The Fould Heard Around the World.
- Thread starter JoeyInCali
- Start date
it was clearly a foul at full speed to me i am 100% confident of that., i'm not claiming to be the best in the world but I am good at watching hits, Why I dont know but I am, I dont play as good as I can watch hits I just have an eye for it, perhaps it was all the pinball i played. I was often the guy called off the rail to watch the hit and I wasnt even close to being the best player on the rail, infact sometimes one player who didnt know me would argue and want a better player to watch the hit, after some time I became the guy to call the shot, I was awalys honest and never had a dispute-i'm proud to say.
Also look at busta's face he plays into the hit perfectly then after the 9 goes in he kinda looks around the room to gather support, which he did then his confidence grew fast, watch him not the hit you'll see. I hope he sticks to pool, poker wouldnt be his bag.
Also look at busta's face he plays into the hit perfectly then after the 9 goes in he kinda looks around the room to gather support, which he did then his confidence grew fast, watch him not the hit you'll see. I hope he sticks to pool, poker wouldnt be his bag.
Last edited:
BPG24 said:
I watched the video that Joey posted a link to. The camera angle isn't good for showing the actual points of contact, but it is plenty good for showing which ball moves first.
Someone posted saying they have made good hits and the first ball hit never move. While that is possible, I don't think that is anywhere near possible here.
1. Nothing was behind the 3 impeding it from being moved.
2. The 3 did move, after the 9 moved. Is that a delayed reaction? I don't think the cueball could strike the 3, then hit the 9, then go back and hit the 3 to make it move.
3. For the nine to travel 3/4 the length of the table into the pocket, there was a fair amount of energy transferred to it. If the cueball strikes the 3 first, it would have moved more and immediately given how far the 9 traveled, even on a very thin hit.
I am convinced some people are better at judging hits than others. I agree with Fatboy, some people get a reputation for having that eye. Mickey Mantle said he could see the rotation of the strings on a baseball thrown from the pitcher's mound. After having arguments/discussions with some, who I felt were honest about what they think they saw or couldn't judge, it is clear to me that we all don't process visual snapshots from our eyes at the same real time rate.
Kelly
The 3 ball went straight to the side rail meaning it was hit to cut it at a 90 degree angle. There is NO WAY this could have happened without hitting the 9 first. Call it geometry, call it physics but certainly call it a FOUL. JMO.
Southpaw
Southpaw
Last edited:
the question?
Apparently the ref didn't call the foul in real time so from his viewpoint it wasn't clear if it was a foul or not until viewing the replay so the question remains, was replay used in other instances? If not, then I say Bustamonte should have received the same treatment as anyone else and a shot too close for the ref to call goes to the shooter. As I said earlier, if replay was in general use at the event Francisco has no complaint coming.
My question isn't whether this was a foul or not but if the same procedure was used on this shot as the other close calls at the event. In real time our eyes are drawn to faster movement. I have read no indication that the ref made a call before watching the replay.
Hu
Apparently the ref didn't call the foul in real time so from his viewpoint it wasn't clear if it was a foul or not until viewing the replay so the question remains, was replay used in other instances? If not, then I say Bustamonte should have received the same treatment as anyone else and a shot too close for the ref to call goes to the shooter. As I said earlier, if replay was in general use at the event Francisco has no complaint coming.
My question isn't whether this was a foul or not but if the same procedure was used on this shot as the other close calls at the event. In real time our eyes are drawn to faster movement. I have read no indication that the ref made a call before watching the replay.
Hu
The action of the 3 strongly suggests that the shot was a foul, however, on such shots it is possible to hit the three ball twice. If the cue ball barely skims the three on the way in, and then hits the nine nearly along the starting line and then hits the three again, the shot will be indistinguishable from a foul without looking at other aspects of the shot. I think the nine and three were far enough apart that the cue ball, if it had hit the three first and third, could not have made the nine. This is the sort of shot that would like to either have the referee study the possible carom angles ahead of time or have a camera focused closely on the 3-9 area.Southpaw said:
BPG24
Banned
ShootingArts said:
You are exactly correct here..... There was no foul called....
It was a foul, after watching it 100 times... LOL
But the ref made no call until after he looked at the replay...
I am wondering if this was the first time that replay was used in pool, as I haven't ever heard of it....
BPG24 said:
Don't know. However, if he had NOT gone to the replay the foul would have been called. According to the ref. Now, if the foul wasn't call and Busta won the match. Wouldn't that have been terribly unjust to Peach. The ref went to the replay on his own accord, not as a result of anyones request. The ref took the time to make sure he was right, and isn't that the right thing to do?
Thats the question...
Last edited: