Using Phone to Record Close Hits

[Andrew Manning]

You guys don't see an issue with this scenario?

No.

If you have such a problem with the introduction of extra evidence into whether you're making a good hit, it seems to imply you expect to abuse the "tie goes to the shooter" convention. If the guy knows you pretty well, maybe that's why he pulled out a phone.

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

No.

If you have such a problem with the introduction of extra evidence into whether you're making a good hit, it seems to imply you expect to abuse the "tie goes to the shooter" convention. If the guy knows you pretty well, maybe that's why he pulled out a phone.

You said it better than I did.

 

[BRussell]

As a long time user of a "dumb" phone I have to ask....can a recorded video on a "smart" phone be played back in slow-motion?

If so, then absolutely use a phone to record close hits and remove all doubts.

Maniac (living in the dark ages)

It’s popular to use phone slo-mo in close calls where I play, and I can’t remember it ever being useful in calling a hit. Most of the time it’s obvious and so the phone isn’t needed at all, and the couple times it was too close to see the first time around, watching the dark video on the little phone screen (slow motion requires good lighting) didn’t help either.

 

[Snooker Theory]

No.

If you have such a problem with the introduction of extra evidence into whether you're making a good hit, it seems to imply you expect to abuse the "tie goes to the shooter" convention. If the guy knows you pretty well, maybe that's why he pulled out a phone.

I think it is a great idea and am going to start doing it.

If video can't prove one way or the other, then it goes to shooter, but objecting to a way to make a more accurate call makes no sense to me at all, except maybe added time associated.

In sports where instant replay has been added, I think it benefits the sport and everyone involved

 

[BasementDweller]

Last clarification since some feel I have nefarious motivations. Not sure why you guys are more interested in attacking my character than my argument but that's how the internet works I guess.

If I were King of pool I would dictate that all calls have to be made 100% correctly. Fail at this and it's off with your head.

Now since we fall somewhere short of this my second choice would be to apply the rules evenly. That's all. If you think this is somehow a character flaw of mine then it's quite possible you are someone who often confuses integrity with self-righteousness.

How the call turned out? I don't remember because like I said it wasn't that big of a deal and it was quite a while back. I just thought it would be worth discussing and maybe something for tournament directors to consider.

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

Last clarification since some feel I have nefarious motivations. Not sure why you guys are more interested in attacking my character than my argument but that's how the internet works I guess.

Your argument is basically saying “I want to have a benefit of a doubt so I can have a potentially bad hit/foul get called in my favor rather than correctly” is it not?

 

[Andrew Manning]

Not sure why you guys are more interested in attacking my character than my argument but that's how the internet works I guess.

Not sure why you keep digging in harder when nobody agrees with you, but that's how the pool world works I guess.

Judging the fact of whether a good hit was made in the most accurate way possible in each situation is the best thing. This is not how to apply the rules. This is how to observe the facts.

I want the police to observe the speed I drive the same way as everyone else: by parking their cars in predictable spots and trying to catch me on radar. If they invented a device to attach to my car and automatically report every single breach of the limit, and they only did it to me, I would find this unfair and I wouldn't like it. *This is entirely because I expect to get away with minor speeding most of the time.*

I don't ever expect to get away with a bad hit in pool. I expect to be penalized according to the rules of the game for every foul, easy to see or difficult. So there's no such thing as somebody calling my fouls too accurately for my tastes. But you're saying there is, for you?

 

[Sealegs50]

What is the point of both players agreeing to have a third person watch the hit if you are not ceding the call to that observer? And if you are giving up the call to a third person, why would you not want the call to be as correct as you could possibly determine?

 

[pt109]

I just thought it would be worth discussing and maybe something for tournament directors to consider.

You got what you wished for.....we ARE discussing it.

 

[pocket]

It's not supposed to be a benefit, it's just that when a call can't be made, you have to go one way or the other. Any time an accurate call can be determined, that's a good thing. Nobody should object to making the most accurate call possible.

100%. Rule is in place to prevent arguments. You lose the call goes to the shooter as soon as a ref is called over anyway.

 

[BasementDweller]

Interesting thoughts...

I guess some, or even most think being right in unique instances is more important than being fair in all instances. So it would hypocrital of anyone in this camp in the future to object to a camera being used only during their shots since this would at least give us certainty on 50% of shots instead of something less than this.

