@@191246mann1 Sry, but I think you are wrong, because to my knowledge the rules say, if its too "close to call", then the call has to be "correct shot".
@@Nagash-ol3oe yes I am working from the old rules when I did some reffing it may well have changed to the other way round now but it makes little difference as it is up to the ref to say too close to call and then do it your way ,,,and not to have all this arguing about it.,,too close to call is the end of it your way or mine.,,,thanks for the reply.
can it not hit both? the trajectory of red and pink are expected, so it seems to slot perfectly into both balls. dont see why its anymore complicated than this conclusion given how the other TWO balls behave
That's what I thought too, the distance would only be relevant if the white ball hit both balls at the same angle. Then you'd be able to derive which ball got struck first by the distance the balls moved as it transfers more energy in the first than the second. But here all we have to look at is the frame by frame replay, you can see how the red ball gets deflected in the frame that shows impact with both balls. It goes down, then right, then down again
You don't lose a title match on one ball. I'm sure Williams was disappointed, but he had other chances which he didn't take and Selby won fair and square. It was a tough call for the ref under pressure, but he made the right decision. Interesting analysis in the end about the path of the white after hit and the imaginary blue ball. Nice edit
The ref called the foul and accepted the player's confirmation ...he then changed his mind. He isn't allowed to revisit his decision. If a player concedes a frame he can't change his mind
That is Mark Williams' usual problem. He's simply a very emotional man and any dramatic moment in a game can derail him. That's why he blows it so often when it comes to some important and dramatic moments. But I don't see anything bad in this. Williams is a grandmaster of snooker and I always will be fascinated by his game. And he did the right thing in the end. Just had to be more focused.
I, for one, believe that it hit the red first...and it was certainly not that call which cost Mark Williams the match....more like that miss on the easy green!
@@ehsnils Or have an idea how newtonian laws work :) How would it be possible for cue to first hit pink, bounce back to hit the red so that the red deflects in about 90 degree angle and then keep trailing the pink?
Dafydd, Laziness on your part to pick two pool balls to represent the game of snooker. 😜 .................................................................. 🏐 🌝 🏀 🍀 🌎 🧠 👹 🍎🚫 🛑🔞🔴 🍓🚗🧲㊙️ ⭕️⛔️❤️🌺🍅 ⚫️ ..................................................................
@@chakko007 Well ofcourse he hit red first.. Why is this even a debate? If he would have hit pink first and the cue trailed the pink, what was the force that made the red ball move???
Williams has no one to blame but himself. Apart from missing the green, he’s the one that called for a review (which the ref retracted) when the ref already made the call.
Clearly red first. Look at the frame just before contact. The white is going to hit pink slightly under half ball. The angle the pink travels in is straighter than expected because it has been hit fuller thanks to the deviation caused by the red. Also, had the cueball hit the pink first, the red would've gone on an angle more to the left.
Instead of watching the pink and the red, watch the white. When it contacts the pink, you can see in its shadow that it is no longer on a straight line, but turned away from the red. That can only be the case if it contacted the red first.
I didn't know of this incident and stumbled across it after a typical RUclips recommendation spree. And honestly even after just 2 replays you can already see that it hit the red first, especially with the top down view stopped at 2:15. The exact straight line of the white ball HAS to hit the red first, and the way the red started moving just a fraction of a second before the pink clearly shows that. The path the red took after getting hit also speaks for a direct hit, just as the path of the white does, even in the first 2 slow-mos. It's of course a close call if done live, but honestly not really a controversy with the replays we have here avaible, at least in my personal opinion.
On the 1/4 replay put the youtube play speed to 0.25, can clearly see it hit the red first however still a difficult call to make on the spot in 2011, how used to 4k 60fps have we gotten.
Definitely clear on 0.25 speed that the cue ball struck red first. Even at normal speed you can clearly see the trajectory of the cue ball by the trailing images (e.g., @ 5:20), and on that path it will strike red first. This is confirmed by the subtle, but definite, change in direction (i.e., up table) that the cue ball takes upon initial contact .
Forget the slomo.. Just think.. Would it be possible for the cue to hit pink first, then red considering the trajectories of the balls? How would the cue first hit pink then bouce back to hit the red so that the red goes off in about 90 degree angle and after that hit still trail the pink?
8:00 Arguably the most outrageous 'getting out of a snooker and putting your opponent in a snooker' shot in the history of the sport? Quite incredible.
Since the direct trajectory makes it hit the red, and the pink position is right of a line 90º perpendicular of that trajectory across the red, it is mathematically impossible to hit the pink first. Pretty intuitive to me.
Red first... Watch the zoomed in, slo-mo...the angle of the white changes from its approach angle and can only be caused by hitting the red before it hit the pink...!
