YOU MAKE THE CALL – Are These Pro Shots Fouls or Not?

[stumpie71]

The Filler shot is a bad hit. Before contact is made on the 6 the cue ball from the viewers reference is clearly moving left to right. Both the 9 and 2 have moved by that time and the 6 has not. If the cb contacts the 2 first then the 9 the cb would be moving right to left to contact the 6 from the viewers perspective.

I'm using VLC player, .25 speed.

 

[Shuddy]

I can’t recall where, but someone made a post recently questioning why it is that cue sports players are expected to call fouls on themselves, but in nearly every other sport, players are expected to protest fouls and do all they can to bend the rules. Most of these shots are obvious with the exception of #5, and that call comes down to “clear evidence”. However, with regards to double hits and push shots, any slightly seasoned player knows exactly when they’ve played a push or double hit. We can feel it when the ref can’t. I’d need more than two hands to count the number of times I’ve called a foul on myself only to have my opponent look at me like, “Huh? Foul? Why?”

The ref can’t be expected to spot such small infractions (if there even is a ref), so in order to enjoy the game we love and encourage following the spirit of the rules, the onus falls on us.

As an aside, in Korea, they have the 7mm rule. If cue ball and object ball are close, some dude will pull out a cigarette and see if it fits between the two balls. If not, then you’re expected to shoot the ball at an acute angle, or it’s automatically a foul. While they’re very precise about the 7mm, questions about what exactly constitutes an acute angle are met with much less precise answers

 

[dr_dave]

That Harriman shot is ridiculous, surely you must notice such a double hit as a player?

I also thought it was blatantly obvious as soon as I saw it, but you would be surprised by how many people on Facebook and YouTube think the laws of physics are different for pros because of their "quality stroke."

 

[dr_dave]

The Filler shot is a bad hit. Before contact is made on the 6 the cue ball from the viewers reference is clearly moving left to right. Both the 9 and 2 have moved by that time and the 6 has not. If the cb contacts the 2 first then the 9 the cb would be moving right to left to contact the 6 from the viewers perspective.

I'm using VLC player, .25 speed.

Watch it again and compare it to all of my re-created shots. The CB does move left to right (on screen) off the tangent line of the 2, but then it immediately moves from right to left (on screen) off the tangent line of the 9 before hitting the 6 (when it goes even more left). This was definitely a good 2-first hit; although, it was tough for the ref to call it in the moment (especially since Filler doesn't give the ref much time to study the angles before the shot).

 

[Poolplaya9]

Shot 1, the Oi shot, is clearly a foul. I was shocked that a decent player like The_JV would get this one wrong as clear and obvious as it is, and equally or more shocked that dr_dave let himself get talked into calling this a good hit (or not enough evidence to call it bad) by The_JV when it is clearly bad.

Short version, here's your clear evidence. Oi didn't hit the shot nearly hard enough to cause the cue ball to jump forward that much off of the one ball. With that speed of hit the cue ball could only have gone forward that much from a double hit.

Longer version, here's the evidence:

---In Oi's shot the cue ball went forward a good half a ball. Oi didn't hit the cue ball nearly hard enough to jump high enough up on the one ball to allow it the correct angle to go forward that much, nor was it hard enough to retain enough energy after contact to continue up and forward that much regardless of where the one was hit either one. He would have had to hit that shot noticeably and substantially harder to get that cue ball action.

---We can see how hard Oi hit that shot with our own eyes, but more substantiation that it was a soft hit is that he had every reason to hit that shot as softly as possible (just like he did) so that the cue ball would draw back right away instead of traveling down the tangent line a little bit first like a harder shot speed or an airborne cue ball would have caused (which would have been highly detrimental to what he was trying to accomplish).

---Aside from a much firmer hit being needed for that cue ball action, a pretty high cue stick elevation would be required from that distance to get the cue ball up high enough on the one ball to go forward that much. Oi would have no reason to elevate that much on this shot.