 

[babyboy70363]

Your argument is basically saying “I want to have a benefit of a doubt so I can have a potentially bad hit/foul get called in my favor rather than correctly” is it not?

The way I read his argument is that IF a phone is going to determine the outcome of a shot, it should be used all the time in every match. If its going to be a TD call, then it should be TD call all the time.

The way I read his example is if you and I are playing and you have a close hit and the TD calls the hit to your favor even though it was obvious to me and/or others it was a bad hit.....the hit rules in your favor. Then in the same match I have the exact same shot and hit it exactly as you did and someone decides to use a camera to record the hit. I hit the shot EXACTLY as you did, but now I have fouled because the video showed different. That an injustice......

Personally I dont care one way or the other. I accept the fact that if im in a situation where an observer has been summoned I have to accept his call regardless if I agree with the method or not!



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[BasementDweller]

Thanks for chiming in babyboy. Finally a voice of reason.

Since analogies have been introduced into the conversation how's this one work:
One baseball team is playing in a game and their strike zone is called by an umpire while their opponent's strike zone is called by lasers. Obviously the second team would have their strike zone called perfectly. Would that be a good thing? Obviously not if the other team is having a human call their strike zone. It's clearly an all-or-nothing scenario. So should the use of recording devices be by "referees".

 

[BRussell]

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.

If you agreed to someone watching the hit, then you agree to whatever method they want to use to be as accurate as possible.

Here's my analogy, since we're doing analogies:

Someone is accused of a crime, and the police want to take their DNA because they have the DNA of the offender, and it's the most accurate way available to judge guilt/innocence in this case.

In criminal law, the rule is "calls go to the shooter," i.e., the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is a doubt, they are to be found not guilty. And not every accused person has had their DNA tested in the past, due to cost, etc. But it is available in this particular case. So it is, by your logic, a disadvantage to the accused to be tested.

Would you support the accused's refusal to provide DNA in this case?

 

[peter_gunn]

Dweller has the point IMO
Imagine that they play tennis and only one of them can call eagle eye

Sent from my Mi A2 Lite using Tapatalk

 

[BasementDweller]

(Quoting BRussell)
"If you agreed to someone watching the hit, then you agree to whatever method they want to use to be as accurate as possible."

I don't think this is necessarily true and it would be obviously untrue if a referee used any means necessary to call some hits and only their eyes to call others.

And while your posts and arguments are usually rock solid, this one is such a stretch I can't quite wrap my head around it. I think there are enough similarities in other sports that we don't have to do mental gymnastics to sort through this one.

It's fairness vs rightness

But more than that it's:
Fairness for all vs rightness for some

 

[fastone371]

Last clarification since some feel I have nefarious motivations. Not sure why you guys are more interested in attacking my character than my argument but that's how the internet works I guess.

If I were King of pool I would dictate that all calls have to be made 100% correctly. Fail at this and it's off with your head.

Now since we fall somewhere short of this my second choice would be to apply the rules evenly. That's all. If you think this is somehow a character flaw of mine then it's quite possible you are someone who often confuses integrity with self-righteousness.

How the call turned out? I don't remember because like I said it wasn't that big of a deal and it was quite a while back. I just thought it would be worth discussing and maybe something for tournament directors to consider.

I understand your point and I agree with you, if a phone is going be used for selected calls it must be used for all calls to make sure they are all called absolutely correct. If all of my shots are going to be judged on video replay and my opponents are all going to be judged with the naked eye he will at some time gain an advantage. I thought that I saw a ruling somewhere that phones were not to be used to make calls.

 

[BasementDweller]

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.

 

[Johnny Rosato]

I play my best and try to win every game. If they wanna use a phone camera or ref or drive stakes I don't care. I'm don't gamble anyway, I'm having fun. I'll even let 'em cheat to a degree. It's amazing how many folks you can piss off by not sweating that chit and just have fun. I laugh out loud, which pisses 'em off more, thus making it even more fun for me! lol

 

[BeiberLvr]

Let's stop this nonsense with if a phone is used to watch one shot, it must be used to watch all shots.

Not all shots are created equal. In fact, the human eye can determine a good or bad hit on a vast majority of shots that will ever come up in a match. It's usually when the CB and OB are so close together that it can become difficult to call it accurately without the aid of a slow motion.