The cue ball clearly has been deflected to the left (relative to the direction of motion) in the moment between frames, which can only have happened if it hit the red first. I hope they have high frame rate cameras over the table these days so this isn't an issue.
If it hit the two at the same time, it still would have been a foul as if it had hit the pink first. That is a general rule in all billiard-like games. Hitting two balls with a different color simultaneously means you have hit the wrong ball first. If in 8-ball you hit the black and another full color (like 4 for instance) or any stripe, it's a foul. If you hit a full and a stripe (1 and 9) it's a foul again, except if you have no color chosen/no ball potted yet. If in 9-ball you hit 1 and 3 simultaneously, even during the break, it's a foul.
I'm inclined to say red first, but I'm glad I wasn't the one having to decide. Perhaps high-speed and high-resolution cameras can be used in future games. There will still be edge cases, but certainly fewer of them.
Yup, hit the red first. I'm Welsh and a pool player, so I like both Selby and Williams. Edit: However Williams, by contesting this so vehemently, has clearly wrecked his own mind-set. Sometimes it's better to get on with it.
if pink was hit first, the white ball would lose almost all of its energy and will not have sufficient power to hit and move the red ball that far away. Red was hit first.
The Ref was correct. I was convinced the pink was hit first until the super slow mo. Only the Ref with years experience could be so right being so close.
I do think you can determine it hit the red another way. the three frames you have to work with show enough that you can tell the 2nd frame is not capture backwards movement of the cueball. The balls are not in a simultaneous contact position, the pink is far enough away along the trajectory of the red that once the cueball hits the pink it's past the closest point on the red ball. So for the red ball to be in motion and not hit first it would have to be off rebound form pink. This is just my take. Interesting controversy though.
Hard to tell, but you can see in that one last frame before the cue ball loses nearly all of its velocity, there's just a slight change in trajectory showing that it hit the red first.
The overhead camera shows it clearly... if you can freeze the shot just before it connects, it becomes clear that it would not be possible to hit the pink first from that point about 3 inches out from the contact. The referee has to go with what he sees though as it is almost impossible to tell at full speed.
Your expample with the direction of the white ball is perfect. For me in over 25 years of playing a lot of Snooker and Pool, the only way to know which ball is hit first is normaly the direction of the white ball. Furthermore there are two little things to mention. First, one object (white ball) can never ever hit two other objects (pink and red) at the same time - thats not possible - physic ! There will be one object hit first, even if ever so slightly and not seeable for our eyes, but simultaniously is not possible. Second, if the umpire cant decide it, it should go to the "shooter" and it that case is "no foul", at least thats what the rules say to my knowledge.
2 objects can be hit at the same time, are you crazy? For it to hit the first atom of red and the first atom of pink simultaneously is extremely unlikely but it is by no means theoretically impossible.
If both balls were dead in line with each other and the white ball was approaching both of them it is possible to it both balls at the exact same time.
However in this case the red was hit first and it’s very unusual to have both balls exactly set bang in line with each other but it is possible to hit both ball simultaneously at the same time so I’m going to disagree with you there
To hit both balls exactly at the same time in the white ball would have to bounce off the cushion at a different angle and both the red and the pink would have to be set at a different angle than what shown here but it is absolutely possible to hit two balls exactly at the same time I can guarantee you that but I’ve never seen it happen in a game of snooker because it’s a very rare thing and if it did happen then the referee would have a major problem because I don’t know how you would sort that one out but my feeling is it wouldn’t be a foul as you hit the red and the pink at the same time so the referee I think would give it as you hit the red and if it hits the pink exactly the same time then it’s not really a human error because there was just both it’s exactly the same time and you can’t do nothing about that
It said on the screen" a simultaneous contact would favour Williams". It is absolutely possible to hit two balls at the same time. This hit the red first.
Red first. The motion blur shows that the path of the white slightly changes before it could have hit the pink, because of the direction the line of the white changes. Before contact: perfect straight white motion blur, next frame the line changes slighty in the "up the table" direction. That would not be possible if it hit the pink first.
I would argue that it must have hit red first because given that the red was in front of the pink from the perspective of the white , if the white had hit the pink first, the red would either had been missed entirely or at least pushed into an entirely different direction (angle). I think one can also see that the red is hit a tiny fraction of a second before the pink,
The imaginary blue ball shows that even if he had hit the pink first, the red could still have followed the path it took. That's why I say the direction of the red doesn't give many clues.
Definitely hit the red first. The red could only move if hit by the white and the way the suite was moving means it had to have hit the red to keep going in the direction it did?
