Skyler Woodward Foul at the European Open … The Controversy is Settled
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 фев 2025
- Dr. Dave analyzes controversial double-hit foul calls in recent pro pool tournaments including Marcel Eckardt’s call against Skyler Woodward at the European Open and a non-call against Corey Deuel at the US Open.
Supporting Resources:
Woodward’s shot: • SEMI FINAL | Skyler Wo...
CJ Wiley’s analysis: • SKY Woodward Controver...
rules resource page: billiards.colo...
fouls resource page: billiards.colo...
how to detect and avoid double hit fouls: billiards.colo...
example bad calls made in pro pool matches: billiards.colo...
frozen-CB resource page: billiards.colo...
Subscribe to Dr. Dave's RUclips Channel:
www.youtube.co...
Follow Dr. Dave on Facebook:
/ drdavebilliards
Show your Support (click on the donation button at the bottom of this page):
billiards.colo...
Purchase Dr. Dave's Instructional Videos and Merchandise:
DrDaveBilliard... (stream or download)
DrDaveBilliard... (physical DVDs)
DrDaveBilliard... (product info and purchasing advice)
drdavebilliard... (T-shirts, polos, mugs, posters)
Find Answers to Any Pool Questions:
billiards.colo...
Look Up Definitions for Pool Terms and Phrases:
billiards.colo...
Get Your Pool Diploma:
billiarduniver...
Attend a 3-Day Pool Boot Camp or Take a Private Lesson:
billiarduniver...
drdavebilliard...
Learn More About Dr. Dave:
billiards.colo...
Good Luck With Your Game!!!
*Supporting Resources:*
- Woodward’s shot: ruclips.net/video/xRShK0mbxAg/видео.html
- CJ Wiley’s analysis: ruclips.net/video/EFPqv8Ej1As/видео.html
- rules resource page: billiards.colostate.edu/resources/rules/
- fouls resource page: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/
- how to detect and avoid double hit fouls: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/double-hit/
- example bad calls made in pro pool matches: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/examples/
- frozen-CB resource page: billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/frozen/
*Subscribe to Dr. Dave's RUclips Channel:*
ruclips.net/user/DrDaveBilliards
A huge thanks for sharing this video. It's absolutely amazing how many experienced players in my league lack the knowledge of what constitutes a double hit. I can't count the huge number of games I've seen won or lost over the years because of ignorance of the rule.
@@MikeyD22 If you and others share this video and resource page links with others, maybe more people will have better understandings.
@@DrDaveBilliards I've actually shown your video "how to detect and avoid double hit fouls" to players during a match and will continue to do so at league captain's meetings along with the other links you provided. I just need to work on their retention levels. very much appreciated!
@@MikeyD22 I’m glad to hear it. FYI, I have newer videos on the topic here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/double-hit/
You can share the link with them if they need or want to learn more.
I'm not sure this linked comment won't be erased, but hope you see it.
33:01 is a foul how? He did contact the ball and then contacted the end rail with the cue ball. Am I wrong?
ruclips.net/video/ORr_jZilOCs/видео.htmlsi=TrY11v-FvRJRqTWH
I'm surprised a player like Sky would contest this call. Seemed pretty clear.
Agreed; although, I'm sure some less-experienced refs (and many experienced players) might have called a shot like that good.
He just doesn't know better, heh
@@uncahay You and others might be surprised how little some top players know about the subtleties of pool rules and pool physics.
@@DrDaveBilliards Neither do many referees.
Thing is, when you get your ref certification, you're allowed to miss a few questions on the written test, and everyone misses the same ones. The double hit foul and the push foul are almost universally misunderstood.
@@uncahay Hopefully, videos like this will help ... assuming the people who need to watch the videos actually watch them.
Thank you Dr. Dave, for doing this analysis.
I admit I originally sided with Woodward on this shot. After watching your detailed & knowledgeable analysis, it’s clear that it was indeed a foul.
I'm glad I was able to convince you. Thank you for your honesty. We need more people in the world like you.
Nice one Dr.
Sky was shocked because it was an embarrassing foul. A pro should know better. The ref was basically just waiting for him to stroke it before calling "foul"
Agreed. The shot was an obvious foul even before the stroke; and after the stroke, it was even more obvious.
Saw the shot as it happened. Called a foul as quick as the ref did. I was surprised Boyes made the comment he did. This was clearly a foul.
Agreed. Well stated. It is unfortunate Boyes didn't explain things better.
No idea why this was controversial. Very clear foul compared to other close/wrong calls.
