I recall agreeing with everyone - don't quite remember. The official video shows rail first only. You clip shows some object ball movement but the angle doesn't show actual orientation. And it looks either way either way. I think I would have made the same call as Marcel if I were calling the shot.
Woodward questionable foul European open
- Thread starter TeddyKGB
- Start date
Marcel, to me, seems to have a bit of arrogance about him, and that he's not about to ever admit he's made a mistake/bad call. I wonder if he at any point had any self-doubt about that call on Shane. If he did, he should have given the call to the shooter.and there is one rule that Marcel ignored completely - in case of uncertainty the call has to go in shooters favor so your call would be wrong anyway
Yeah. Dr. Dave's video reminded me.no it doesnt, object ball started to move exactly 1 frame of the video before the rail contact. and that second video was an analysis of that shot that showed you get a rail contact after the object ball hit in that situation in any case. and there is one rule that Marcel ignored completely - in case of uncertainty the call has to go in shooters favor so your call would be wrong anyway
To be honest, I know Marcel has made mistakes before. It turns out he was 100% correct and handled it right this time. And I would very much prefer as a referee that he show some decisiveness even when wrong. Ideally you want to minimize being wrong but nobody wants to watch a referee second guessing. Make the call, move on, and get it right next time if you need to. In that sense, I do think Marcel handles himself precisely as I'd expect.
...but was it a foul because of a double hit? or because the ferrule pushed the cue ball forward. Being that the cue was elevated, the cue ball had to come up off of the table and either (1) the cue tip leather side could have pushed the cue ball forward or (2) the cue ferrule could have pushed the cue ball forward. If it was the cue tip leather side, it could have been a continuous contact. To close to call.
Too many if's to call a foul. Your thoughts?
I think the tip was still on the cue ball when it hit the object ball. That's not a double hit but it is a foul. I don't think the ferrule was involved.
Regardless of what happened during the hit. the action of the cue ball shows that a foul occurred.
That's what the referee told Skyler.
Sure. The path of CJ's shot was legal. That was different from the path of Sky's shot. What CJ said about his own shot was true, but doesn't apply to Sky's shot. Also, it looked like CJ had a lot more space between the cue ball and object ball than Sky did, but it's hard to tell without a different camera angle.
In CJs shot his camera man is moving but you can see in general his cueball reasonably is following the tangent line before biting back.
It's pretty clear Sky's shot was double hit to send it far above the tangent line before biting back.
To judge these shots, it is much better to have the camera looking along the tangent line, and that's where the ref should be.
Yep, if the balls are Not frozen/Foul.
If they were, the cue ball would of Not gone forward that much before it backed up.
I was taught in ref class 1st to get confirmation from the shooter what the were going to shoot.
Then I would look at the ball layout/shot before they shot.
I would then let the player proceed.
By spending my time up front by doing this.... I then Know what it takes to make this shot legal.
Then I'll walk away and watch.
And bob thx for saying the ref ''should position their body along the tangent line.''
bm
Last edited:
Coos Cues
Coos Cues
That match was decided by a lot more than that shot
How would you prove that?
CJ claims his CB is going to go here:
...which looks like it is about parallel with the 6-ball, and which would be past what looks like the tangent line. But CJ's cue ball never gets parallel with the original position of the 6-ball (note the position of the CB with respect to the diamonds):
Here's a composite image:
Here's a composite of Tyler's shot:
You can see that Tyler's CB path is angled slightly up table and therefore necessarily crosses the tangent line, while CJ's CB path is angled down table and may not cross the tangent line.
...which looks like it is about parallel with the 6-ball, and which would be past what looks like the tangent line. But CJ's cue ball never gets parallel with the original position of the 6-ball (note the position of the CB with respect to the diamonds):
Here's a composite image:
Here's a composite of Tyler's shot:
You can see that Tyler's CB path is angled slightly up table and therefore necessarily crosses the tangent line, while CJ's CB path is angled down table and may not cross the tangent line.
Last edited:
Thanks for the reconstruction. Makes it pretty clear.
I agree with Bob - one issue here is the misinterpretation of the term "forward". What the ref means is "forward of the tangent line", not just forward along the line of the object ball. This shot clearly goes forward of the tangent line, which can only happen by striking the cue ball twice when the two are so close together.
...and if anyone cares to review the video of Skyler's shot, it appears that the ref was looking intently down the tangent line while Skyler was shooting.
Last edited:
