speed/distance that it did, was if it were hit twice, and it could have only have been hit twice if the first hit was on the way in, and the second hit was on the way out after the cue ball hit the rail.

But if you don't have enough knowledge of how the balls react for the above to be the proof in your own mind, using your method of pausing the youtube video (hitting the "k" key) you can actually see for yourself that it is a good hit. All you have to do is go full screen on the video and pause it when the cue ball is still about a foot away from the one. Now if you hit the "k" key twice as fast as you can it advances the video a couple of frames and then pauses it again. By doing this several times in a row, you can get the video paused when the cue ball is just an inch or two from the one ball. Then the next pause will show that the three ball has started to move and the cue ball is against the rail. Since the one ball was initially off the rail, the only way that the three ball could be moving while the cue ball is still against the rail would be if the cue ball had already hit the one ball into the three ball before the cue ball reached the rail. So there is your second proof.

But you will also notice that the one ball has not yet moved, and that is because since it was barely grazed it was cut directly into the three, and since they were frozen or nearly so, the one just stays right there. On your next double tap you will hear the sound of the second collision as the cue ball hits the one a second time after leaving the rail and you will then see that the one ball has now started to move due to this second collision. That is the third proof.

Another way you can see that it is not a foul and that the cue ball hits the one ball two times, once on the way in, and once on the way out, is to go to this site:
http://www.youtubeslow.com/
Now place this URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLSV1Ui7_pE into the box and click "slow it". You will see where it has now loaded the youtube video. Below the video click on "1/4 speed" and then play the video. As soon as it starts playing go full screen. It will be playing in slow motion, slow enough that you can clearly see the cue ball hit the one ball, the three ball starts moving, the cue ball then hits the rail, bounces off and hits the one ball a second time which then finally gets the one ball moving now that the three ball has moved out of the way. This slow motion where everyone can see with their own eyes is proof number four. But the path and speed of the one ball told it all to begin with as it was a literally impossible path without being hit twice by the cue ball.
Click to expand...

As soon as I put it on big screen (which I forgot in the first place) , I saw the bad call plain as day so thanx for that heads up and the other interesting options you provided too!
canwin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top