---While the overhead angle makes it hard to tell much with certainty, Oi does not appear to be elevated all that much when looking at the shot visually, and again he would have no reason to be, but it likely would have been required for the shot to have happened this way as a good hit.

---While the overhead angle makes it hard to tell much, there is no evidence of the cue ball getting airborne much if any really, nor of the cue ball bouncing, both of which you would really expect to be able to see even from this angle if the shot was hit hard enough to go forward that much from this distance, but you don't see either one of those things really which leads you to conclude they couldn't have been very consequential.

---Dr. Dave didn't come remotely close to duplicating Oi's shot with a legal hit. On all of Dr. Dave's legal hits that were of reasonably similar speed to Oi, the cue ball never went forward more than about a quarter inch. That is not remotely close to what the ball did in Oi's shot, and in fact in only about 20% the forward movement Oi had. More forward movement would take a much harder hit.

---At 4:12 Dr. Dave hit one of his shots significantly harder than Oi hit his (roughly twice as hard). The cue ball still only goes forward about a quarter ball--only half the cue ball action with twice the shot speed.

All the evidence, and there is a decent amount of it, all supports only one thing: double hit foul. But the shot speed alone makes it clear. Anybody with any experience can tell at first glance that the cue ball couldn't have gone that far forward with that shot speed. Not sure why a couple of people struggled on this one.

 

[The_JV]

I can’t recall where, but someone made a post recently questioning why it is that cue sports players are expected to call fouls on themselves, but in nearly every other sport, players are expected to protest fouls and do all they can to bend the rules.

No I think it was more gauged toward professionals calling fouls on themselves, and I can think of many examples in pool, snooker, golf, tennis etc where this happens regularly. For some reason, some believe that pool players are not on the hook to call fouls on themselves. Which is fine, that's there opinion. I however think it's a measure of their professionalism.

 

[dr_dave]

I can’t recall where, but someone made a post recently questioning why it is that cue sports players are expected to call fouls on themselves, but in nearly every other sport, players are expected to protest fouls and do all they can to bend the rules.

If there is a good ref present, there is no need for players to call fouls on themselves. However, if a good ref is not present, one would hope that players would be honest with their fouls. But not all players have the same professionalism or respect for the game and their opponents.

Most of these shots are obvious with the exception of #5, and that call comes down to “clear evidence”.

Agreed. I just wish all the people out there (especially on Facebook and YouTube) who don't understand this would "do their homework." There are many good videos and resources available that make everything clear:

fouls resource page
​

As an aside, in Korea, they have the 7mm rule. If cue ball and object ball are close, some dude will pull out a cigarette and see if it fits between the two balls. If not, then you’re expected to shoot the ball at an acute angle, or it’s automatically a foul. While they’re very precise about the 7mm, questions about what exactly constitutes an acute angle are met with much less precise answers

I hate silly rules like this. The old 45 degree cue elevation "double-hit free pass" rule (that some leagues and tournaments still use) is even worse.

 

[JusticeNJ]

I also thought it was blatantly obvious as soon as I saw it, but you would be surprised by how many people on Facebook and YouTube think the laws of physics are different for pros because of their "quality stroke."

There's also the factor of "do I want to deal with 10 mins of arguing and get accused of 'pulling a move' by calling a foul?"

 

[dr_dave]

Shot 1, the Oi shot, is clearly a foul. I was shocked that a decent player like The_JV would get this one wrong as clear and obvious as it is, and equally or more shocked that dr_dave let himself get talked into calling this a good hit (or not enough evidence to call it bad) by The_JV when it is clearly bad.

I have never changed my "opinion" on this shot. I have always thought (and still think) it was a double-hit foul. However, IMO, there is not clear enough evidence to "call a foul" based on the original video with the limited overhead view. If a ref were watching from the side, I would think the call of a foul would have been easy to make.

Short version, here's your clear evidence. Oi didn't hit the shot nearly hard enough to cause the cue ball to jump forward that much off of the one ball. With that speed of hit the cue ball could only have gone forward that much from a double hit.

... unless he had his cue elevated more than you might think.