Logically speaking there shouldn't be any confusion, with the trajectory of the shot the red was in front of the pink, if; in another identical scenario, he had to play the pink he would've had to miss the red completely
@@johnpol41 eyes can trick you he hit the red so thin and the pink full ball that it will look like he hit pink ball first it's the red ball that move first imo
@@johnpol41 red was hit so thin while pink ball was hit full ball your eyes can trick you into thinking that it hit pink ball first which is not in this case
The red definitely moved first, there isn't any question in my mind.....Slow down youtube to 0.25 while they slow their vid down.....clear as a bell...red first
I'm here because some sad individual appears to have hacked Mark Selby's youtube account and changed the title of several of his videos to include the word cheat. I am a huge Mark Williams fan, my favourite player. However I have to say this was red first, Selby didn't cheat and the fool who has done the hacking should be ashamed of himself.
In the overhead shot it clearly hits the red first. You can see from the incoming angle of the white, if it hit the pink first it would have pushed the pink more toward the side pocket. But since the white deflected lightly off the red, the pink went a different direction.
I slowed it down as slow as possible as not to loose the frame when contact was made, In my opinion it was ever so slightly red first... but what does my opinion count for
It hit the red first. In the frame just after collision red is displaced more than the pink. But pink is clearly faster later on, so, red must have moved first.
I think it's the red. The cue ball changes direction, hence it looks angled on the hit between the red and the pink! Because the cue ball changed trajectory after hitting the red!
Very interesting. Selby hit the cue ball and hoped for the best as O'Sullivan did in WSC 2020 SF. Where is the excuse for being "disrespectful"? Jester my a.s
Very hard to determine. Probably Williams thought the red was hitted first, since the path of the red could also be read as if the cue had bounced after hitting the pink. Unfortunately, those replays quality isn't as clear as today's. But, after checking the replays, it does seems that the referee made the right choice.
The red moved, so he hit the red. And given how the balls were placed, the red HAD to be hit first for it to move at all since there wasn't a back effect given by Selby to the white. SCIENCE, MATHS
The fact that the pink moved further is irrelevant; the red ball was only clipped sightly on the edge whereas the pink was hit fuller. It was RED FIRST...
I believe it touched the red first and I despise Mark Selby. I'd say the issue is really about not having a laser based system to track the position of the balls with micrometric precision at least 120 times per second
I think it hit the red first. I think the ref made the right decision to change his mind. No bias here either as I like to watch both of these players. Mark Williams is probably my favourite player but I think the right decision was made here.
It’s mathematical impossible for the white ball to have hit the pink first. If it had hit them simultaneously it would have had to impact along a path perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the red and the pink. The approach path was clearly to the left of that.
100% hit the red looks at it in slow motion read is close to the clue balls pathway and the white ball slowly shifts in direction once passing the red meaning it sliced the read first but the power of the shot impacts the pink ball
If the pink is placed AFTER the red on the cue ball trajectory, AND the red is moving, AND the cue ball continues her way, SO the red is touched first, it is impossible for the red to move if the pink is touched first, it is physically impossible for the red to give energy to the cue ball to keep going like that, end of neverending debate.
Red first I think - if it'd been pink first the red would've moved at a different angle. Also the pink movement would have gone further at the first freeze-frame after contact.
the angle that its coming from, the fact the red ball moved means it was the red that was hit first. no doubt. pink ball was the direct path but further away
Hmm the angle of the hit would indicate the red was closer to the white ball. The way it was struck tends to imply the red should never have moved at all knowing the cue ball moves forward in the second afterwards. I deduce the white was struck first the red second and the pink last. Excellent escape. Play on
Red first, but when it's by a margin so slight that it evades the 25fps(?) of the TV cameras.... I think it's fair to call that as simultaneous contact. What's the solution? I guess, either have a super-high fps & resolution overhead camera with footage available for review at any time, or train up a machine learning model on thousands of hours of previous footage which could bump up the resolution and framerate on demand. About time Nvidia partnered up with snooker! ;)
Wasn't that slight though Marky, clearly hit the red first, I get peoples eyes and judgement are different but. Sure, wasn't a obvious hit but still, very noticable
Cue ball's trajectory is slightly different when striking the pink ball, so must have ht the red ball first (unless there was also some debris on the cloth?... Doubtful.)
I was going to say, this would be solved 100% if they hadn't used such low quality cameras, but then I saw that the match was over a decade ago, and its possible that was about the best they could have gotten at the time. As it is, at about 4:05 I'm pretty sure it's slightly visible in the "tracer" of the cue ball, that the angle slightly changes in the frame before and after in such a way that it only could have happened if it hit the red on the way past to hit the pink.
