maybe if he used a real wooden pool cue like god intended and not that black plastic thingie he would've felt it
Yapp winning, with a foul! Just like Maradona making a goal with his hands :D
- Thread starter smoochie
- Start date
Because nobody shoots looking intently at a nearby object ball.
You guys need to turn in your tin foil hats and put this one to bed.
That's very well said.
I have been present on a few occasions in which the player in the chair demanded a ruling and it was extended to them. Of course, it can only happen on a match that is being recorded on video, and most matches are not.
The challenge system in tennis, which did not always exist, made tennis a better sport. Maybe it is time for pool to have something similar. Like tennis, however, the number of challenges allowed must be kept to a minimum so that the flow of play is not significantly affected.
Right, lets slowwwwww the game down even more.Refs are fine if they know what to do/where to position themselves/what to look for. IR is the last thing pool needs.
Last edited:
You do know you can quote more than one post in your response, don't you?
i would never need to win so bad id call this chicken shit
this is not pool. matchroom wants a pageant show full of fairies dancing around
this is not pool. matchroom wants a pageant show full of fairies dancing around
This is crazy talk. This would be reasonably accurate for your standard side of the shaft hitting a nearby object ball foul where that object ball actually moves a slight amount like a quarter inch instead of just barely, barely rocking in place (which would be many, many times easier to feel than if it barely quivered like it may have here), or where the shaft contact happened a brief moment after the cue ball was struck like say during the follow through or while lifting your shaft out of the way. Both of these are more commonly how it occurs and are what we would be tending to reference from our experience, but neither of those things are at all what happened here.
If the shaft did in fact ever so slightly brush against the nine ball, and I don't believe it probably did which I think I can demonstrate more conclusively in a future post, but if it did, it was such a slight brush that you could get the equivalent nine ball movement by swiping the tip of a feather against it, that's how light it was. Pretty good chance you wouldn't notice that at the same time you were stroking your shaft forward even if you weren't hitting the cue ball at the time, much less if it happened at the exact same time you hit the cue ball.
As briefly noted above you also have the fact that the shaft/nine ball contact, if it did occur, happened at the exact same time the tip of the cue hit the cue ball which of course sends a huge shockwave throughout the cue and to your hands. The chances that you could feel the equivalent of the tip of a feathers touch against the side of the shaft at the same time that the huge shockwaves from the tip/cue ball contact are coursing through the shaft and your hands seem miniscule.
Claims by people of certainty that they would always be able to feel that feathers touch from the side at the exact same time they hit the cue ball are laughable, and even more so when it is on one of the last couple of balls to win a hundred thousand dollars and the US Open title with nerves and shaking coursing through your body in a way they never have before. I think you just didn't stop and really think this one out. If that feather's touch with the nine did indeed occur, there is almost no chance Yapp felt it with the way it happened here.
Naw. Completely believable it was a touch not felt.
That touch was so light the ball did not roll.
AND he has a glove on.
BlueRaider
Registered
This is shaping up to be the most anticipated Dr. Dave video in AZB history.
I don't see the shaft deflecting left into the nine so that claim certainly isn't "clear", nor is this a very good angle to best be able to see which way the shaft deflected whichever way it went if any.
I will say this though. He was almost definitely not using left english, so shaft deflection to the left would be unnatural and unlikely. In fact, based on cue ball path (and considering that he actually hit the purple five a bit full), and the cue ball appearing to check up slightly as it hits the rail etc, he had some slight right/inside english on the ball if anything which would of course make the shaft want to deflect right if anything.
I'm reading a big to-do about nothing! It's almost as if many people on here are trying to minimize Yapp's victory over Gorst. If the referee didn't see it, so be it. Gorst had several chances to win and he failed to make a couple of relatively easy shots. I saw that!
The match is over and Yapp is the U.S. Open Champion. All congrats to him.
The match is over and Yapp is the U.S. Open Champion. All congrats to him.
Obviously, the ball only moved by a fraction —maybe even just a nanometer—that it was virtually undetectable by the naked eye. It's unfortunate that in pool, there’s no system for challenges or instant replay, unlike in sports like tennis, baseball, or basketball. This incident highlights the need for a replay challenge system in pool, especially for critical Championship matches. Perhaps multiple camera angles could be implemented, focusing on moments when balls are close to each other or when the cue ball is near the clothing or any other obstruction, to ensure a more accurate review of such close calls... There's always an improvement to be implemented even the breaking of balls i guess.
i know i wouldn't call that on myself for the title and lose it. its up to the ref. and opponent to do that.
major fouls is another thing but i dont believe its up to the player to determine if a certain foul really happened.
and without a ref. at each table or to be called frequently cue ball fouls only is the best rule. it doesn't make the worst player win by any means.
major fouls is another thing but i dont believe its up to the player to determine if a certain foul really happened.
and without a ref. at each table or to be called frequently cue ball fouls only is the best rule. it doesn't make the worst player win by any means.
This is correct,
Yapp played great this event,
And be sure about, doesn't need to cheat to beat any of the other touring pros!
I saw in another clip of Fedor at the Open whining a little about someone's "soft-break"
Some great player is gonna arrive and someone on here will state that 'beyond a doubt he had a alien anal probe' that made him unbeatable.
Too far out?? Not in today's goofball environment.
I think I can show fairly conclusively that no foul occurred on the shot. If you have a computer put the video below on full screen in the best quality. Pause the video just before you see the cue tip ever move at all (about 60% of the way through the video). The space bar can be a handy shortcut for pausing/playing.