Longer version, here's the evidence:

---In Oi's shot the cue ball went forward a good half a ball. Oi didn't hit the cue ball nearly hard enough to jump high enough up on the one ball to allow it the correct angle to go forward that much, nor was it hard enough to retain enough energy after contact to continue up and forward that much regardless of where the one was hit either one. He would have had to hit that shot noticeably and substantially harder to get that cue ball action.

---We can see how hard Oi hit that shot with our own eyes, but more back up that it was a soft hit is that he had every reason to hit that shot as softly as possible (just like he did) so that the cue ball would draw back right away instead of traveling down the tangent line a little bit first like a harder shot speed or an airborne cue ball would have caused (which would have been highly detrimental to what he was trying to accomplish).

... elevating the cue more would also help create quick draw.

---Aside from a much firmer hit being needed for that cue ball action, a pretty high cue stick elevation would be required from that distance to get the cue ball up high enough on the one ball to go forward that much. Oi would have no reason to elevate that much on this shot.

If you look at his bridge hand in the video, it is possible he was elevated a lot more than you think.

---While the overhead angle makes it hard to tell much, there is no evidence of the cue ball getting airborne much if any really, nor of the cue ball bouncing, both of which you would really expect to be able to see even from this angle if the shot was hit hard enough to go forward that much from this distance, but you don't see either one of those things.

It seems like the CB is hopping to me.

---Dr. Dave didn't come remotely close to duplicating Oi's shot with a legal hit. On all of Dr. Dave's legal hits that were of reasonably similar speed to Oi, the cue ball never went forward more than about a quarter inch. That is not remotely close to what the ball did in Oi's shot, and in fact in only about 20% the forward movement Oi had. More forward movement would take a much harder hit.

---At 4:12 Dr. Dave hit one of his shots significantly harder than Oi hit his (roughly twice as hard). The cue ball still only goes forward about a quarter ball--only half the cue ball action with twice the shot speed.

All the evidence, and there is a decent amount of it, supports only one thing: double hit foul. But the shot speed alone makes it clear. Anybody with any experience can tell at first glance that the cue ball couldn't have gone that far forward with that shot speed. Not sure why a couple of people struggled on this one.

Again, I have the same "opinion" as you do, especially after reviewing all of my re-created shots. However, I still think it would not be appropriate to call a foul based on the limited overhead view in the original video footage.

Regardless, good analysis!

 

[The_JV]

Shot 1, the Oi shot, is clearly a foul. I was shocked that a decent player like The_JV would get this one wrong as clear and obvious as it is, and equally or more shocked that dr_dave let himself get talked into calling this a good hit (or not enough evidence to call it bad) by The_JV when it is clearly bad.

Short version, here's your clear evidence. Oi didn't hit the shot nearly hard enough to cause the cue ball to jump forward that much off of the one ball. With that speed of hit the cue ball could only have gone forward that much from a double hit.

Longer version, here's the evidence:

---In Oi's shot the cue ball went forward a good half a ball. Oi didn't hit the cue ball nearly hard enough to jump high enough up on the one ball to allow it the correct angle to go forward that much, nor was it hard enough to retain enough energy after contact to continue up and forward that much regardless of where the one was hit either one. He would have had to hit that shot noticeably and substantially harder to get that cue ball action.

---We can see how hard Oi hit that shot with our own eyes, but more substantiation that it was a soft hit is that he had every reason to hit that shot as softly as possible (just like he did) so that the cue ball would draw back right away instead of traveling down the tangent line a little bit first like a harder shot speed or an airborne cue ball would have caused (which would have been highly detrimental to what he was trying to accomplish).

---Aside from a much firmer hit being needed for that cue ball action, a pretty high cue stick elevation would be required from that distance to get the cue ball up high enough on the one ball to go forward that much. Oi would have no reason to elevate that much on this shot.

---While the overhead angle makes it hard to tell much with certainty, Oi does not appear to be elevated all that much when looking at the shot visually, and again he would have no reason to be, but it likely would have been required for the shot to have happened this way as a good hit.

