Is this shot legal in Chinese 8 Ball? Yes / No ?

Slow the video to .25 speed and see the cue ball barely grazes the six then the rail then the six again. The referee was all over it and it looks like that was the call.
 
If the cue ball had hit the rail first and no rail after the six, it would not have followed the six so closely -- it would have stopped nearly dead.
 
I think everyone missed the call. It's a foul. When you use stop motion you can clearly see that the CB contacts the rail before the OB.

And, from the angle that it comes off the rail, there is no issue with the cue ball moving in the direction or distance it did after contacting the OB.

Different question on a shot like this one... if the cue ball hits the rail and the ball at the exact same time. Is it a foul or is that a legal hit?
 
You better look again. The CB grazed the OB and hit a rail...legal shot.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

zencues.com said:
I think everyone missed the call. It's a foul. When you use stop motion you can clearly see that the CB contacts the rail before the OB.

And, from the angle that it comes off the rail, there is no issue with the cue ball moving in the direction or distance it did after contacting the OB.

Different question on a shot like this one... if the cue ball hits the rail and the ball at the exact same time. Is it a foul or is that a legal hit?
Click to expand...
 
Go full screen, then zoom in.

Start the replay at 17:36 at 1/4 speed.

Focus on the NUMBER 6 on the six ball. It doesn't move until the cue ball hits the rail.
 
JohnnyP said:
Go full screen, then zoom in.

Start the replay at 17:36 at 1/4 speed.

Focus on the NUMBER 6 on the six ball. It doesn't move until the cue ball hits the rail.
Click to expand...

wow. It is crazy close. I did exactly that (pretty cool didn't know you could do that) and I can not see the 6 ball move before the cue ball hits the rail but could not swear it doesn't rock a little or something. I would have to see frame by frame.

Without any of that type of technology I would have called it a foul. Glad I don't have to judge these things. :)
 
zencues.com said:
I think everyone missed the call. It's a foul. When you use stop motion you can clearly see that the CB contacts the rail before the OB.

And, from the angle that it comes off the rail, there is no issue with the cue ball moving in the direction or distance it did after contacting the OB.
Click to expand...

Think this one through a little more based on what Bob said in post #4.

There are two things we can see without any doubt, and that is that the cue ball follows the object ball at about the same speed and right next to it the whole way, and it follows in the same basic direction.

If the cue ball hit the rail before the object ball, we would know that it was a fuller hit since the cue ball traveled the same basic direction as the object ball. The problem is that if it were a fuller hit it would be absolutely impossible for the cue ball to go anywhere close to the same speed or distance as the object ball did (it probably would have come close to dying at contact in fact) and therefore we can know that the cue ball absolutely could not have hit the rail first even though it happened faster than our eye can see.

But what does explain everything we are seeing is if the cue ball hit the object ball very slightly first and then went into the rail and bounced off in nearly the same direction and speed as the object ball and right behind it.

Just for giggles I also recorded the video and played it frame by frame so I could go as slow as I wanted. One frame shows that the cue ball has not yet hit the rail, nor has the six ball moved yet. The very next frame shows that the cue ball is against the rail, and the six ball is already moving. This is also consistent with the cue ball having hit the object ball first, but we already knew that just by the way the balls reacted.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
Think this one through a little more based on what Bob said in post #4.

There are two things we can see without any doubt, and that is that the cue ball follows the object ball at about the same speed and right next to it the whole way, and it follows in the same basic direction.

If the cue ball hit the rail before the object ball, we would know that it was a fuller hit since the cue ball traveled the same basic direction as the object ball. The problem is that if it were a fuller hit it would be absolutely impossible for the cue ball to go anywhere close to the same speed or distance as the object ball did (it probably would have come close to dying at contact in fact) and therefore we can know that the cue ball absolutely could not have hit the rail first even though it happened faster than our eye can see.

But what does explain everything we are seeing is if the cue ball hit the object ball very slightly first and then went into the rail and bounced off in nearly the same direction and speed as the object ball and right behind it.

Just for giggles I also recorded the video and played it frame by frame so I could go as slow as I wanted. One frame shows that the cue ball has not yet hit the rail, nor has the six ball moved yet. The very next frame shows that the cue ball is against the rail, and the six ball is already moving. This is also consistent with the cue ball having hit the object ball first, but we already knew that just by the way the balls reacted.
Click to expand...


For those that didn't know you can go frame by frame in youtube by using the < > keys.

It is crazy close but going frame by frame you can see the 6 move right before the 6 hits the rail. It is legal hit, but yeah I would've had trouble making that call.
 
