Yapp winning, with a foul! Just like Maradona making a goal with his hands :D

VVP said:
Then who is? His "high profile screwups" are all with Americans involved ... JJ, oh he should have told him the clock was running. SVB, oh the great Doctor RECREATED a video where he developed scenarios that proved the call was wrong, even though Dr. Dave did not make any conclusion of his own per my memory AND the fact that Marcel was in the "correct position" to view the shot and DID review the ACTUAL video before finalizing the call. Then you have Sky questioning a double hit call, where the commentators seemed to agree with Marcel. And then the Yapp incident, where the 9 ball did not move or the movement would have defied the laws of physics IF it happened.

All the Dr. Know opinions that the 9 ball moved, but no slow mo, mo jo or whatever showed the cue stick touching the 9 ball.
Click to expand...

You forgot when he unilaterally decided that a miscue was a foul, which WPA had to correct with a rule clarification last month.

Michaela Tabb (not an American, by the way - not sure what your issue is there) set the gold standard for pool referees. Hopefully Marcel can approach her level some day.
 
sjm said:
Wish I could remember where he was positioned. In real time, nobody knew there was any issue at all.
Click to expand...
Fedor is not bashful about voicing his opinion and so far i haven't heard one 'peep' out of the guy regarding this. BTW, FG put a very well stated apology/explanation about the 'Boanan incident' on his FB page. Well said imo.
 
loggerhead12 said:
You forgot when he unilaterally decided that a miscue was a foul, which WPA had to correct with a rule clarification last month.

Michaela Tabb (not an American, by the way - not sure what your issue is there) set the gold standard for pool referees. Hopefully Marcel can approach her level some day.
Click to expand...
I believe you are talking about the miscue where the cue ball jumped over the OB. Not sure if there was any determination that his call was incorrect. Scooping the cue ball is a foul, whether intentional or error. Would be happy to read the rule change on that if you have it.
 
VVP said:
I believe you are talking about the miscue where the cue ball jumped over the OB. Not sure if there was any determination that his call was incorrect. Scooping the cue ball is a foul, whether intentional or error. Would be happy to read the rule change on that if you have it.
Click to expand...


Also see Bob Jewett's post about the rule changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VVP
loggerhead12 said:

Also see Bob Jewett's post about the rule changes.
Click to expand...
Like it or not referees have to operate with what the rules are at the time. It is obvious that those two incidents shown were unintentional miscues, but they were scoops. I would say it's a good rule change, but the calls at the time were not incorrect.
How about, Chang Jung Lin losing $100,000 because he mistaking positioned the cue ball with the tip of the cue. Referee made the right call on an obvious mental blunder.
 
VVP said:
Like it or not referees have to operate with what the rules are at the time. It is obvious that those two incidents shown were unintentional miscues, but they were scoops. I would say it's a good rule change, but the calls at the time were not incorrect.
How about, Chang Jung Lin losing $100,000 because he mistaking positioned the cue ball with the tip of the cue. Referee made the right call on an obvious mental blunder.
Click to expand...

Right, but why suddenly decide these were fouls when they weren't before? It confused the players (and the rules committee, apparently).

Anyway, hopefully he gets the chance to learn from this. Being and looking in the right place is the majority of a referee's job.
 
loggerhead12 said:
Right, but why suddenly decide these were fouls when they weren't before? It confused the players (and the rules committee, apparently).

Anyway, hopefully he gets the chance to learn from this. Being and looking in the right place is the majority of a referee's job.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you are saying they weren't fouls BEFORE. You have to provide incidents where Marcel and the female referee (forgot her name) passed on similar "fouls" before the rule change and these incidents occurring. If other referees didn't call it, then they were wrong not Marcel and the girl.

A referee that officiate million dollar snooker matches would be an expert in my opinion and doesn't need mediocre telling him where to stand.
 
VVP said:
Because there was none. You are a reputable and knowledgeable person, don't feed the conspiracy here.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion, which I respect.

Based on the replay, it remains my opinion that a foul was committed. It also remains my opinion that the referee's failure to see a nearly imperceptible foul does not tarnish Yapp's win in any way.