@@normanno8514 It's a close call for sure and the enlarged picture blurs it even more but what it shows is the red begin to move one frame earlier than the pink. Also, look at the trajectory of the red. If it was pink first the red would not have taken that path and remember that even if it was red and pink at precisely the same time, it's still a foul.
@@kiwicalibre I have no doubt that he hit the red first - im just saying that the frame speed is too slow to definitively say - and that blowing it up doesnt really alter that
It shows that the red was hit first. Plaudids for Williams though, who didn't believe it. If only we could see this level of sportsmanship in other sports too. I'm looking at you, David Goffin! (Once in a game between him and Federer Goffin hit a winner after the ball bounced twice. Federer admitted the foul, but the referee was sure there was no second bounce, even if the replays showed it very clearly. Eventually Goffin won the match.)
This is a close call. The white brushed the red before hitting the pink. If you look at the direction of white, The white was never gonna hit the pink full ball with out brushing the red. For me, it's clearly not a faul.
1:02 Selby's shot
3:34 Replay 3: slow motion
4:58 Replay 4: zoomed-in
6:18 Analysis
7:53 More drama
-makes little difference who is right or wrong if the ref is in doubt like it was too close to call it's foul.
@@191246mann1 Sry, but I think you are wrong, because to my knowledge the rules say, if its too "close to call", then the call has to be "correct shot".
@@Nagash-ol3oe yes I am working from the old rules when I did some reffing it may well have changed to the other way round now but it makes little difference as it is up to the ref to say too close to call and then do it your way ,,,and not to have all this arguing about it.,,too close to call is the end of it your way or mine.,,,thanks for the reply.
@@Nagash-ol3oe snooker cannot and should not be allowed to go down this path especially with today’s technology
What's the ending music though? Do not miss that.
I have to disagree with everyone, he definitely hit the white ball first.
You're what in Wales we would call, "A funny f^cker." Lol.
😆
hahjahjahahahaahhahah
@@neilgriffiths6427 Fine with that mate...I've been called plenty worse! Haha :D
Very funny from any country , ,
The change in trajectory says it all, it hit the red first no doubt.
You’re absolutely right.would he hit the pink first the white wouldn’t kept moving so much
Play back at .25 speed; watch with your own eyes, it hit the red first.
Exactly, you can see the white move to the left after hitting red.
Wow I thought pink first then thought red first. Then back to pink first. Then hit red sending it moving. But tbh it's a close one.
The angle proves it hit red first.
A very close call indeed, but I think it hit the red first by the tiniest of margins. Fascinating video.
Exactly, you can tell by the trajectory of the red.
can it not hit both? the trajectory of red and pink are expected, so it seems to slot perfectly into both balls. dont see why its anymore complicated than this conclusion given how the other TWO balls behave
5:23 The fact that the pink moved further proves nothing as it was struck with a more powerful direct blow as opposed to the glancing blow to the red.
That's what I thought too, the distance would only be relevant if the white ball hit both balls at the same angle. Then you'd be able to derive which ball got struck first by the distance the balls moved as it transfers more energy in the first than the second.
But here all we have to look at is the frame by frame replay, you can see how the red ball gets deflected in the frame that shows impact with both balls. It goes down, then right, then down again
It definitely hit the red first. Watch it at quarter speed and it's pretty clear
You don't lose a title match on one ball. I'm sure Williams was disappointed, but he had other chances which he didn't take and Selby won fair and square. It was a tough call for the ref under pressure, but he made the right decision. Interesting analysis in the end about the path of the white after hit and the imaginary blue ball. Nice edit
Actually it's very possible to win or lose a title on one ball.
World championship final 1985!
😂
@@nikkip3385 hendry v williams masters final also.
After the zoom that looks like simultaneous contact which is a foul.
The ref called the foul and accepted the player's confirmation ...he then changed his mind. He isn't allowed to revisit his decision. If a player concedes a frame he can't change his mind
That is Mark Williams' usual problem. He's simply a very emotional man and any dramatic moment in a game can derail him. That's why he blows it so often when it comes to some important and dramatic moments. But I don't see anything bad in this. Williams is a grandmaster of snooker and I always will be fascinated by his game. And he did the right thing in the end. Just had to be more focused.
I, for one, believe that it hit the red first...and it was certainly not that call which cost Mark Williams the match....more like that miss on the easy green!
I agree - the red is a lot closer to the path, but to get proof you'd need a slow motion camera.
Yes on both counts
Should be the ref's decision not the other player
But was the green a kick? It seems so, since Selby asked for it to be cleaned then.
@@ehsnils Or have an idea how newtonian laws work :) How would it be possible for cue to first hit pink, bounce back to hit the red so that the red deflects in about 90 degree angle and then keep trailing the pink?
Red ball first thanks to the slow mo. Would just hate to be the ref when incidents like this happen 🎱🎱
At least he got it right in the end.
