http://pinoyvid.blogspot.com/2007/11/django-bustamante-vs-daryl-peach-world.html
It was a foul. No doubt about it.
FOUL
It was a foul. No doubt about it.
FOUL
Last edited:
The Fould Heard Around the World.
- Thread starter JoeyInCali
- Start date
I am sure the sweaters were biting their nails...
It's an obvious foul at normal speed, never mind the replays, and these only confirm the fact. You can clearly see the 9 move first but more tellingly the white move from the 9 to the 3 after impact, not vice versa. Not only that, but the 3 couldn't have made it to the cushion if it wasn't struck full in the face - only possible if the white comes off the 9, and the white couldn't have travelled up table like that if it had struck the 9 full enough to pocket it. It could only react like that by coming off the 3 last. I don't see the controversy.
Boro Nut
Boro Nut
BPG24
Banned
it was not obvious at full speed,
and no one has said anything about the 3 being hit full in the face....
It was a foul, but saying that you could tell 100% at full speed at the bad camera angle is just silly...... of course being from the UK We expect you to make staements like this........
the reality is that this shot didn't cost Busta the match.... the shot on the 2 ball cost him the match
and no one has said anything about the 3 being hit full in the face....
It was a foul, but saying that you could tell 100% at full speed at the bad camera angle is just silly...... of course being from the UK We expect you to make staements like this........
the reality is that this shot didn't cost Busta the match.... the shot on the 2 ball cost him the match
It's nothing to do with being from the UK. It was a clear foul at full speed. I thought so, the commentators thought so, and so did the referee. I'm sure Peach must have too (be interesting to hear his thoughts), and can't believe Bustamante didn't. I just think he was trying to blag it. And after hitting the 9 first, which it did, the white ball must travel at right angles to the point of impact - ie full into the 3 ball, which it does. It hits the 3 full in the face, not a glancing blow.BPG24 said:
You only have to see the shot and the way the three balls move to know it was a foul. There's nothing silly about that. They're called the laws of physics. They operate throughout the known universe, not just in the UK. You couldn't replicate the movement of the three balls by hitting the 3 first.
And being from the UK I expect players to call fouls on themselves that nobody else but themselves has even seen, never mind the whole world, for a lot more money than was at stake here. Bustamante came perilously close to winning the WPC and losing his reputation in the process.
Boro Nut
It might not have been completely clear at normal speed that it was a bad hit, but what was quite clear at normal speed is that it may have been a bad hit. I think Busta, the ref, and Peach all had the feeling that it may have been a bad hit.
Having said that I think the replay clearly shows that it was a bad hit, and I'm glad they got the call right, although I feel badly for Bustamante.
Having said that I think the replay clearly shows that it was a bad hit, and I'm glad they got the call right, although I feel badly for Bustamante.
BPG24 said:
Speaking of the shot on the 2, it looks clear from the angle on the shot that if he cuts the 2 in with no English the cueball will travel in the direction of the 9 and 3. So the shot required a touch of inside English, but it looks to me like he just hit the shot with a center cueball. So my question is, did he just misread the direction of the cueball and hit it with center roll, or did he try and put a touch of inside on it and just not succeed?
I finally got to watch the shot and the confusion that followed just a few minutes ago with the SopCast reruns and I also belive (as most do) that the call was a great call under pretty tough circumstances.
One thing I wanted to point out however was the reaction of the local crowd. Sure, they wanted their boy to win, and the initial reaction to the call got a little rowdy. But everybody think for a moment about how things would have been had this happened in the States or Europe. Almost scary to think about. Had this been Earl against a no-namer, and the foul called against Earl in the US Open how do you think the crowd and especially Earl would have reacted? Ponderous huh?
One major difference in the way the crowd reacted, and in that I mean how they eventually accepted the call and settled down..................is that the greater majority of the crowd in the Philippines are probably good to above average pool players themselves with a pretty good knowledge of pool. Making their ability to digest the call much easier than folks that aren't so familiar with the game.
dave
One thing I wanted to point out however was the reaction of the local crowd. Sure, they wanted their boy to win, and the initial reaction to the call got a little rowdy. But everybody think for a moment about how things would have been had this happened in the States or Europe. Almost scary to think about. Had this been Earl against a no-namer, and the foul called against Earl in the US Open how do you think the crowd and especially Earl would have reacted? Ponderous huh?
One major difference in the way the crowd reacted, and in that I mean how they eventually accepted the call and settled down..................is that the greater majority of the crowd in the Philippines are probably good to above average pool players themselves with a pretty good knowledge of pool. Making their ability to digest the call much easier than folks that aren't so familiar with the game.
dave
Tokyo-dave said:
There were some instigators in the crowd who tried to use hooliganism to
reverse Nigel Rees' call, but I say they took it well considering they expected
Django to cruise past Daryl Peach. They were all hoping for an All-Filipino
finals, but just like what an old saying said, you can't have your cake and
eat it too!
BPG24
Banned
Tokyo-dave said:
I don't think using earl here is a good anology, because many of us do not like Earl... And are embarressed by the things he does.....
But I see your point.....
I still dont think that the people who watched it live, can honestly say that the shot was or wasnt a foul, the first time they saw it.... I know it was a foul..... No question, But live, the first time, before any replays or other angles were shown.... It was too close to be sure...
I agree
Even looking at it in slow motion from some angles it still was impossible to call good hit or bad. I'm none too sure that ball action alone tells the whole story either. I often thin one ball and hit full into the next one and what is seen is the same reaction as if I had hit the second ball first.
I don't doubt this is a bad hit after watching the replay in super slow-mo and stop action from many angles including the overhead angle that the ref could not have possibly had live but I am left wondering if replay was used to make other calls. Without replay, I believe this hit is too close to call and the tie goes to the shooter. If replay wasn't used to make other calls, then Busta was victimized by technology. If it was used in other instances he has no complaint coming.
Hu
Even looking at it in slow motion from some angles it still was impossible to call good hit or bad. I'm none too sure that ball action alone tells the whole story either. I often thin one ball and hit full into the next one and what is seen is the same reaction as if I had hit the second ball first.
I don't doubt this is a bad hit after watching the replay in super slow-mo and stop action from many angles including the overhead angle that the ref could not have possibly had live but I am left wondering if replay was used to make other calls. Without replay, I believe this hit is too close to call and the tie goes to the shooter. If replay wasn't used to make other calls, then Busta was victimized by technology. If it was used in other instances he has no complaint coming.
Hu
BPG24 said: