Woodward questionable foul European open

And Sky has posted on FB that the balls weren't frozen.

I think we can safely conclude that the balls weren't frozen but were pretty close.

For the non-metric among you, a millimet(er/re) is about 1/25 of an inch.
 
dr_dave said:
Agreed. The shot was an obvious double-hit foul since the balls were not frozen and the CB was driven forward. For those interested, numerous videos dealing with all topics in this thread can be found here:

Click to expand...
At what minimum angle could the cue ball have traveled from the OB direction that would have made it legal? Is it 91 degrees since the CB has backspin? Or something less?
 
oscargrouch said:
At what minimum angle could the cue ball have traveled from the OB direction that would have made it legal? Is it 91 degrees since the CB has backspin? Or something less?
Click to expand...
Start out expecting it to follow the tangent line. It doesn't have to come back immediately because the spin won't necessarily grab immediately. So it can shoot out 90 degrees no problem. Since you're likely jacked up, the ball can hop a little too. That can actually send it forward by a small amount. The bigger the gap the more the hop has a chance to send it forward (especially if it also gets to ricochet off a point higher up on the object ball). The smaller the gap the more likely the cueball will ricochet lower on the object ball preventing the ball from going forward much at all. A safer rule of thumb is if it's a small gap, the cueball shouldn't go forward of the tangent line more than like half an inch. Usually the results tend to be blatant. There's no reason to call foul on the iffy ones.
 
MattPoland said:
Start out expecting it to follow the tangent line. It doesn't have to come back immediately because the spin won't necessarily grab immediately. So it can shoot out 90 degrees no problem. Since you're likely jacked up, the ball can hop a little too. That can actually send it forward by a small amount. The bigger the gap the more the hop has a chance to send it forward (especially if it also gets to ricochet off a point higher up on the object ball). The smaller the gap the more likely the cueball will ricochet lower on the object ball preventing the ball from going forward much at all. A safer rule of thumb is if it's a small gap, the cueball shouldn't go forward of the tangent line more than like half an inch. Usually the results tend to be blatant. There's no reason to call foul on the iffy ones.
Click to expand...
If the cue ball hops up before it hits the object ball...doesn't that change the tangent line? I think it does but by how much, I do not know.
 
Tennesseejoe said:
If the cue ball hops up before it hits the object ball...doesn't that change the tangent line? I think it does but by how much, I do not know.
Click to expand...
The line of centers at contact. The exit angle will be different but <how much> is a function of how high on the ball the rock lands.
 
Hungarian said:
CJ has spoken. Do we all agree now that it was a good hit?
Click to expand...
To the best of my ability to assess CJ's video, he demonstrated a shot that was a good hit. There's reason to believe Sky was attempting a different approach to the shot and the placement of his balls were slightly different. But even if we assumed he was trying the same thing CJ did, it would still be the case that he failed to execute it cleanly and he did clearly foul with a double hit regardless. There's some visual analysis of that a couple pages back that is quite demonstrative.
 
straightline said:
The line of centers at contact. The exit angle will be different but <how much> is a function of how high on the ball the rock lands.
Click to expand...
I agree. How high did Woodward's cue ball hop? How far would that have changed the tangent line. Would the ref be able to judge the new tangent line while the balls are in motion? I think not.
 
oscargrouch said:
At what minimum angle could the cue ball have traveled from the OB direction that would have made it legal? Is it 91 degrees since the CB has backspin? Or something less?
Click to expand...

For shots like Woodward’s shot, where the gap size is very small and there is no significant CB hop before the CB hits the OB, the CB must start along the tangent line (which is perpendicular to the OB’s direction). With top or bottom spin and a legal hit, the CB will curve away from the tangent after a slight delay; but if the CB goes forward of the tangent line a noticeable amount (at least 5-10 degrees maybe) with no delay (as with Woodward’s shot), the shot is a blatant and obvious foul. If the CB goes forward of the tangent line immediately only a few degrees, it is too difficult to know if the shot is a foul or not, but it is usually obvious (as with Woodward’s shot). As with the application of most rules, if there is any doubt, the benefit of doubt goes to the shooter (no foul). There was absolutely no doubt with Woodward’s shot. It was clearly a foul to anybody who understands how pool balls move during legal and illegal hits.

Again, much more information and many more demonstrations of similar and radically different but related types of shots can be found here:
 
Tennesseejoe said:
I agree. How high did Woodward's cue ball hop? How far would that have changed the tangent line. Would the ref be able to judge the new tangent line while the balls are in motion? I think not.
Click to expand...
It's not all that hard to evaluate.

When the cueball and object ball are 3" away from each other, the cueball has plenty of opportunity to climb on top of the object ball and result in a tangent line that is erratic and hard to anticipate. But also, when the cueball and object ball are 3" away from each other the odds of a double hit from the tip becomes unlikely when jacked up.

Now in the actual shot in game, the cueball and object ball were like 1mm away from each other. The cueball has very minimal opportunity to ascend before contacting the object ball. A clean hit will barely contact it above what would otherwise be a level hit. So the new tangent line is actually less opportunity to be an erratic outcome. It's basically going to follow a normal tangent line with a hop that lets it go forward perhaps an extra degree or two. There's not enough room to go forward as blatantly as Sky's shot did.
 
I agree Woodward's cue ball did not jump very much. My question was how much would a tangent line change? I did not give specific measurements but was just in general trying to get an approximation. My formal science education ended 55 years ago and it seems like you have a good handle on this. I am not trying to play 'devil's advocate', just trying to get a better understanding. Thanks, in advance.
 
Tennesseejoe said:
I agree Woodward's cue ball did not jump very much. My question was how much would a tangent line change? I did not give specific measurements but was just in general trying to get an approximation. My formal science education ended 55 years ago and it seems like you have a good handle on this. I am not trying to play 'devil's advocate', just trying to get a better understanding. Thanks, in advance.
Click to expand...

If the CB hits the OB while airborne, which was not the case with Woodward’s shot, the tangent line can change by any angle between 0 to 180 degrees! Examples can be found here:

 
Last edited:
Knowing the risks, I personally think Skyler should have opted for a different shot. It looks to me like thinning the 6-ball on the left side and sending the cue ball slowly to the opposite long rail would have at least left a difficult shot without the risk of selling out the rack. Maybe the shot wasn't "there"...IDK.
 
Tennesseejoe said:
I agree Woodward's cue ball did not jump very much. My question was how much would a tangent line change? I did not give specific measurements but was just in general trying to get an approximation. My formal science education ended 55 years ago and it seems like you have a good handle on this. I am not trying to play 'devil's advocate', just trying to get a better understanding. Thanks, in advance.
Click to expand...

Start with what happens when a rising cueball hits a close up object ball head on. Look at it from a side view. It doesn't take long before it contacts the object ball and then has its course redirected to a new trajectory that's very near vertical. It's a "vertical tangent line". 90 degrees from the line of centers. So this new trajectory constrains how much forward the cueball can go. On those shots the cueball usually goes forward a centimeter or less with a clean hit.

1723578634152.png


So change that to a cut shot. You're now looking at that from a top down view. You expect the cueball to follow the tangent line of the cut before any spin grabs. How much forward of that tangent line do you account for from a jacked up shot because the cueball hops? I'd think that little close-up baby hop would send the cueball 1-2 degrees forward of the tangent line. Basically that same centimeter forward you see on a head-on shot just expressed differently.

I'm sure a stronger mathematical approach could spell that out more accurately. But in any case I expect the effect to be non-zero and to be very minimal.
 
Last edited:
If anyone wants to really understand this shot, try this.

Shoot a series of shots like the one in question. On each shot jack up to 60 degrees or so. Sky was definitely above 45. Use a lot of draw and some right. (I think I see the cue ball spinning at the end with right.) Play for about a 3/4-full hit on the six on the left side. Try to match the speed as well as you can.

Start back about two inches. Note what the cue ball does. Does it jump? Any jump will be most obvious with a larger separation. What path does the cue ball take off the object ball? Does it go forward of the 90-degree line?

Gradually move the cue ball closer and repeat the shot, maybe cutting the distance in half each time -- 2 inches, 1 inch, half inch, quarter inch... Continue moving forward until the cue ball is 1/16th inch from the object ball.

At some point in that series of shots, I expect the action of the cue ball to change a lot.
 
Bob Jewett said:
If anyone wants to really understand this shot, try this.

Shoot a series of shots like the one in question. On each shot jack up to 60 degrees or so. Sky was definitely above 45. Use a lot of draw and some right. (I think I see the cue ball spinning at the end with right.) Play for about a 3/4-full hit on the six on the left side. Try to match the speed as well as you can.

Start back about two inches. Note what the cue ball does. Does it jump? Any jump will be most obvious with a larger separation. What path does the cue ball take off the object ball? Does it go forward of the 90-degree line?

Gradually move the cue ball closer and repeat the shot, maybe cutting the distance in half each time -- 2 inches, 1 inch, half inch, quarter inch... Continue moving forward until the cue ball is 1/16th inch from the object ball.

At some point in that series of shots, I expect the action of the cue ball to change a lot.
Click to expand...

Excellent suggestion! That will clearly show with an easy and simple demonstration how the foul (as with Woodward's shot) changes CB motion.
 
7stud said:
CJ claims his CB is going to go here:

View attachment 772654

...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):

View attachment 772664View attachment 772665View attachment 772666
View attachment 772667View attachment 772668

Here's a composite image:

View attachment 772669

Here's a composite of Tyler's shot:

View attachment 772706

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.
Click to expand...
great post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top