I agree 100%; but about 50% of people in social media apparently disagreed with us.
It’s because there are a lot of APA players on social media lol.
... and pro pool players! :o
There are a lot pro players or league players out there who disagree. I have a lot at my local pool club...
@@NixGibts-ki1gs It doesn't really matter if they disagree. They are still wrong. Facts are facts.
Excellent analysis
Thanks. I just hope that the people who can actually learn something from this video actually watch the video. Doubtful. :(
@DrDaveBilliards This is one of my favourite shots to pull off in a bar but watching this I pretty much guarantee 40% of them were double hits. You've made me more honest from now on Dr Dave :)
Honesty is a good policy, but ignorance is bliss. :)
@DrDaveBilliards I have a follow up question but I will become a Pateron and ask there.
@@deviljelly3 I don't use Patreon, but feel free to ask any questions. And if you want to help out, you can leave a donation via the button at the bottom of the page here:
billiards.colostate.edu/
Thanks Dr. Dave! I hope this video goes viral and becomes one of your most watched!
Who needs slow motion cameras and proof of science and physics when you have 10 “pro” players in the room all saying it’s a legal shot because they’ve all done it before. SMH…🙂↔️
I hope so too. Widespread viewing might help reduce the amount of misinformation out there.
I was patiently waiting on Dr. Dave to break this one down. I bet I was not alone 😂. Thank you sir!
Ever since this match ended I was looking forward to this video from Dr Dave. It is clearly a foul, especially how Dr Dave has previously shown us slow motion footage of such situations on his RUclips channel. I can't imagine that such a top player disagreed with the decision. Maybe because he thought the balls were frozen. In that case he could've asked the referee first to verify .
Thank you dr dave. greetings from Suriname🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷
The top players have a very delicate sense of feel for double hits or push shots. I think Skyler simply didn't feel hitting it twice and that's why he was so convinced it was a legal shot.
Both Sky and Marcel knew the balls were not frozen. That's why there was discussion or checking or declaration. They both saw the gap before the shot.
Foul in every league on the planet. It's not The Hustler........
Agreed. This is basic stuff. Although, many (if not most) league players do not understand this as well as they should.
@@DrDaveBilliards Ain't that the truth!
Another great and timely video. So much easier to explain with video than arguing principles on Facebook!
Thanks. Agreed.
I was waiting for this one!
Sorry you had to wait so long, but I'm glad I had the opportunity to also include Corey's US Open shot.
I am saying thank you before I even watch the video. I requested this video and you made it so quickly! The doc has spoken and so it shall be!
Thanks for pushing me to do it. I was just gonna to let it go since I have done so many videos on this topic and similar shots before. If you or others want to see them, go here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/double-hit/
@@DrDaveBilliards And it's interesting to know that CJ's shot is valid ONLY because he didn't actually recreate Skylar's shot. That's why CJ was so adamant.
@@trailerwookie It looked similar, but it was very different. CJ probably had a bigger gap, and he shot into it at a difference angle.
Double hit foul, six remains pocketed, oponent gets ball in hand.
Good summary.
Right. Totally agree. Dr Dave has done a whole section on this foul alone and describes in great detail why it is a foul.
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/double-hit/
Nice video breakdown. Great work as always!
Thank you! I aim to swerve. :)
I was a bit confused about this shot when I saw it, was leaning towards foul but this video made it crystal clear. Thanks Dr. Dave!
I'm glad the video helped you validate your correct leaning.
I admit, I was confused at first, but this makes sense. I mean, if they were that close, I don't understand how you could avoid a foul here. Skyler's only luck were if they were frozen together, if you were hoping to play such a straightforward shot
Agreed. The foul was obvious even before he hit the shot. That's one reason the ref was able to make the call so quickly and with confidence.
Thanks a lot for making these videos. I passed the referee test a while ago and I did found a lot of the other people that passed with me don’t have a good understanding of pool physics or push shot/double hits. I’ve watched almost all of your videos and that made the difference. I tried explaining it to them even showed them your videos but they simply won’t listen and refused the watch the vids cuz their English is bad😪
@@Isuc_at_poolgolf You’re welcome. Keep up,your efforts trying to educate others.
There's a very simple formula that all referees can use to identify a double contact: Quite simply if (A) the distance the cue travels through the white is greater than (B) the distance between the two balls then it has to be a double contact. This is because the white will always slow down when it meets the object ball and this allows the cue to catch up for a second contact. In this situation here, a double contact was inevitable because the balls are so close together.
