SVB foul vs. Kaci?

[Luxury]

I think both shots are fouls. The second one being the shot against Shaw. The three would never go backwards if it was hit first.

The shot against Kaci. Some have said that the spin finally took But when you’re hitting a ball at that thin angle there’s nothing to take.

It just goes up and down the table.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

I think both shots are fouls. The second one being the shot against Shaw. The three would never go backwards if it was hit first.

The shot against Kaci. Some have said that the spin finally took But when you’re hitting a ball at that thin angle there’s nothing to take.

It just goes up and down the table.

Like I mentioned before, the natural tangent line would have taken the CB towards the 9, so with topspin, the CB is bending forward of the tangent line exactly as expected.

 

[jay helfert]

Like I mentioned before, the natural tangent line would have taken the CB towards the 9, so with topspin, the CB is bending forward of the tangent line exactly as expected.

High English alone wouldn't cause the cue ball to turn that abruptly, especially given the steep angle of attack. If you watch closely, Shane hit the cue ball with high center ball, so there would be little, if any, change in direction of the cue ball coming off the rail. The cue ball should have gone pretty much straight up and down the table, depending on how level the table was. And it would have, had it not contacted his cue ever so slightly.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

High English alone wouldn't cause the cue ball to turn that abruptly, especially given the steep angle of attack. If you watch closely, Shane hit the cue ball with high center ball, so there would be little, if any, change in direction of the cue ball coming off the rail. The cue ball should have gone pretty much straight up and down the table, depending on how level the table was. And it would have, had it not contacted his cue ever so slightly.

At least one video was posted showing the same action on new cloth under TV table lights.

 

[jay helfert]

At least one video was posted showing the same action on new cloth under TV table lights.

Maybe so, but that wasn't the same shot under the same conditions, was it.

 

[wayne]

High English alone wouldn't cause the cue ball to turn that abruptly, especially given the steep angle of attack. If you watch closely, Shane hit the cue ball with high center ball, so there would be little, if any, change in direction of the cue ball coming off the rail. The cue ball should have gone pretty much straight up and down the table, depending on how level the table was. And it would have, had it not contacted his cue ever so slightly.

I believe Shane hit it with high inside English so he could get position for the next ball. (i prefer to hit thin cuts with inside English and on this shot I would definitely have used inside to get good position on the next ball) That being said I watched it about 50 times at different speeds and 1/2 the time I think it was a foul and the other half no foul = too close to call a foul.

 

[Meucciplayer]

I hate to say it, I did not see a foul watching it x times at 0.25 speed. I can clearly see the cue ball curve way before the supposed contact tip/ball. I don't think sound makes any difference because that could be attributed to several things. So I left that out of the equation.

Why did I hate to say it? I used to be a fan of SVB until several months ago when he stole whitey on a hotel table so other players could not practice during a tournament at a hotel where many players stayed. That was in some thread here a while ago. There were other instances like the one Jay mentioned where SVB surely did not show impeccable sportsmanlike conduct. So, nowadays I am biased against SVB if anything. But I still try to be fair.

I also hate to disagree with Jay Helfert as I respect his opinions very much.

Still, after watching this so many times I really can't see a conclusive indication that the ball struck the tip. I agree that the video is not good enough to swear on it but most of the arguments here brought forward in favor of a foul are just not valid. I just can't see anything indicating that the path of the cb changed AFTER a possible contact with the tip. If there was an ever so slight contact the video is just not good enough IMHO. I don't think the referee could have called it a foul even if he had been in the correct place to watch it. Remember, we have watched this video 100's of times together at all kinds of speeds and there still is no absolute agreement. How could a referee call such a shot a foul then? Only SVB might know the full truth but even that may not be the case with a very slight contact.

My eyes might be not good enough approaching 60 years of age so you might hold this against me.

 

[Black-Balled]

It is possible for the cb to lightly graze a retracting shaft or bridge or hand. Add that to it being an interfering object that is traveling in the same direction as the cb...

So you get what we had here last week- which is the way he wants it. I don't like it any more than you men

 

[btown]

I'd bet my legs it was a foul. Anybody want to put up their legs ? I didn't think so

But seriously. Let's get Justin Bergman to make the call, he gets on these forums..

So Justin? Foul or no Foul?

 

[jay helfert]

The bottom line is that it's a lot harder to call this one while watching a video of it. I've made many calls similar to this during my time as a ref, but in those cases I've had a better point of view than we are seeing here. The ref on this video was way out of position to make this call correctly.

I would only add this factoid. For a very good pool player to play an entire match with only one or two errors is considered good. For a tournament director to go an entire tournament and make two or more errors is considered very bad. My goal was to have a spotless record at the end of every tournament I worked. That might encompass making well over 100 calls on close hits. If I missed only one then it was only a fair job but passable. Two or more was a piss poor performance in my book. A good TD is one that is not noticed!

 

[Flatfoot]

It was very simple;

Keep in mind, I can blow the picture up as much as I choose, and draw hash marks with my telestrator. All I did was take the view from above, and advance it one frame at a time, pausing between each advance of frame, so that I could put a hash mark at the position of the ball.

These hash marks were to determine ball direction and speed. There was no change in speed when the ball went past Shane's cue, as each hash mark was the same distance apart.

There was also no change in direction, as each hash mark remained consistent with direction, as the ball went past Shane's cue.

This means that there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Shane's cue did NOT hit the cue ball.

Additionally, at one of the pauses, it is clearly evident, that the ball is passing under Shane's cue, as I can see about an inch and a half of his cue, above the ball, while the hash marks are the same distance apart, before and after it passing under his cue.