Dafydd, Laziness on your part to pick two pool balls to represent the game of snooker. 😜
..................................................................
🏐
🌝 🏀 🍀
🌎
🧠
👹
🍎🚫
🛑🔞🔴
🍓🚗🧲㊙️
⭕️⛔️❤️🌺🍅
⚫️
..................................................................
I'd say that he hit the red first as well. But, if you need half a dozen replays, and still can't be sure, then I don't blame the ref at all...
@@chakko007 Well ofcourse he hit red first.. Why is this even a debate? If he would have hit pink first and the cue trailed the pink, what was the force that made the red ball move???
@Quentin Styger Yep.
It hit the red first for sure. And I like both players.
It was red first
Williams has no one to blame but himself. Apart from missing the green, he’s the one that called for a review (which the ref retracted) when the ref already made the call.
No good deed goes unpunished
Good sportsmanship from Mark Williams. A win based on a questionable decision is tainted anyway.
Clearly red first. Look at the frame just before contact. The white is going to hit pink slightly under half ball. The angle the pink travels in is straighter than expected because it has been hit fuller thanks to the deviation caused by the red. Also, had the cueball hit the pink first, the red would've gone on an angle more to the left.
Instead of watching the pink and the red, watch the white. When it contacts the pink, you can see in its shadow that it is no longer on a straight line, but turned away from the red. That can only be the case if it contacted the red first.
cesar not only edits beautifully, but his introductions are beautiful to read.
I didn't know of this incident and stumbled across it after a typical RUclips recommendation spree. And honestly even after just 2 replays you can already see that it hit the red first, especially with the top down view stopped at 2:15. The exact straight line of the white ball HAS to hit the red first, and the way the red started moving just a fraction of a second before the pink clearly shows that. The path the red took after getting hit also speaks for a direct hit, just as the path of the white does, even in the first 2 slow-mos. It's of course a close call if done live, but honestly not really a controversy with the replays we have here avaible, at least in my personal opinion.
On the 1/4 replay put the youtube play speed to 0.25, can clearly see it hit the red first however still a difficult call to make on the spot in 2011, how used to 4k 60fps have we gotten.
Definitely clear on 0.25 speed that the cue ball struck red first. Even at normal speed you can clearly see the trajectory of the cue ball by the trailing images (e.g., @ 5:20), and on that path it will strike red first. This is confirmed by the subtle, but definite, change in direction (i.e., up table) that the cue ball takes upon initial contact .
Forget the slomo.. Just think.. Would it be possible for the cue to hit pink first, then red considering the trajectories of the balls? How would the cue first hit pink then bouce back to hit the red so that the red goes off in about 90 degree angle and after that hit still trail the pink?
8:00
Arguably the most outrageous 'getting out of a snooker and putting your opponent in a snooker' shot in the history of the sport? Quite incredible.
Unreal, hidden amongst the drama
Since the direct trajectory makes it hit the red, and the pink position is right of a line 90º perpendicular of that trajectory across the red, it is mathematically impossible to hit the pink first. Pretty intuitive to me.
Agreed. The trajectory the cue ball was on it was impossible to hit the pink first
Red first, then smashes into pink.
the sound says it all. if the small amplitude is before the big, then red contact first.
Red first... Watch the zoomed in, slo-mo...the angle of the white changes from its approach angle and can only be caused by hitting the red before it hit the pink...!
05:10 on the zoom you can barely see the direction of the white ball being changed by the hit on the red. So for me it hits the red first.
The way you worded that sounds like it contradicts itself lol
@@lx3469 replace barely with slightly
I think that shot is very disrespectful.
Not when he plays it apparently .
Why?
@@PointNemo9 O'Sullivan v Selby Semi Final 2020 World Championship Snooker. It's sarcasm
Mark Williams was right to call a review, I'm sure he wanted to win fair and square, not take advantage of possible human error.
The cue ball moves to the right after contact which means it hit red first. it brushes the red, moving it to the right while hitting the pink.
5:11 What can be used as a clue is the deviation of white's path. If you see carefully, its deviation can be only explained if it hit red first.
Thats a good call.
Deffo hit red first
The cue ball clearly has been deflected to the left (relative to the direction of motion) in the moment between frames, which can only have happened if it hit the red first. I hope they have high frame rate cameras over the table these days so this isn't an issue.
Yup, you can see this if you put the video on 0.25 speed and watch the replay. The red definitely moves first
Has anyone thought it could of hit the two at the same time?