Well stated.
@@DrDaveBilliards Thanks.. I can't take credit for it though.. I got it from another RUclipsr who specialises in unfouled push shots in current snooker tournament games (PatrickRyan147). Marcel features quite a lot in his videos actually 😄
Hi Dave, is the formula mentioned above consistent for shallow angles as well? I recommend you check out the channel mentioned in the comment as it seems to suggest many shots are fouls when they don’t seem to be. I’d love to know if these videos are accurate
@@Mignukeexactly, the angle of contact with the object ball has to be a factor in that 'formula'.
it's always been a grey area in ALL cue sports. and of course there are different rule sets that address it in different ways.
in theory (not adhering to any rule sets) - if the cue tip is in contact with the cue ball at the same time as the cue ball is in contact with the object ball - it should be a foul (too difficult to determine whether or not it was a push and/or double hit, and it's a definitive measure)
but the practicalities of the game in real time make this difficult.
this is seen in snooker (which, as you might know, are the most strict in this situation)
you often see when a cue ball and object ball within 2mm, the object ball is clipped very thinly, and called a fair shot (which I agree with) but in theory (and under the rules of snooker) should be a foul.
@@Mignuke I agree with you. Most of the videos on that channel are not fouls. At best, some of them are be close calls where the video does not give enough evidence to make a clear call either way (and benefit of doubt should go to the shooter). I don't think I've seen a single one that is actually a clear-cut wrong call. Snooker refs are generally pretty good at calling push shots and double hits when they happen--far better than pool refs in general, I think.
The formula posted above is only valid for a full-ball hit where the CB should lose all momentum upon contact with the OB, with fast enough cue speed and/or short enough CB-OB gap that any imparted topspin is irrelevant. For a cut shot, there are two additional factors. First, the CB begins moving sideways along the tangent line the moment it hits the OB. If the CB clears to the side by the time the cue catches up, there will be no double hit even with a long follow-through. Second, the CB does not lose all its forward momentum on a cut shot. Especially on very thin cuts, it is perfectly possible for the CB to retain most of its forward momentum, allowing it to outpace the (decelerating) cue and avoid a double hit even with a long follow-through.
Of course, a less-than-full hit is not a guarantee of no foul. I'm just saying that the "simple" A>B formula above breaks down. The "gold standard" test is still the behavior of the CB immediately after contact: does it go forward of the tangent line immediately? If so, foul unless there's a really good explanation (frozen balls, or CB was airborne at contact). If not, no foul. (Note also that the frozen ball rule in snooker is different, so the "frozen ball" exception above applies only in pool.)
Good breakdown. Will you do one on the situation with SVB in his match against Fedor?
Thanks. I wasn't able to watch the Shane-Fedor match. Could you explain or link to the "situation?" Thanks.
Thank you for clarifying this confusing situation. I think the emphasis needs to be made that this was a push foul and not a double hit foul. This would clarify the surrounding conversation
All video and audio evidence seem to show as clear a single hit as you could see
And when the narrative is said that well, it was either a double hit or a push, it's clear how that wishy washiness should lead to mass confusion
I don't think it is so important what you call the foul. It could have been a "double hit." The tip could have also still been in contact with the CB when the CB contacted the OB. Either way, it is a foul, based on WPA Rule 6.7 here:
wpapool.com/rules/
“If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is close to but not touching an object ball and the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue ball contacts that object ball, the shot is a foul.”
The shot was definitely not a "push shot," though. That is something entirely different per the info and videos here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/push/
I really enjoy your content sir. Although I'm 50, I've only been playing about 6 years. I bought your book about 4 or 5 years ago. Your book along with your videos have really helped me progress my game. Thank you!
@@northstarr5007 I’m glad to hear it. You’re welcome!
You'll never get one past Marcel. He's one of the best snooker and pool referees ever.
@@Anu_Sol He has made some pool call mistakes in the past; but he is a true professional, admitting when he was wrong and learning from his mistakes. He made the correct call here quickly and with confidence (because the foul was so obvious to anybody who understands pool physics).
CJ Wiley quickly made a video about this. But I think CJ was wrong. I seen Fedor Gorst practicing before his big match with SVB. Shane goes up to Fedor and sets up the shot that Skylar had.SVB asked Fedor about the shot. Fedor did the same shot, but didn't foul. Fedor did more of a Masse shot, aiming much more to the left.
I included some excerpts from CJ's video, the parts that were correct anyway.
