Видео

I would have to agree with you. He definitely knew what he was doing. But in his defence he can say that he's allowed to do a push shot because he was hitting a "very fine edge" of the object ball (this is actually in the rules) and as there is no definition in the rule book for a 'very fine edge' then he can literally say any angle is a very fine edge (loophole). No one in the world would agree with him of course. So it's only a foul if the referee says it is but it would appear she isn't even aware there's a problem. But you can't really blame her either because she obviously hasn't been trained properly on this part of the game. So, whoever is responsible for their training is to blame, ultimately.. So, long story short 🫤 we need a definition in the rule book for a 'very fine edge' and the refs need better training on push shots.

With a well-timed push, you can actually increase the spin on the ball. And believe you me 😊 Stuart knew full well what he was doing but because of the 'very fine edge' loophole he doesn't need to declare it (see my pinned comment).

@@PatrickRyan147 accusing Stuart of intentionally cheating is a pretty serious accusation.

​@@jakobjas4212I never said he cheated. I said it's a push. And Stuart would agree with me. But if Stuart believes that he hit a "very fine edge" of the object ball then he is actually allowed to do a push shot (Section 2,19(b) 2022 rule book) and so obviously be doesn't need to declare anything. It's only a foul if the referee says it is.

I understand what you're saying alright. And a literal push would have that effect. But this is a push as per the snooker definition: Cue contacts white exactly when white contacts the object ball. And because the second contact is brief then normal angle reactions apply..

You're wasting valuable cat video viewing time 🐱

The referee wasn't even aware that there was even a problem. And I have videos of Mark doing pushes so it would be a bit rich if he were to accuse any fellow player of the same. You live by the sword, etc., etc. And the commentators aren't gonna call it either. 1. It would be unprofessional. 2. It's not their job. And 3. They wouldn't be made feel very welcome in the player's lounges if they were to accuse them of cheating essentially. I can though. And it's funny you should say to replay the shot but with the cue-ball further away. To get the desired power into the back-spin you would have to put it further away alright or else do a push (second contact).. And the white should not follow the cue back exactly like that after hitting off two reds. That's a major clue that means the cue touched the white last: Double contact. Edit: You should try and imagine what the balls would do if he played it normally..

@@PatrickRyan147Do you play snooker? I’m sorry, but getting a double contact, adding more backspin with it, and coming back in a straight line after hitting a angle that is not full ball is an insensible notion. There are ways to spot double contacts but I can see you clearly don’t know them. Check Dr. Dave videos on it, he’s also a engineer and that should give you confidence. I know your intentions are good, but here’s the thing: most (emphasis on that) of the time people think they are the lone genius and all other people are wrong, is because they are the ones actually wrong. Hope you dedicate your time to something more productive. Cheers

​​​​@@tonicogsf"When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind." C.S. Lewis 😊 Someone else in the comments section made that same (incorrect) point as you: He said you can't make the cue-ball come straight back by hitting it when it's travelling in another direction. I say you can and this video is proof of that. This type of shot is very rare though. It's the only one I have. But I do have 3 videos where the player causes the ball to finish its travel moving forward alright. This is the only back-spin one. But if it can be done going forward then it can be done coming back. Great skill by Si btw 😊

Also, the second red moves far because you've underestimated just how thin these cuts are, meaning hardly any momentum is taken out of the cue ball for such a thin contact, leaving lots of momentum left for the second red. You also underestimated how fast these tables are especially going with the nap as the second red does. Heated tables aswell. It's perfectly plausible. Tell me something, is ANY of the countless videos you've uploaded have you ever admitted that you made a mistake? How plausible do you think it is that you, have been right 100% of the time, and EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON (including all professional referees) has ALWAYS been wrong? Don't you ever just kinda have a look and think "hmmm perhaps I'm the odd one out here?" You seem arrogantly sure you are always right yet seen to possess some fundamental misunderstandings on the physics of snooker and the effects of the conditions of pro tables.