If it hit the two at the same time, it still would have been a foul as if it had hit the pink first. That is a general rule in all billiard-like games. Hitting two balls with a different color simultaneously means you have hit the wrong ball first. If in 8-ball you hit the black and another full color (like 4 for instance) or any stripe, it's a foul. If you hit a full and a stripe (1 and 9) it's a foul again, except if you have no color chosen/no ball potted yet. If in 9-ball you hit 1 and 3 simultaneously, even during the break, it's a foul.
I'm inclined to say red first, but I'm glad I wasn't the one having to decide. Perhaps high-speed and high-resolution cameras can be used in future games. There will still be edge cases, but certainly fewer of them.
Yup, hit the red first. I'm Welsh and a pool player, so I like both Selby and Williams. Edit: However Williams, by contesting this so vehemently, has clearly wrecked his own mind-set. Sometimes it's better to get on with it.
if pink was hit first, the white ball would lose almost all of its energy and will not have sufficient power to hit and move the red ball that far away.
Red was hit first.
"Mark was convinced that it hit the pink and the other mark said..." 😂😂
The rules are clear, if you cant tell for sure it was a foul, it should be treated like a corect shot.
The Ref was correct. I was convinced the pink was hit first until the super slow mo. Only the Ref with years experience could be so right being so close.
I do think you can determine it hit the red another way. the three frames you have to work with show enough that you can tell the 2nd frame is not capture backwards movement of the cueball. The balls are not in a simultaneous contact position, the pink is far enough away along the trajectory of the red that once the cueball hits the pink it's past the closest point on the red ball. So for the red ball to be in motion and not hit first it would have to be off rebound form pink. This is just my take. Interesting controversy though.
If you don't have video playback, don't request it to be watched back. That green was criminal though. What a shot to get behind the black though!
Look at the trajectory of the cue ball. It was impossible for it to hit the pink first
Hard to tell, but you can see in that one last frame before the cue ball loses nearly all of its velocity, there's just a slight change in trajectory showing that it hit the red first.
I checked and the world did not end because of this call.
The overhead camera shows it clearly... if you can freeze the shot just before it connects, it becomes clear that it would not be possible to hit the pink first from that point about 3 inches out from the contact. The referee has to go with what he sees though as it is almost impossible to tell at full speed.
Selby did a good job talking the referee out of his initial decision
It was the right decision so it was right to request a better judgement!
Your expample with the direction of the white ball is perfect. For me in over 25 years of playing a lot of Snooker and Pool, the only way to know which ball is hit first is normaly the direction of the white ball. Furthermore there are two little things to mention. First, one object (white ball) can never ever hit two other objects (pink and red) at the same time - thats not possible - physic ! There will be one object hit first, even if ever so slightly and not seeable for our eyes, but simultaniously is not possible. Second, if the umpire cant decide it, it should go to the "shooter" and it that case is "no foul", at least thats what the rules say to my knowledge.
2 objects can be hit at the same time, are you crazy? For it to hit the first atom of red and the first atom of pink simultaneously is extremely unlikely but it is by no means theoretically impossible.
If both balls were dead in line with each other and the white ball was approaching both of them it is possible to it both balls at the exact same time.
However in this case the red was hit first and it’s very unusual to have both balls exactly set bang in line with each other but it is possible to hit both ball simultaneously at the same time so I’m going to disagree with you there
To hit both balls exactly at the same time in the white ball would have to bounce off the cushion at a different angle and both the red and the pink would have to be set at a different angle than what shown here but it is absolutely possible to hit two balls exactly at the same time I can guarantee you that but I’ve never seen it happen in a game of snooker because it’s a very rare thing and if it did happen then the referee would have a major problem because I don’t know how you would sort that one out but my feeling is it wouldn’t be a foul as you hit the red and the pink at the same time so the referee I think would give it as you hit the red and if it hits the pink exactly the same time then it’s not really a human error because there was just both it’s exactly the same time and you can’t do nothing about that
It said on the screen" a simultaneous contact would favour Williams". It is absolutely possible to hit two balls at the same time. This hit the red first.
Red first. The motion blur shows that the path of the white slightly changes before it could have hit the pink, because of the direction the line of the white changes. Before contact: perfect straight white motion blur, next frame the line changes slighty in the "up the table" direction.
That would not be possible if it hit the pink first.
The ref wants sacking he said he thought the red moved first so he should not change his mind on what the other player said. IS HE THE REF OR NOT ?
I would argue that it must have hit red first because given that the red was in front of the pink from the perspective of the white , if the white had hit the pink first, the red would either had been missed entirely or at least pushed into an entirely different direction (angle). I think one can also see that the red is hit a tiny fraction of a second before the pink,
It has to be red first. The motion blur of the white clearly shows a deviation in a direction only explained by red contact BEFORE the pink
I’ll join in the discussion.
If the cue ball had hot the pink first, the red would have had a different trajectory. Simple physics.
