Manalo was Robbed

[mestar]

there is no such thing as a "simultaneous rail and ball hit". this is because ball to ball contact is probably 100 times shorter than ball to rail contact.

so, it could be one of those:


1 -cue ball hits ball, then rail

2 -cue ball hits ball, and then while still in contact with the ball, hits the rail, then the other ball goes away while the cue ball is still in contact with the rail (not very likely, this one)

3 -cue ball hits rail, then, while in contact with the rail, hits the ball, green ball goes away, while the cue ball is still in the contact with the rail

4 -cue ball hits the rail, while in the contact with the rail, hits the ball, then, while two balls are touching, cue ball releases from the rail, then finally, balls separate

5 - cue ball hits rail, then ball



2 and 4 are not very likely, however they are still possible.

in the manalo's case, it is probably line 3, although it could be 1 or 2. i guess "3" is a foul, but technically, the cue ball was in contact with the rail after contacting the object ball.

davorin

 

[Hal]

Oh man, I just now saw the shot (Tivo). I replayed it over and over and over. I just can't tell.

 

[Cornerman]

I had exactly the opposite reaction to the shot when I first saw it. I felt like it was a good hit and still feel that way after watching the replay in super slow motion.

John

I also thought it was a good hit, but mostly because the same foul was called on me in my history, even though I clearly made a good hit. I think the fact that my opponent didn't know what I was doing helped to confuse the issue. I felt this was what happened here as well.

That being said, the shot was a terrible one to even consider shooting. And, Deno assured me that they had enough resolution in super slo motion to see that it was a foul. I would have liked to have seen that video, but I don't count.

Fred

 

[Cornerman]

BTW, poor Marlon later on in the tournament had another bad referee happening when the referee thought the game had concluded and swooped up all the balls to rack them. I'm not sure why the referee was racking the balls either. I thought the players were supposed to. Maybe the referee was racking them because this was a semi-finals match that Marlon was in. However, it was Marlon's shot next, and the referee mistakenly swooped up his balls, resulting in the game having to start over.

Maybe you're talking about a different time, but when Marlon was playing Efren, the referee raked the balls when Efren was about to shoot the 8-ball. They then spent several minutes returning the balls to the original layout so that Efren could shoot the 8-ball. And he ended up with a slightly easier shot than what he would have had.

The funny thing is that they had overhead cameras with huge TV screens. They had the ability to freeze frame, and the ability to switch from live to tape to live to tape. It would have taken all of 15 seconds to replay the tape, freeze the layout, and adjust the table live, switching back and forth (tape to live) until the balls were in perfect position. But, they didn't. It was exasperating to watch that train wreck.

The referee excused himself from the rest of the match, obviously feeling the embarassment.

Fred

 

[JAM]

Maybe you're talking about a different time....

That is correct, Cornerman. Two posters did come forth and let me know that Efren was shooting. I wasn't sitting right there, but did witness it from afar. The only thing I remember seeing was Marlon swiftly exiting the tournament room for a few minutes, most likely to regain his composure, IMHO.

The funny thing is that they had overhead cameras with huge TV screens. They had the ability to freeze frame, and the ability to switch from live to tape to live to tape. It would have taken all of 15 seconds to replay the tape, freeze the layout, and adjust the table live, switching back and forth (tape to live) until the balls were in perfect position. But, they didn't. It was exasperating to watch that train wreck.

Though technology is a wonderful thing, I'm kind of down on it today. Thunderstorms caused an outage in my area several times in the past week, resulting in me not being able to use my equipment properly.

When push comes to shove, the human being cannot be replaced with technology. I'm sick to death of voice-answering machines, which many times do not provide an option to help me, robots speaking to me on the phone, asking me to punch 1 if I'm dead, 2 if I'm alive, NEVER allowing me to speak to a human.

As far as referees, they do make mistakes, as they are human. This shot was so close, it is difficult to make a call. I do believe it was a good hit, but it is a foul because the referee, the ultimate decision-making authority, called it a foul. I have sometimes witnessed the football games, as an example, suffering from bad calls by the referees, even after the referees have watched a video replay.

JAM

 

[PoolSleuth]

I know this has been mentioned before but I just watched the show for the first time yesterday.