Leo wasn't wrong here. That would involve him being aware that there was a problem in the first place. People often ask me what makes me more qualified than senior referees to analyse these push shots. Well, I am an ex-engineer with an interest in physics. Leo's an ex-cop (and Rob Spencer). And that's not me being arrogant. I'm just stating facts.. bluntly, lol. When I see the balls behave like this then it gives me the confidence to be blunt. Taking the super-fine cloths and the heaters into account, the white and the second red do not behave in a fashion that is consistent with a normal shot. But they do behave in a fashion that is very much consistent with a double contact, the second contact being an extended push on the second red. I try not to rely too much on slow motion and sounds because - believe it or not - I'm actually trying to help the referees. They don't have slow motion and sounds can vary. That's why I'm always advising them to use my simple A>B=Double Contact formula (see previous few videos). But that's not very practical in a back-spin situation like this. So, I say just study the balls' reactions before calling the score. Anticipation is key. Si needed to get position on the black and the way the balls were positioned a push was very much 'on the cards.' I know it's tough on referees. These players are so good it's like magic what they can do.. but there are blatant 'smoking gun' clues that should make it easier: And the white coming back in line with the cue is huge..

😅 Finally!! It's official.. I've got the paperwork

I think I was in my mid 20's when my friend told me that he gets darker in the summer (he's Indian). I never realised that. You tan essentially, same as us.

You're right. It's a double contact foul 👍

Well, this is a double contact really, between cue-tip and cue-ball, which is now considered a separate foul to a push in the updated 2022 rule-book (push: Cue contacts white exactly when white contacts the object ball, which was not the case here).

It's a double contact actually. You have to ask yourself why does the cue-ball end up traveling back in exactly the same direction as the cue? Backspin was applied to the white. The white sent the first red to the pocket then cannoned the 2nd red and then 'miraculously' it travels back in exactly the same path as the cue.. out of a possible 180 degrees, that's the one angle it picks. The reason why is because the last thing to touch the white was the cue - not the first red - or the second red - but the cue for an extended second contact on the second red. (This all happens in a split second of course, so fast my rubbish slo-mo didn't capture it, lol.) That's why it followed the cue back. That's a double contact between cue-tip and cue-ball. Foul!

​@@PatrickRyan147Your logic would only apply if he hit one of those balls plain-ball, but neither was a full ball contact. At an angle like that a push shot won't make the white travel back in a straight line. You can try it for yourself. You can make it go *forward* in a straight line if you push right through the shot, but not back. The reason it came back in a straight line was purely because of the cannon.

​@@zcklsYou make a good point.. which I can't prove, lol. I don't have access to a table atm. You are right though that you can make the white go forward alright with a well-timed second contact (I have 3 different videos with that exact shot up on the channel). (I bet I could do it with back-spin as well though, lol.) But it's like this.. when I see the white come straight back like that after hitting off two reds then my suspicions are raised. But the clincher has to be the abnormal movement of the second red. It seems to get a lot of extra power from somewhere. And that can only be from a second contact push situation: Cue contacts white for a second time exactly when white contacts the second red and sends it flying.. Lemon entry 🍋 my dear Watson 😊

@@PatrickRyan147 I recommend finding a table and giving it a try. I guarantee that you will not be able to get the cue ball to come straight back unless you are full ball, no matter how blatantly you push it. It's just not physically possible.

You can actually do both. You can cancel the back-spin but you can also increase the back-spin with a double contact. It just depends on timing. A good analogy is when a basketball player starts spinning a basketball on his finger. Each time he thwacks the ball with his other hand, he increases the spin. But if he were to touch the ball with a stationary hand then he would cancel the spin. The slow motion in the video is terrible. There are missing frames that would show further back-spin being applied with the second contact. The referees don't have the facility of slow motion video footage so they have to use the reactions of the balls as clues.. and the fact that the white spins back in exactly the same direction as the cue (after contacting two other balls) means the last thing to contact the white was the cue and not the 2nd red. This is proof of a double contact.