Last edited:
Here it is so you can see it in slow motion.

Slow motion:
K7qtjY8.gif




Original:
2cycwR8.gif
 
Bob Jewett said:
If the cue ball had hit the rail first and no rail after the six, it would not have followed the six so closely -- it would have stopped nearly dead.
Click to expand...

Poolplaya9 said:
Think this one through a little more based on what Bob said in post #4.

There are two things we can see without any doubt, and that is that the cue ball follows the object ball at about the same speed and right next to it the whole way, and it follows in the same basic direction.

If the cue ball hit the rail before the object ball, we would know that it was a fuller hit since the cue ball traveled the same basic direction as the object ball. The problem is that if it were a fuller hit it would be absolutely impossible for the cue ball to go anywhere close to the same speed or distance as the object ball did (it probably would have come close to dying at contact in fact) and therefore we can know that the cue ball absolutely could not have hit the rail first even though it happened faster than our eye can see.

But what does explain everything we are seeing is if the cue ball hit the object ball very slightly first and then went into the rail and bounced off in nearly the same direction and speed as the object ball and right behind it.

Just for giggles I also recorded the video and played it frame by frame so I could go as slow as I wanted. One frame shows that the cue ball has not yet hit the rail, nor has the six ball moved yet. The very next frame shows that the cue ball is against the rail, and the six ball is already moving. This is also consistent with the cue ball having hit the object ball first, but we already knew that just by the way the balls reacted.
Click to expand...

I agree. Unless the physical properties of the world cease to exist on that pool table, that is a legal hit due to the manner in which the CB followed the OB.
 
DCS_SF said:

For those that didn't know you can go frame by frame in youtube by using the < > keys.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the great hint on that feature. It didn't work for me at first though because to me "use the < or > keys" means that I have to also use the shift key as well since you would have to use shift to get those characters. If anyone else found that it didn't work or was confused by that it might be more accurate to say to use the comma (,) and period (.) keys to advance the video forwards or backwards frame by frame. Cool trick, thanks.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
Thanks for the great hint on that feature. It didn't work for me at first though because to me "use the < or > keys" means that I have to also use the shift key as well since you would have to use shift to get those characters. If anyone else found that it didn't work or was confused by that it might be more accurate to say to use the comma (,) and period (.) keys to advance the video forwards or backwards frame by frame. Cool trick, thanks.
Click to expand...

Ah you are correct. you don;t need to use the shift key so it is just the , and . buttons. They have the < and > which is how I think of which direction they go.
 
zencues.com said:
Different question on a shot like this one... if the cue ball hits the rail and the ball at the exact same time. Is it a foul or is that a legal hit?
Click to expand...

Great question. I'm going to take a stab at it but would love to hear what Bob Jewett or Dr. Dave have to say about it as well.

The real question here or at least the question that has to be answered first is how would you know if it the cue ball hit the rail and the object ball at the same time? Or how would you know if the cue ball hit the rail very slightly first but was still in contact with the rail when it then made contact with the object ball? The latter is rare but possible although the reverse (still being in contact with the object ball and then hitting the rail) not so much.

I think if it is your typical referee who is going by what they see/hear, then just like the answers you got in this thread and every other "was this hit good or not" thread like it, half the refs are going to call it good, and half are going to call it bad. When it is that close your typical ref is going to be wrong half the time if they are having to rely on being able to see it because it happens too quickly to be able to see it.

But if it is an exceptional ref like a Bob Jewett or a Dr. Dave, they know how to definitively determine what actually happened based on the ball reactions and don't have to rely solely on being able to see which impact occurred a thousandth of a second before the other one.

That being said, if the cue ball truly hits the object ball and cushion at the same time, more often than not it will react the same way it does when the cue ball hits the object ball slightly first and so a great ref like Bob or Dr. Dave is going to call it a good hit because the ball reactions are usually going to be indicative of a good hit. Who knows how the average ref is going to call it as they are going to be wrong half the time. Flip a coin. But to answer your question more directly I think hitting both at the same time is a "tie goes to the runner" type thing and is to be considered a good hit, and the rare exceptional ref will usually be able to tell it was a good hit based on the ball reactions but the typical ref is going to be guessing.

For the record I think there is a small possibility that this is in fact just one of those cases where the cue ball was in contact with the rail and the object ball at the same time. The frame that shows the cue ball in contact with the object ball is missing so we just don't know for sure but it was close.
 
Last edited:
My gifs don't do it justice. If you watch it frame by frame on YouTube it's easy to tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top