The imaginary blue ball shows that even if he had hit the pink first, the red could still have followed the path it took. That's why I say the direction of the red doesn't give many clues.
Definitely hit the red first. The red could only move if hit by the white and the way the suite was moving means it had to have hit the red to keep going in the direction it did?
Logically speaking there shouldn't be any confusion, with the trajectory of the shot the red was in front of the pink, if; in another identical scenario, he had to play the pink he would've had to miss the red completely
I thought the pink for sure, but in the replay it does appear that the cue ball does redirect off the red ever so slightly.
I'm not sure I understand why Mark Williams kept arguing it. He thought it hit the pink first and Selby was happy to concede the foul
Yet Selby was crying about Ronnie "hitting the ball at 100 mph" to get out of snookers in last years WC semi-final 🤔
100% i agree with you
Rent free in Ronnie fanboy heads!
Ronnie fan, are you?
@@eoghantoner no I'm a snooker fan. My point being Selby can't complain when he's done the same thing himself
It's the red ball that moves first.
But without doubt a very difficult decision.
Pause the video as soon as it makes contact the pink moves first
@@johnpol41 eyes can trick you he hit the red so thin and the pink full ball that it will look like he hit pink ball first it's the red ball that move first imo
@@twitchdagelijks4798 pause the video when it’s about to hit the ball it’s the pink that moves first
@@johnpol41 red was hit so thin while pink ball was hit full ball your eyes can trick you into thinking that it hit pink ball first which is not in this case
The red definitely moved first, there isn't any question in my mind.....Slow down youtube to 0.25 while they slow their vid down.....clear as a bell...red first
I'm here because some sad individual appears to have hacked Mark Selby's youtube account and changed the title of several of his videos to include the word cheat. I am a huge Mark Williams fan, my favourite player. However I have to say this was red first, Selby didn't cheat and the fool who has done the hacking should be ashamed of himself.
In the overhead shot it clearly hits the red first. You can see from the incoming angle of the white, if it hit the pink first it would have pushed the pink more toward the side pocket. But since the white deflected lightly off the red, the pink went a different direction.
I slowed it down as slow as possible as not to loose the frame when contact was made, In my opinion it was ever so slightly red first... but what does my opinion count for
What is _absolutely_ clear is that it is _impossible_ to say which ball was struck first. What's the rule on that?
I think the white changed trajectory after hitting the red first.
Edit: should have watched the next part of the video!
The top-down replay given shows them moving in the same frame. They were hit at the same time.
Love your videos,Learning alot. Love from Pakistan!
How on f earth do you miss such an easy green Mark? After the AO loss vs Bingo this was the beginning of the end till 2017/2018
It hit the red first. In the frame just after collision red is displaced more than the pink. But pink is clearly faster later on, so, red must have moved first.
pink moves further because it gets hit full ball, the contact with the red is a cut
The two players discussed it further. A correct point was made; the pink moved farther because it gets hit full ball.
Also red was hit first.
@@wizewizard1840 Absolutely!
I think it's the red. The cue ball changes direction, hence it looks angled on the hit between the red and the pink! Because the cue ball changed trajectory after hitting the red!
Very interesting. Selby hit the cue ball and hoped for the best as O'Sullivan did in WSC 2020 SF. Where is the excuse for being "disrespectful"? Jester my a.s
Hits the red first, no doubt about it. Set playback speed to 0.25 and watch one of the replays. The white changes direction before it hits the pink.
Very hard to determine. Probably Williams thought the red was hitted first, since the path of the red could also be read as if the cue had bounced after hitting the pink. Unfortunately, those replays quality isn't as clear as today's. But, after checking the replays, it does seems that the referee made the right choice.
But Williams didnt think that did he? He thought the total opposite
definitely hit the red first... the trajectory of the cue ball says it all (the blur lines help)
well in the replay its apparent that red moved before the pink which means red is hit first.
The red moved, so he hit the red.
And given how the balls were placed, the red HAD to be hit first for it to move at all since there wasn't a back effect given by Selby to the white.
SCIENCE, MATHS
Definitely hit the red first. Clear deflection into the pink
Funny how the Hungarian commentators are absolutely confident that it hit the pink first, and they keep saying that.
The fact that the pink moved further is irrelevant; the red ball was only clipped sightly on the edge whereas the pink was hit fuller.
It was RED FIRST...
I believe it touched the red first and I despise Mark Selby. I'd say the issue is really about not having a laser based system to track the position of the balls with micrometric precision at least 120 times per second
Why do you despise Selby? do you actually know him?
I think it hit the red first. I think the ref made the right decision to change his mind. No bias here either as I like to watch both of these players. Mark Williams is probably my favourite player but I think the right decision was made here.