It's actually a double contact with an extended second contact (between cue-tip and cue-ball) when the white contacts the second red. We know this happened because the cue-ball ends up traveling back in exactly the same direction as the cue? Backspin was applied to the white. The white sent the first red to the pocket then cannoned the 2nd red and then 'miraculously' it travels back in exactly the same path as the cue.. out of a possible 180 degrees, that's the one angle it picks. The reason why is because the last thing to touch the white was the cue - not the first red - or the second red - but the cue for an extended second contact on the second red. That's why it followed the cue back. That's a double contact between cue-tip and cue-ball. Foul!

It's definitely a double contact because of 'physics' (A>B=double contact).. and because the ball went in the hole then that means the second contact has to be a push. Otherwise the ball wouldn't go in the hole. The timing would be off. It's very simple physics..

Nah, you can't go by that slow motion footage. The frame rate is too low.. and there must be missing frames too. Besides, the referees don't have that facility. They have to look at how the balls react. The white and the second red: Are their reactions consistent with a normal shot or a double contact? I would say the latter..

@@PatrickRyan147 1- The cue ball hits the object ball. 2- After this first hit, the cue ball changes slightly its direction and hits the other red.

​​@@BC-1Right so! Why does the cue-ball end up traveling back in exactly the same direction as the cue? Backspin was applied to the white. The white sent the first red to the pocket then cannoned the 2nd red and then 'miraculously' it travels back in exactly the same path as the cue.. out of a possible 180 degrees, that's the one angle it picks. Can you please explain that without using the word "coincidence." The reason why is because the last thing to touch the white was the cue - not the first red - or the second red - but the cue for an extended second contact on the second red. That's why it followed the cue back. Double contact! Foul!

It is a double contact (see my pinned comment) and in the new rule-book (2022) hitting the cue-ball more than once in the same stroke is officially a foul..

@@PatrickRyan147 i know what a double contact is, i’m saying this isn’t one.

​​@@scottleicester4266fair enough.. do you not think the white and 2nd red act abnormally for a normal shot..

@@PatrickRyan147 not at all, even on the super slow mo 🤷🏼‍♂️

​@@PatrickRyan147you're right, that second red should have only moved a few inches and the white too. It's obvs from a second contact.

To be fair, I don't think any ref would have spotted that. I've been doing this for a year now and that's the first one like this that I've seen. But saying that - sorry Leo - he's one of the worst. It's like the players know. They can get away with the most obvious pushes with him.. whereas they're more cautious with Olivier and Paul (retired now)..

At the risk of sounding sexist, I don't think any of the female referees would spot that either. Paul Collier would though. That second red moved way too much for a normal shot.

Thanks for the visit

It's actually very difficult to see a push/double contact with the naked eye, even with slow motion and enlargement. So thank God for physics 😊: A>B=double contact (please see my pinned comment for more details).

I don't think I'm mentally ill. I think I have quite a good grip on reality, usually. Now please correct me if I'm wrong: The sky is a projected image based on a simulation and the wider universe doesn't exist in reality. But we're real 🤓

I agree it would be very difficult to call alright in a live situation because Stuart quickly withdraws the cue immediately after the shot. If the referee had spotted this and was aware that this is only ever done to disguise a push then be could have called it. To avoid the push you stop the cue dead.. not quickly withdraw it. Btw, I believe a push/double contact would give you more control. You just have to practice them 😊

He clearly does not withdraw his cue quickly. That's simply nonsense.

Slowing this down exaggerates your imagination. Most cue strokes push through the cue to get action and that was a smooth piece of cueing

​​@@Mr2013_It was definitely a smooth piece of cueing alright 😊

​​@@KekuahiwiIn the graphic at the end we can clearly see him pull his cue back around an inch after the shot 🤓