PS No, Marcel is not the best pool referee. Not too long ago, he was one of the worst, and being out of position too often was one of the main reasons, but he has improved greatly in the past two years. Like every other pool referee, he gradually learned the trade. He has become a good one now. Calls concerning whether a legal hit of the object ball was made have little to no relevance to snooker but are critical in pool. Same thing with the double hit rule, which comes up all the time in pool but nearly never in snooker. When to freeze the shot clock is something the best referees in pool know, but it's irrelevant to snooker. No, the officiating skills do not translate seamlessly from snooker to pool. Yes, some of the skills do.

I will note that Marcel probably presents himself more professionally than any referee in the game and he is a continuing credit to the game.

Finally, there is no conspiracy. That's only in your mind.
 
JohnnyOzone said:
If the apparent movement was caused by flaws in the video process, then wouldn't the balls show the same effects at other times in the video?
Click to expand...
As already mentioned in many posts, the balls do show the same "movement" effects at other times in the video, even including before the shot when the shaft had never been remotely near the nine ball yet. That video issues were happening causing optical illusion nine ball "movements" all around the time of the shot is not disputable. The only question is whether Yapp just so happened to foul at the same time the video issues were already falsely making the nine ball look like it was "moving". See post #138 for further explanation and the video that shows the nine moving many times due to the video issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VVP
sjm said:
Wish I could remember where he was positioned. In real time, nobody knew there was any issue at all.
Click to expand...
Marcel was sort of behind Yapp, closely watching the shot. Below is a picture showing (barely) where Marcel was for the big shot.

One oddity is that I had never before seen Marcel wear glasses, but he had them on for two parts of this match. The first part was the lag, the entire first game, and the racking and the break shot of Game 2. Then he removed the glasses and kept them off through the end of Game 23. For what turned out to be the last game (Game 24), he went back to the ref's table, got the glasses, and wore them for the racking and the play in that final game. So he had them on, as the picture shows, for the much-discussed shot.

Marcel.png
 
Poolplaya9 said:
As already mentioned in many posts, the balls do show the same "movement" effects at other times in the video, even including before the shot when the shaft had never been remotely near the nine ball yet. That video issues were happening causing optical illusion nine ball "movements" all around the time of the shot is not disputable. The only question is whether Yapp just so happened to foul at the same time the video issues were already falsely making the nine ball look like it was "moving". See post #138 for further explanation and the video that shows the nine moving many times due to the video issues.
Click to expand...
People will see and believe whatever suits them. I posted a video above where the 8 ball seems to move (post 171), but no comments so far.
Well if it's not a conspiracy it's certainly a controversy being raised here. Too bad.
 
AtLarge said:
Marcel was sort of behind Yapp, closely watching the shot. Below is a picture showing (barely) where Marcel was for the big shot.

One oddity is that I had never before seen Marcel wear glasses, but he had them on for two parts of this match. The first part was the lag, the entire first game, and the racking and the break shot of Game 2. Then he removed the glasses and kept them off through the end of Game 23. For what turned out to be the last game (Game 24), he went back to the ref's table, got the glasses, and wore them for the racking and the play in that final game. So he had them on, as the picture shows, for the much-discussed shot.

View attachment 846941
Click to expand...
Maybe he couldn't see with his glasses lol 😆 He was in the perfect position, by the way for those position pundits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
AtLarge said:
One oddity is that I had never before seen Marcel wear glasses, but he had them on for two parts of this match. The first part was the lag, the entire first game, and the racking and the break shot of Game 2. Then he removed the glasses and kept them off through the end of Game 23. For what turned out to be the last game (Game 24), he went back to the ref's table, got the glasses, and wore them for the racking and the play in that final game. So he had them on, as the picture shows, for the much-discussed shot.
Click to expand...

I saw that. He was definitely channeling Buddy Holly there for a bit.
 
Along with a referee at the table I would suggest another rules official monitoring the live broadcast for potential rules infractions.

Of course this can't be done at all tables, but would be of great use imo as the field winds down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top