@@DrDaveBilliards I think his was set up wired to the pocket, whereas the actual shot Sky faced was wired to the nose of the end rail. He should have not only jacked up, but turned sideways to strike from the side, negating the dual kiss, and not attempted to draw back for his next position, which was the start of his flaw here. When they are that close (that gap was way too small to get a valid shot from behind), there is no "from behind the shot axis" valid shot. They ALL kiss twice. One MUST turn the stick axis to the side to even approach a possible valid kiss. You gotta watch that Wiley... he's a wiley character. Went to the ACME school of pool.
@@DrDaveBilliards did you include the flat earth theory too? sorry, but CJ sadly lost credibility a long time ago
@@stephanepamplona ... not to his "followers."
Great break down.
Thanks. I had fun making it.
Thanks for the analysis. I've been debating with CJ Wiley on his video about this trying to explain the physics and how it is clear that Sky's shot was a foul but he disagreed. Maybe he will listen to you.
Please share the video link with him. I would hope he would reconsider his position after seeing the clear, logical, and convincing proof.
@@DrDaveBilliards I already have and am hoping the same thing. I'll let you know here how/if he responds.
Thanks.
@@DrDaveBilliards It appears CJ is no longer willing to discuss. No response to the video link but I see him just doubling down in other comments including one where he calls you out specifically. "I'm pretty sure drdave has no understanding of the actual shot so his input is meaningless" When I saw that I realized he is not concerned with the truth just in being right so now his input is meaningless :)
@@jklimtsc Hopefully, CJ has seen this video by now and finally realizes and understands his mistake.
Happy to see you are addressing this
I have no ideachow pros do not know this rule. Also people I play in amateur tournaments have no clue about this rule. If the cue ball travels forward whatelsoever it's a foul.
I wish everybody agreed with you, but it unfortunately is still not the case. Hopefully, videos like this will help change this.
Hi Doc, great video and analysis. You have brought so much to the game by exposing the “myths” we all came to accept and your overall education of the fundamentals and fine points of this fantastic sport. Thank you. A few comments on this video. You probably should not have included CJ Wiley’s replication of the shot in your links of “Supporting Resources” simply because it is NOT supporting. Frankly, it only causes confusion. He arrives at the wrong conclusion, insisting that Sky’s shot was not a foul. In his analysis and recreation, he concludes and rightfully so, that if the direction of aim of the masse is close to the tangent line that the shot is not a foul. In his recreation, despite the lack of an overhead view conclusively showing his line of aim and the “angle of attack” so to speak, it is possible to interpret it based on the direction the cue ball takes as it arcs backward. In CJ’s case the cue ball barely arc’s at all and comes nearly directly straight back to the cushion and position from which it was shot. He then says it was just like Sky’s shot because it “went forward” and then came back, that “only Sky’s was a little harder”. That’s rubbish. The arc that Sky’s ball took was much more dramatic and that would only happen with an angle of attack a good bit less than along the 90° tangent line. At 2:29 in your video is an overhead view of Sky’s line of aim which points almost directly to diamond 2 (the head string) on the far rail. I would estimate this is roughly only 20° off from straight on. As such, I concur with you and don’t think there would be any way to not call this shot a foul. I would appreciate it you could run some experiments with your high-speed camera to see at what angle range off of the tangent line it IS possible to aim and have the cue ball clear the object ball before getting a double hit and a foul. using a full masse stroke Obviously, this is dependent on the size of the gap between the balls, but it certainly seems like it would be possible to come up with a range for a 1/32 and less, 1/16 and 3/32” gaps that could be useful to us players and referee's to judge "the foul call". Thanks again.
@@tomm9178 Well stated. CJ’s video was “unfortunate” but it is part of the record. Regardless of the gap size, the tangent line and CB motion tells all. But maybe I’ll do a video showing how a double hit can be avoided over a range of gap sizes.
Not gonna lie, i100% thought that the ref was wrong. Great call, controversial as it stands.
I hope it is not controversial anymore. The call was correct. The shot was a blatantly obvious foul.
The one at 5:35 that's "now this is a good hit" is definitely not a good hit; however! To be fair, if it wouldn't be for the high speed camera angle it would be impossible to call it a bad hit. In my humble opinion I would define the shot @ 5:35 a gray area in a real life situation, unlike Skyler's attempt which was a foul clear as day!
I agree that shot looks a little "gray" due to the limited camera angle and zoom, but I agree that it could not be called a foul based on the visual information available.
Great explanation Dr. Dave!