It’s mathematical impossible for the white ball to have hit the pink first. If it had hit them simultaneously it would have had to impact along a path perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the red and the pink. The approach path was clearly to the left of that.
100% hit the red looks at it in slow motion read is close to the clue balls pathway and the white ball slowly shifts in direction once passing the red meaning it sliced the read first but the power of the shot impacts the pink ball
The hell, this is a simple call. Even without slow-mo, anyone can see the red starts moving before the pink.
Love MW but he couldn’t physically see if it hit pink or red first. And as we now see, he was wrong. Nice vid.
with the two lines across the edge of the balls and paused at exactly 5.18 the pink blur is further than the red through their respective lines
Which means nothing
Very bitter remark by Williams. He had multiple chances to put that frame away. He only has himself to blame.
If the pink is placed AFTER the red on the cue ball trajectory, AND the red is moving, AND the cue ball continues her way, SO the red is touched first, it is impossible for the red to move if the pink is touched first, it is physically impossible for the red to give energy to the cue ball to keep going like that, end of neverending debate.
My 2 cents, it did brush against the red before hitting the pink
Red first I think - if it'd been pink first the red would've moved at a different angle. Also the pink movement would have gone further at the first freeze-frame after contact.
Bro os your channel fine now i remember you stating that your channel was gonna be taken down due to copyright issues
100% it hit Red first. No Doubt
the angle that its coming from, the fact the red ball moved means it was the red that was hit first. no doubt. pink ball was the direct path but further away
Yes it hit red first, I noticed that the path towards the pink was a different angle.
Hmm the angle of the hit would indicate the red was closer to the white ball. The way it was struck tends to imply the red should never have moved at all knowing the cue ball moves forward in the second afterwards. I deduce the white was struck first the red second and the pink last. Excellent escape. Play on
Red first, but when it's by a margin so slight that it evades the 25fps(?) of the TV cameras.... I think it's fair to call that as simultaneous contact.
What's the solution? I guess, either have a super-high fps & resolution overhead camera with footage available for review at any time, or train up a machine learning model on thousands of hours of previous footage which could bump up the resolution and framerate on demand. About time Nvidia partnered up with snooker! ;)
Wasn't that slight though Marky, clearly hit the red first, I get peoples eyes and judgement are different but. Sure, wasn't a obvious hit but still, very noticable
Not fair at all to call simultaneous contact. Quite clearly it was impossible for it to strike the pink first on the trajectory it was on.
Actually mathematically based on size direction, speed, location you can determine which one was hit
Cue ball's trajectory is slightly different when striking the pink ball, so must have ht the red ball first (unless there was also some debris on the cloth?... Doubtful.)
I was going to say, this would be solved 100% if they hadn't used such low quality cameras, but then I saw that the match was over a decade ago, and its possible that was about the best they could have gotten at the time.
As it is, at about 4:05 I'm pretty sure it's slightly visible in the "tracer" of the cue ball, that the angle slightly changes in the frame before and after in such a way that it only could have happened if it hit the red on the way past to hit the pink.
Red first 100%, there should be no argument, the slow video shows it clearly.
Blew it up on editing software and played it frame by frame. Red first definitely!
Can you post a link to it on here? Would sort it out once and for all! Cheers.
the fact is that the frame speed is too slow to definitively say either way - it doesnt really matter how much you blow it up
@@normanno8514 It's a close call for sure and the enlarged picture blurs it even more but what it shows is the red begin to move one frame earlier than the pink. Also, look at the trajectory of the red. If it was pink first the red would not have taken that path and remember that even if it was red and pink at precisely the same time, it's still a foul.
@@kiwicalibre are you sure about that? I thought if it was a 50/50 hit then its no foul in general, no?
@@kiwicalibre I have no doubt that he hit the red first - im just saying that the frame speed is too slow to definitively say - and that blowing it up doesnt really alter that
This is idiotic. Even when the ref and Selby conceded the foul why carry on arguing? He lost the title because he missed the red along the rail
The ref didn't cost you anything! You only had to win 1 frame out of 3. You cost yourself the title
It shows that the red was hit first. Plaudids for Williams though, who didn't believe it. If only we could see this level of sportsmanship in other sports too. I'm looking at you, David Goffin!
(Once in a game between him and Federer Goffin hit a winner after the ball bounced twice. Federer admitted the foul, but the referee was sure there was no second bounce, even if the replays showed it very clearly. Eventually Goffin won the match.)
This is a close call.
The white brushed the red before hitting the pink.
If you look at the direction of white, The white was never gonna hit the pink full ball with out brushing the red.
For me, it's clearly not a faul.
Red ball moved first, therefore it was hit first.