Now use the period key to advance the video forward a single frame at a time (and use the comma key when you need to go backwards one frame at a time and of course toggle back and forth between the two as needed to verify when you think you see any ball movements). As you advance frame by frame forward from about that 60% point until the tip hits the cue ball (at about the 90% point) you will see many times where both the nine ball and cue ball are "moving" but the shaft is very clearly not causing it. It is caused by video frames being shifted or parts of the frames being stretched which in turn happens because of the way cameras work in regards to shadow movements, lighting changes, camera autofocusing, artifacting, etc.
So now we have absolute proof positive without question that the video is, all over the place around the time of the shot, making balls appear to move when they in fact very clearly and provably did not. Now the only question left is does the video appear to show the nine ball move at the same time that Yapp was striking the cue ball (because if it didn't we can obviously automatically rule out a foul just from that), and if it did, is there any way to tell if it was just another one of these many ball movement optical illusions caused by these camera/video issues or if a foul actually occurred even though these ball movement optical illusions were also happening around the same time? Turns out I think there is something we can see that allows us to fairly conclusively be able to rule out a foul. Let's start a couple of frames before impact and take a look.
In both of the two frames before tip contact with the cue ball, as well on the frame showing the tip contact with the cue ball itself, in all three of these frames we can see the nine ball and cue ball moving, with the shaft nowhere near them, and know these are clearly just video issues causing optical illusion ball movements. But here is what seals it for me on being able to pretty much rule out a foul completely instead of just not being able to know for sure one way or the other since these ball movement video issues were also happening at the same time. In the very next frame after the tip contact, the nine is not moving at all. If the shaft had hit that nine ball then we would see the nine ball moving in this frame, yet it very, very clearly is not, and that pretty much proves that the shaft never did hit the 9 ball and all of the "ball movements" we see in the video before and after the shot are just these video issue illusions.
Furthermore, in that first frame after tip/ball contact, you can see all of the shaft's shadow which indicates that the shaft is moving away from the nine ball and is already well away it, because if the shaft were touching or still very close to the nine ball then the shaft would be obstructing part of its own shadow, but we can clearly see there is already a good amount of space between the shaft and the nine which is further proven by the fact that we can see all of the shaft's shadow on the nine ball as well. This in turn lets us know that if we see any nine ball "movements" any time after this, we know that it can't have been caused by the shaft which is already long gone from the area and therefore they would have to be from more of these video issues causing the ball movement optical illusions.
So let's go on the next frame and now we see the nine ball "move" once again, but as already covered above, we know it is just those video issues and was not caused by the shaft because if the shaft had caused it we would have seen the nine moving in the previous frame as well, but it wasn't moving then and there is nothing that could have caused it to move now except for the video issue optical illusions still going on, which they continue to do until the end of the video.
Now use the period key to advance the video forward a single frame at a time (and use the comma key when you need to go backwards one frame at a time and of course toggle back and forth between the two as needed to verify when you think you see any ball movements). As you advance frame by frame forward from about that 60% point until the tip hits the cue ball (at about the 90% point) you will see many times where both the nine ball and cue ball are "moving" but the shaft is very clearly not causing it. It is caused by video frames being shifted or parts of the frames being stretched which in turn happens because of the way cameras work in regards to shadow movements, lighting changes, camera autofocusing, artifacting, etc.
So now we have absolute proof positive without question that the video is, all over the place around the time of the shot, making balls appear to move when they in fact very clearly and provably did not. Now the only question left is does the video appear to show the nine ball move at the same time that Yapp was striking the cue ball (because if it didn't we can obviously automatically rule out a foul just from that), and if it did, is there any way to tell if it was just another one of these many ball movement optical illusions caused by these camera/video issues or if a foul actually occurred even though these ball movement optical illusions were also happening around the same time? Turns out I think there is something we can see that allows us to fairly conclusively be able to rule out a foul. Let's start a couple of frames before impact and take a look.
In both of the two frames before tip contact with the cue ball, as well on the frame showing the tip contact with the cue ball itself, in all three of these frames we can see the nine ball and cue ball moving, with the shaft nowhere near them, and know these are clearly just video issues causing optical illusion ball movements. But here is what seals it for me on being able to pretty much rule out a foul completely instead of just not being able to know for sure one way or the other since these ball movement video issues were also happening at the same time. In the very next frame after the tip contact, the nine is not moving at all. If the shaft had hit that nine ball then we would see the nine ball moving in this frame, yet it very, very clearly is not, and that pretty much proves that the shaft never did hit the 9 ball and all of the "ball movements" we see in the video before and after the shot are just these video issue illusions.
Furthermore, in that first frame after tip/ball contact, you can see all of the shaft's shadow which indicates that the shaft is moving away from the nine ball and is already well away it, because if the shaft were touching or still very close to the nine ball then the shaft would be obstructing part of its own shadow, but we can clearly see there is already a good amount of space between the shaft and the nine which is further proven by the fact that we can see all of the shaft's shadow on the nine ball as well. This in turn lets us know that if we see any nine ball "movements" any time after this, we know that it can't have been caused by the shaft which is already long gone from the area and therefore they would have to be from more of these video issues causing the ball movement optical illusions.
So let's go on the next frame and now we see the nine ball "move" once again, but as already covered above, we know it is just those video issues and was not caused by the shaft because if the shaft had caused it we would have seen the nine moving in the previous frame as well, but it wasn't moving then and there is nothing that could have caused it to move now except for the video issue optical illusions still going on, which they continue to do until the end of the video.
Last edited:
On the contrary - it would have been much more visible to the naked eye than through an image that's been cut into frames, digitized, compressed, optimized, enlarged, and viewed on screens with limited pixel count. The human eye is incredible and makes any screen's resolution seem like grainy old Charlie Chaplin moving pictures.
Anyway, the prevailing sentiment seems to be that if you're a good person and were going to win anyway, minor fouls don't matter. His name is on the trophy and will be staying there.