---While the overhead angle makes it hard to tell much, there is no evidence of the cue ball getting airborne much if any really, nor of the cue ball bouncing, both of which you would really expect to be able to see even from this angle if the shot was hit hard enough to go forward that much from this distance, but you don't see either one of those things really which leads you to conclude they couldn't have been very consequential.

---Dr. Dave didn't come remotely close to duplicating Oi's shot with a legal hit. On all of Dr. Dave's legal hits that were of reasonably similar speed to Oi, the cue ball never went forward more than about a quarter inch. That is not remotely close to what the ball did in Oi's shot, and in fact in only about 20% the forward movement Oi had. More forward movement would take a much harder hit.

---At 4:12 Dr. Dave hit one of his shots significantly harder than Oi hit his (roughly twice as hard). The cue ball still only goes forward about a quarter ball--only half the cue ball action with twice the shot speed.

All the evidence, and there is a decent amount of it, supports only one thing: double hit foul. But the shot speed alone makes it clear. Anybody with any experience can tell at first glance that the cue ball couldn't have gone that far forward with that shot speed. Not sure why a couple of people struggled on this one.

It's cool to have a different opinion. Maybe my experience on the table has just led me to have a different understanding of what can happen on a table.

 

[dr_dave]

That Harriman shot is ridiculous, surely you must notice such a double hit as a player?

I also thought it was blatantly obvious as soon as I saw it, but you would be surprised by how many people on Facebook and YouTube think the laws of physics are different for pros because of their "quality stroke."

There's also the factor of "do I want to deal with 10 mins of arguing and get accused of 'pulling a move' by calling a foul?"

Good point!

 

[Poolplaya9]

I have never changed my "opinion" on this shot. I have always thought (and still think) it was a double-hit foul. However, IMO, there is not clear enough evidence to "call a foul" based on the original video with the limited overhead view. If a ref were watching from the side, I would think the call of a foul would have been easy to make.




... unless he had his cue elevated more than you might think.




... elevating the cue more would also help create quick draw.




If you look at his bridge hand in the video, it is possible he was elevated a lot more than you think.




It seems like the CB is hopping to me.




Again, I have the same "opinion" as you do, especially after reviewing all of my re-created shots. However, I still think it would not be appropriate to call a foul based on the limited overhead view in the original video footage.

Regardless, good analysis!

All things I considered. Even if all of those things are true, he didn't hit the shot with near enough speed to cause that cue ball action, and it wasn't even remotely close (by some multiple). The shot is clearly impossible at that speed (not can't tell, or unlikely, or super low chance, but clearly impossible to anyone with any experience), and as such the only appropriate call based on the video is foul (although live in the heat of the moment I could see some people getting it wrong in person, but nobody should be getting it wrong with the video and the ability to watch it more than once).

 

[dr_dave]

All things I considered. Even if all of those things are true, he didn't hit the shot with near enough speed to cause that cue ball action, and it wasn't even remotely close (by some multiple). The shot is clearly impossible at that speed (not can't tell, or unlikely, or super low chance, but clearly impossible to anyone with any experience), and as such the only appropriate call based on the video is foul (although live in the heat of the moment I could see some people getting it wrong in person, but nobody should be getting it wrong with the video and the ability to watch it more than once).

Again, good points, and I mostly agree. However, I still don't think the evidence is strong enough to call a foul based on the limited overhead-view video.

 

[dr_dave]

Again, good points, and I mostly agree. However, I still don't think the evidence is strong enough to call a foul based on the limited overhead-view video.

I certainly don't fault the referee for not calling this a foul live.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Again, good points, and I mostly agree. However, I still don't think the evidence is strong enough to call a foul based on the limited overhead-view video.

The angle of the view doesn't matter since you can tell the shot is impossible solely by the shot speed (it isn't even close), and the speed differences between what this was hit at and what would be required are so disparate that there is no chance that if you misjudged the speed of this hit (or the speed that would be required) that it could then be enough for putting it within the margin for error of being possible.