Marlon Manalo played a safety against Bustamante where he thinned the 6 very thin and nestled up behind it. The referee called a foul and gave Bustamante ball-in-hand. Manalo lost the set from there.

After reviewing the shot in slow motion I am convinced that Manalo hit the six first. At worst it was a simultaneous hit.

Perhaps the IPT wasn't ready for such an occurence and it worked out for Manalo anyway I think as he got to play Efren for the chance to move on. Although I don't know, had he won that match then maybe he would have ended up the GLI winner without needing to beat Efren. I don't understand why the IPT didn't use the tape to determine the hit. For such an important event with so much riding on it and for an organization striving for credibility it would have seemed to me to be the natural path to use instant replay on questionable calls.

John

Referees are human and they make mistakes, it happens in all sports, at all levels. Think most referee do the best job they can...

 

[ScottW]

The funny thing is that they had overhead cameras with huge TV screens. They had the ability to freeze frame, and the ability to switch from live to tape to live to tape. It would have taken all of 15 seconds to replay the tape, freeze the layout, and adjust the table live, switching back and forth (tape to live) until the balls were in perfect position. But, they didn't. It was exasperating to watch that train wreck.

I doubt they were geared up to do instant replays - the overhead cameras were likely just feeding into video recorders nearby, and not being monitored like you would expect for a football/baseball/etc. game.

On top of that, it would be tough to call a close hit from those overhead cameras, considering how high up they were mounted to view the entire table.

To do it properly, they'd need a SECOND overhead camera, mounted in a way that a person manning the camera could tilt/pan/zoom it, and that person would need to be focusing down pretty close onto the target ball, to catch the cue ball coming in and striking it (or another ball/rail, if a foul). And that's an expensive route to go - doubling the equipment costs (purchase or, more likely, rental) at least, plus the moveable mount, plus monitoring gear for the video ref, plus the labor costs for having another guy as video ref, etc. And the recording equipment there would need to be of a higher quality - your normal video equipment probably doesn't capture enough frames-per-second to catch some bad shots. They'd need to deploy the sort of gear they use at sporting events - pricy.

You also can't count on the cameraman on the floor to catch those shots all the time either - a) they probably don't have a cameraman filming EVERY table that has a match going, and b) they might well not realize that the shot they're filming is a sketchy one, and may be going for a wider shot at the time.

 

[onepocketchump]

there is no such thing as a "simultaneous rail and ball hit". this is because ball to ball contact is probably 100 times shorter than ball to rail contact.


davorin

Perhaps not at the microscopic or microchronic level, but for the purposes of human beings interacting with and judging reactions of billiard balls, there certainly is such a thing as simultaneous contact of the cueball with an object ball and a rail at the same time.

Every player of any decent skill knows this.

John

 

[Cornerman]

I doubt they were geared up to do instant replays - the overhead cameras were likely just feeding into video recorders nearby, and not being monitored like you would expect for a football/baseball/etc. game.

Just to make myself absolutely clear, they did rewind the tape, and freeze it where the layout was. The referee looked up at the screen, then adjusted on the table. The distortion made him mess it up.

What they could have done and did do but not when it was needed the most was to flip back and forth from the freeze-framed tape to the live table. That way, distortion didn't matter as both the live and taped view were identically distorted of course. Flipping back and forth would have shown the referee exactly where the balls should be (because the live shot would have "jumped").

On top of that, it would be tough to call a close hit from those overhead cameras, considering how high up they were mounted to view the entire table.

On that Manalo foul/no foul shot, Deno told us that there was plenty of resolution to zoom in and see that it was a foul.

Fred
Fred

 

[ScottW]

I guess I simply didn't read your entire post there. *bonk*

 

[runall8]

Actually, I don't mean to be inflammatory but this is not entirely accurate. I was not the ref involved but here's what happened:
Reyes was down on the eight ball. He didn't like something about the shot and stood up and went back to buff his cue. Ref mistakenly grabbed the two or three balls. Balls were re-spotted using video replay. Reyes makes eight ball and wins game. The game was played and counted accordingly. Manalo was never at the table at the time nor should he have been at the table.

this was close to what happen..I was sitting first row behind the table...reyes streched and set to make the 8, but he got up went back to his chair and changed to his break cue. (his break cue is about 2 inches longer than his playing cue) while he was walking back i noticed the ref had been looking 2 tables down at another match. reyes stands at the head of the table looking at the shot when the ref looks back and sees reyes with his break cue, than the ref looks down at the balls(this is where i guessed he said oh shit the game is over because the 9 ball was pocketed...forgetting that they where playing 8 ball)..most amazing thing i seen in a big match. i also think the ref was "ASKED" to leave....Joe

 

[Cuebacca]

I also watched it several times on Tivo. It was probably too close to call by the naked eye, but it looked like a good hit to me. It seemed like he just hit the 'paint' on the ball, then hit the rail, then the ball again.

 

[12squared]

I know this has been mentioned before but I just watched the show for the first time yesterday.

Marlon Manalo played a safety against Bustamante where he thinned the 6 very thin and nestled up behind it. The referee called a foul and gave Bustamante ball-in-hand. Manalo lost the set from there.

After reviewing the shot in slow motion I am convinced that Manalo hit the six first. At worst it was a simultaneous hit.

Perhaps the IPT wasn't ready for such an occurence and it worked out for Manalo anyway I think as he got to play Efren for the chance to move on. Although I don't know, had he won that match then maybe he would have ended up the GLI winner without needing to beat Efren. I don't understand why the IPT didn't use the tape to determine the hit. For such an important event with so much riding on it and for an organization striving for credibility it would have seemed to me to be the natural path to use instant replay on questionable calls.

John

I'm with you, John. I, too, believe it was a good hit. Here's what I posted as to my reasoning on the poll thread about this:

"I thought it was a good hit. It appeared to me that the cueball and 6 ball moved together for a small amount of time and that's how the cueball stayed so close to the 6. In my opinion, the only way for that kind of action to take place is if the cueball hit the 6 first to get it moving ever so slightly. If the cueball hit the rail first, there is no way for the cueball & 6 to move together. Try it and watch the reaction of both balls when you clearly hit the rail first...you will see immediate separation where the cueball will almost stop cold and the 6 will move."

Dave

 

[kidrock]

The sad thing about this was that the referee seemed like he was not paying attention right before Manalo's shot He glanced to somebody on his right side to confirm perhaps whether it was a foul or not. I would say whomever he was referring to said it was a foul so the referee called the same thing.

This is the time I miss Michaela Tabb's or Nigel (was it Reese?) refereeing. When the shot seems to be a difficult call to make, expect them to peek over EVEN BEFORE the shot is made.

 

[vagabond]

I know MANY players who would have verbally exploded, causing an ugly scene for all. Marlon handled it like the true champion that he is, IMHO.

JAM

Fighting for justice in a sporting event should never have been considered as less than a true champion/unsportsman like conduct but unfortunately majority in a society considers it as unacceptable behavior.cool:

 

[Bob Jewett]

Nope, not robbed at all. Even if the call was bad, which it wasn't, the move was one of the stupidest I've ever seen a pro player make. As has been pointed out, there were five better shots that he could have played. He wouldn't even have left Bustamante hooked, had the shot been good. He could at least have left him jacked up over the 6. He could have done a bunch of things. He did the wrong thing.

It was very surprising from a player who had been dominating the tournament up until then.

Bustamante gets high praise for banking the 11 in with ball in hand and running out. It was not an easy bank.

 

[TheConArtist]

Nope, not robbed at all. Even if the call was bad, which it wasn't, the move was one of the stupidest I've ever seen a pro player make. As has been pointed out, there were five better shots that he could have played. He wouldn't even have left Bustamante hooked, had the shot been good. He could at least have left him jacked up over the 6. He could have done a bunch of things. He did the wrong thing.

It was very surprising from a player who had been dominating the tournament up until then.

Bustamante gets high praise for banking the 11 in with ball in hand and running out. It was not an easy bank.

TAP TAP TAP.

i think it was a good call as to me it look like the rail was hit first if not that he hit the ball and rail the same time.
I agree that bank shot was not easy especially on those tight pockets.