Using Phone to Record Close Hits

What I don't quite understand in this discussion: Dweller, did the opponent in some way refuse to have his shots recorded? Or did he just keep playing so fast that you did not have a chance to have HIS shots recorded?

Or was it that some shot before your's was not recorded simply because nobody thought of it at the time and once YOUR shot came up the dedicated referee had this bright idea?

I suspect the last case was what happened. And in that scenario I would not have objected to a recording. I would have made sure that - should another similar incident come up - the same procedure would be used.

If there was no such thing as the other player trying to avoid his own shots being recorded, just accept the fact that the best method had been introduced NOW.

Also, you might not be lucky with a referee's decision both ways. The ref might be convinced that it was a foul when it was not. So I don't think that in real life the "when in doubt, ruling goes to shooter" is such a huge thing. I would concentrate on making a good shot and worry less about what a ref decides or a phone can or cannot prove.

That is my take.

In the end, I'd rather call a foul on myself when in doubt. I take pride in playing honest. Unless my opponent is a proven master shark or scumbag and already cheated me on purpose. I would rather lose a game/match than my personal pride.
 
What I hate worse is when a guy thinks he can hit it fast and prevent the
double hit. Jab it quick. I wouldn't let a guy do it on me in a game of One Pocket and he
pitched a fit. I let him play himself.
 
BasementDweller said:
See what happens when just one person on the jury holds out? We may be moving towards an acquittal or at least a hung jury.
Click to expand...

See what happens when you’re forced to reword and change the position of your argument? As soon as you took yourself out of the picture and argued for fairness, and not you being wronged you got what you want. Your first post is nothing but you crying that you felt you were being treated unfairly. As soon as you took the situation from the context it happened in, and removed your personal situation, you were able to make a coherent point. Yes it needs to be black or white, all or none. But your inclusion of the “benefit of a doubt goes to the shooter” argument, is just asking for an excuse to cheat.

Should have never included yourself in the initial argument, and make a biased statement arguing your stance.
 
MeuçciPlayer,
Those are very reasonable thoughts.

This was a team event where you just play a single rack against each opponent. I see how this wouldn't be as much of an issue in singles because I'm sure you could agree to record all questionable hits during a prolonged match. In team events though, things are a bit more sporadic and who is even available to watch a close hit may not be known until the time comes and everyone looks around the room for a referee.

I suppose the team aspect also plays into this for me because as I tend to be more concerned with the rules and such in these events. Or even just watching hits and paying closer attention to my opponent and the table for the sake of my team moreso than for myself.

I could be wrong about how often the ref gives the "tie" to the shooter but it sure seems like I've seen it WAY more times than I've seen good hits called bad. I don't know how many times I've cringed to myself while a ref called a double hit good for my opponent. I've never argued those calls though.
 
Hits 'em Hard,
I'll just remember going forward that you're capable of judging a man's motivations based on a few sentences. YOU read things into my initial post that weren't there. That's on you.
 
BasementDweller said:
During a tourney a while back I was faced with a close hit and my opponent wanted someone to watch the hit. We agreed that a known knowledgeable player would watch the hit. So he walks over and then pulls out his phone to record it, to which I objected. This caused a bit of commotion. A few people questioned why would I not want the hit to be called accurately?

It wasn't until well after the match that my reasoning was understood. If phones are just being used to arbitrarily watch hits, then as the shooter -- you are giving up the "tie goes to the shooter' benefit every time a phone is used. So my argument was you either use a phone on all observed close hits or none at all.
Click to expand...

I pulled up the OP so I didn't misunderstand anything.
" We agreed that a known knowledgeable player would watch the hit."
Ok, right there you both agreed on the ref/3rd party to watch the hit. At that point, you don't get to decide how the ref/3rd party calls the hit. YOU AGREED!
I'm not going to call out anybody's character here, it seems simple. If you decide on a ref/3rd party to make a call, it is out of your hands at that point. DONE...END OF STORY!
The shooter takes the shot and both parties wait for the ref/3rd party to make the call. Seems simple to me.
 
That's fair tucson. I didn't raise a huge objection. I think I said something like, "I'd rather you just watch the hit and make the call." I think he ended up using the phone anyway and that was that. Others were then asking me about why I would object.

As a follow-up, the guy that watched the hit was actually on my team for a tourney a couple weeks ago and we were talking about this which is why I posted to begin with.
 
How about this for an example about using a phone for "some hits" but not all. I think everyone here would agree that if your ferule hits the cue ball its foul, correct? Try explaining to someone that they just fouled after a miscue, they would simply say they miscued and didnt foul even though they most likely hit the cue ball with their ferule. You can pretty much tell by the sound it makes, I dont know if every miscue is a foul but most sure sound like it. Since you never know what someone is going to miscue you would have to record every shot. There are also times that you can double hit the cue ball but it is extremely hard for an observer to see it, as the shooter though you most likely know it happened. I have called a foul on myself for this.
 
Don't forget to bring your cell phone to a match from now on. Soon, there will be compartments on cue cases just to carry cell phones, right next to the jump cue. :thumbup:
 
The pool Gods know when you don't call a foul on yourself and you'll be punished two-fold. Why take the chance?
 
Celophanewrap,
They were VNEA rules.

slach,
I will not call fouls on myself in a team event (for the most part) but I will not lie about a hit.
 
Last edited:
BasementDweller said:
Celophanewrap,
They were VNEA rules.

slach,
I will not call fouls on myself in a team event (for the most part) but I will not lie about a hit.
Click to expand...

I don't know if VNEA has a rule about video or the use of video, but maybe there's a rule
you can refer to. That should end any debate right there
 
The problem with using a camera, and I've seen it happen, is the person watching the shot is watching the camera instead. That's fine until something happens and the camera doesn't get it conclusively. I've seen where the camera for some reason didn't record the shot. Probably operator error. I've also seen where the frame rate of the camera isn't fast enough and you don't actually get to see the hit. One frame shows the cue ball just before impact and the next shows all the balls moved. And then the ref says he was looking at the camera and didn't see the shot himself. I think it's a great idea as a backup but there needs to be one person making the call the call and not doing anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top