Again, anybody with any reasonable experience can look at the shot and know from the shot speed that it simply isn't possible and it isn't real close. I could see dogging this one in person, but nobody should be getting it wrong with the video.

 

[dr_dave]

The angle of the view doesn't matter since you can tell the shot is impossible solely by the shot speed (it isn't even close), and the speed differences between what this was hit at and what would be required are so disparate that there is no chance that if you misjudged the speed of this hit (or the speed that would be required) that it could then be enough for putting it within the margin for error of being possible.

Again, anybody with any reasonable experience can look at the shot and know from the shot speed that it simply isn't possible and it isn't real close. I could see dogging this one in person, but nobody should be getting it wrong with the video.

Again, you make good points, and I mostly agree. I still think the shot was a double hit foul, but I still don't think it is easy to call a foul from the limited evidence (especially if viewing the shot only once live).

 

[Poolplaya9]

Again, you make good points, and I mostly agree. I still think the shot was a double hit foul, but I still don't think it is easy to call a foul from the limited evidence (especially if viewing the shot only once live).

When you have all the evidence you need to make a clear and accurate determination it's pretty hard to categorize that as being limited evidence. We can see the shot speed, and we know that it isn't close to fast enough to make the shot possible. Case closed. This is in regard to being able to see the video that you can replay to verify the speed and think about things. In person the call could be dogged (it really shouldn't be but I could see it happening with some refs), but the video and shot speed make this one clear.

 

[dr_dave]

When you have all the evidence you need to make a clear and accurate determination it's pretty hard to categorize that as being limited evidence. We can see the shot speed, and we know that it isn't close to fast enough to make the shot possible. Case closed. This is in regard to being able to see the video that you can replay to verify the speed and think about things. In person the call could be dogged (it really shouldn't be but I could see it happening with some refs), but the video and shot speed make this one clear.

Agreed. From all the evidence, it looks like a foul. That's what I thought from the beginning, and that's what I still think. However, I still wouldn't call a foul on that shot during a match, watching it live (unless I had a view from the side where the evidence for a double hit was more clear based on the observed cue elevation, shot speed, amount of CB motion forward, sound of the hit, amount of CB hop, and reaction of the CB).

 

[Shuddy]

I hate silly rules like this. The old 45 degree cue elevation "double-hit free pass" rule (that some leagues and tournaments still use) is even worse.

Oh, you’d love playing Korea.

This? Foul. When I asked why, they said the tip can’t be neat the object ball. I pulled the cue back 10 cm and said, how about now? Confused looks everywhere.



I was once warned that if I didn’t up straight in my chair, I’d be disqualified from the tournament.

Shooter’s call when it comes to fouls. Had a guy play a jump shot, clearly bounced off the ball he was jumping, denied it. TD said it’s the shooter’s call. My next visit to the table I blatantly fouled, driving the cueball into a ball not on. Opponent picked up cue ball, I asked what he was doing, he said I fouled, I denied it, he looked puzzled, I said it’s the shooter’s call, and I didn’t see a foul. He stood there for about 10 seconds before I let him off the hook.

Very first tournament I played here, my Korean was basically non-existent. It was an 8 ball tournament. At the rules meeting, I specifically asked, with a friend translating for me, if fouls after the break were ball in hand anywhere or in the kitchen. TD says anywhere. I play the entire tournament with this rule. Get to the finals and I’m playing a pro. He scratches mid rack. I go to play ball in hand as I have been the entire tournament. The pro goes to the YD and tells him it has to be in the kitchen. TD tells me he’s a pro, so we have to defer to him (I BNR the next three racks to beat him, so a little satisfaction was had).

 

[alstl]

Filler shot. Filler broke. Illegal break. Cue ball stopped next to the 2. Shaw thinned the 2 into the 6 and sent the cue ball 2 rails up table. Not a foul Tabb was completely out of position to call the hit. Filler didn't think it was a foul and he was right.

They have banned Orcollo from coming to America. They should ban these English referees.