What is so funny about all of this, is you people arguing whether there was a foul or not, when there is absolute proof that there is no foul, if you look closely enough at the video.

For those of you who think it was a foul, I suggest you do the same thing I did, so that you will clearly see that there was no foul committed.

 

[Black-Balled]

Show your work.

It is a unique occurance.

It was very simple;

Keep in mind, I can blow the picture up as much as I choose. All I did was take the view from above, and advance it one frame at a time, pausing between each advance of frame, so that I could put a hash mark at the position of the ball.

These hash marks were to determine ball direction and speed. There was no change in speed when the ball went past Shane's cue, as each hash mark was the same distance apart.

There was also no change in direction, as each hash mark remained consistent with direction, as the ball went past Shane's cue.

This means that there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Shane's cue did NOT hit the cue ball.

Additionally, at one of the pauses, it is clearly evident, that the ball is passing under Shane's cue, as I can see about an inch and a half of his cue, above the ball, while the hash marks are the same distance apart, before and after it passing under his cue.

What is so funny about all of this, is you people arguing whether there was a foul or not, when there is absolute proof that there is no foul, if you look closely enough at the video.

For those of you who think it was a foul, I suggest you do the same thing I did, so that you will clearly see that there was no foul committed.

 

[easy-e]

It was very simple;

Keep in mind, I can blow the picture up as much as I choose, and draw hash marks with my telestrator. All I did was take the view from above, and advance it one frame at a time, pausing between each advance of frame, so that I could put a hash mark at the position of the ball.

These hash marks were to determine ball direction and speed. There was no change in speed when the ball went past Shane's cue, as each hash mark was the same distance apart.

There was also no change in direction, as each hash mark remained consistent with direction, as the ball went past Shane's cue.

This means that there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Shane's cue did NOT hit the cue ball.

Additionally, at one of the pauses, it is clearly evident, that the ball is passing under Shane's cue, as I can see about an inch and a half of his cue, above the ball, while the hash marks are the same distance apart, before and after it passing under his cue.

What is so funny about all of this, is you people arguing whether there was a foul or not, when there is absolute proof that there is no foul, if you look closely enough at the video.

For those of you who think it was a foul, I suggest you do the same thing I did, so that you will clearly see that there was no foul committed.

I like the post a lot, but...... you cannot start a 5,000 word explanation with “It was very simple”.

 

[sid98]

Add my $.02 on the topic - Clearly looks like a foul to me.

Using both angles shown in this thread and watching them frame by frame (tap the < or > keys to reverse/forward frame by frame) The ball changes direction a lot as soon as it makes contact with the cue.

 

[9-ball]

people will believe "What They Want To Believe" , I watched it a dozen times, couldn't see ball/tip contact, the swerve was english on the cue ball.

 

[Black-Balled]

people will believe "What They Want To Believe" , I watched it a dozen times, couldn't see ball/tip contact, the swerve was english on the cue ball.

Then why has such a thing not been seen before?!

 

[PoolBum]

These hash marks were to determine ball direction and speed. There was no change in speed when the ball went past Shane's cue, as each hash mark was the same distance apart.

There was also no change in direction, as each hash mark remained consistent with direction, as the ball went past Shane's cue.

This means that there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Shane's cue did NOT hit the cue ball.

Additionally, at one of the pauses, it is clearly evident, that the ball is passing under Shane's cue, as I can see about an inch and a half of his cue, above the ball, while the hash marks are the same distance apart, before and after it passing under his cue.

C'mon man, that's just crazy talk!

Stop the video just as the cueball gets to his cue tip and you'll see that his cue tip is a good 1 1/2 to 2 inches above the cueball when the cueball goes by up table.

The cueball also does not change direction at all as it goes by his cue.

 

[iusedtoberich]

It was very simple;

Keep in mind, I can blow the picture up as much as I choose, and draw hash marks with my telestrator. All I did was take the view from above, and advance it one frame at a time, pausing between each advance of frame, so that I could put a hash mark at the position of the ball.

These hash marks were to determine ball direction and speed. There was no change in speed when the ball went past Shane's cue, as each hash mark was the same distance apart.

There was also no change in direction, as each hash mark remained consistent with direction, as the ball went past Shane's cue.

This means that there can be no doubt whatsoever, that Shane's cue did NOT hit the cue ball.

Additionally, at one of the pauses, it is clearly evident, that the ball is passing under Shane's cue, as I can see about an inch and a half of his cue, above the ball, while the hash marks are the same distance apart, before and after it passing under his cue.

What is so funny about all of this, is you people arguing whether there was a foul or not, when there is absolute proof that there is no foul, if you look closely enough at the video.

For those of you who think it was a foul, I suggest you do the same thing I did, so that you will clearly see that there was no foul committed.

How about you upload a video on youtube for all of us to see, using your special video equipment, so that we can all come to the same conclusion? You can use your phone to take a video of your special equipment screen, if there is some limitation with wherever you work.

You are instead using a 1000 words to describe not even a picture, but a video! ha ha

 

[ShortBusRuss]

Then why has such a thing not been seen before?!

It HAS been seen before. I have specifically stated that I have seen many similar reactions on new cloth. The people who want to believe it is a foul simply are ignoring anything that does not agree with their pre-concieved notions.

 

[theobelus]

No foul, not even close. Watched at 0.25x speed, you can see the cue ball already starting to turn before the supposed tip foul, caused by a bit of inside english compressed by the cushion. Also, notice how high off the table the support bridge is, how would the cue tip make contact if it's resting above it? Clean shot.