@@joeyq1497 Thanks. I had fun making this one.
It is definitely a foul, since the rule states;
"The cue ball is assumed not to be touching any ball unless it is declared touching by the referee or opponent. It is the shooter’s responsibility to get the declaration before the shot."
and there is no declaration in this position.
Additionally if two balls are very close, only situation that the hit is not a foul, is defined in the rules as;
"If the cue ball is very close to an object ball, and the shooter barely grazes that object ball on the shot, the shot is assumed not to violate the first paragraph of this rule, even though the tip is arguably still on the cue ball when ball-ball contact is made."
According to these rules it is definitely a foul when a player hits towards almost touching balls. No need to look for a physical or visual evidence.
The balls were definitely not frozen. The foul cannot be called unless the motion of the CB indicates a foul. It could have been a "double hit." The tip could have also still been in contact with the CB when the CB contacted the OB. Either way, it is a foul, based on the observed motion of the CB and WPA Rule 6.7 here:
wpapool.com/rules/
“If the cue stick contacts the cue ball more than once on a shot, the shot is a foul. If the cue ball is close to but not touching an object ball and the cue tip is still on the cue ball when the cue ball contacts that object ball, the shot is a foul.”
@@DrDaveBilliards in snooker, if you play any shot other than the finest cut you can do, it's a foul. And even the fine cut is a foul shot apart from the specific waiver in place allowing that specific shot in that specific situation.
Incredible short's sir 😍🙏
@@TapashRozario Thanks.
Thanks for the analysis. In the video of Skyler's shot, one can easily hear the double hit.
BS
You cannot reliably just double hits by the sound of the shot. The CB motion clearly and convincingly and reliably proves the foul.
@@DrDaveBilliards , I agree. However, when the clicking sound is heard, it is strong evidence.
@@steve_weinrich A clicking sound can sometimes be heard for balls with a small gap as compared to a frozen CB, but this is more reliably checked visually before a shot. The double-hit sound (between the tip and the CB) is too difficult to distinguish from other sounds. Again, the motion of the CB is easy to observe and it tells you everything you need to know.
@@DrDaveBilliards I agree. One cannot rely on the click, but if it is heard, it is strong evidence. Just to be clear, it is not a double hit, it is the cue ball contacting the ferrule or shaft. It turns out that in the original video in question, one can hear the click.
Great video again. Love your channel.
Thank you!
One thing that makes a great game or sport is human error - be it the competitor or the adjudicator. We could all spend a whole night (over a beer) arguing over a controversial call. It is as fun as watching the game. So, long story short - very cool video. I always enjoy these ones.
The other great thing is facts. You can't argue against them. Actually, you can, but it is a waist of time. :)
If you had a belt made of watches.
@@robertmeadows1657 ... then you would always know the time?
It would also be a waist of time.
@@robertmeadows1657 this is top level dad joke.
Tip Cue Ball and Object ball all in contact at the same time - a clear push shot - the fact the white screwed off the object ball is a piqet shot and is irrelevant - A good guide is to hear 2 clicks for a legal shot - In snooker when the cue ball is almost touching the rules stake the player must play at a fine contact which is considered a fair shot, although of course all 3 are still probably touching at the same time
@@simonwilson1686 Sound is not a reliable indicator, but everything else sounds good.
Good job Dr. Dave.
Thanks. I hope it helps the people who need the help.
Good call, thanks for your demonstration~
You're welcome.
Sky knew before playing that this could/would be a foul … he was just hoping the referee would not count it as foul!
When the playing ball is extremely near to ball 2, you never see a double touch! The fact is that the tip is still in touch with the cue ball when it hits the object ball … and that is a foul!
Well stated. Whether it is a "double hit" or "tip still in contact," the result is the same and one really can't tell the difference.
Physics never lies
Amen to that!
I always tell people after explaining odd rules, 'if a ref calls a foul it's a bad hit, if they call it good it's good.' It sucks but even when they are ' wrong' they are still right when there is usually no replay.
Also yes that ball 100% went too far.
Agreed. The ref's call is final. It is also desirable when the ref makes the correct call. Here, Marcel was obviously correct.
@DrDave; I have noticed that I don't aways hit the ball where I intent to. Example; When I *intent* to apply _low side_ spin I end up with _straight low_ spin. Can you point me to a drill for hitting the cue ball more accurately?
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/eyes/finding-center-ball/
Dr Dave another great breakdown, you need to do joshua fillers foul on the 6 ball against regalario yesterday at the us open
@@iimiboy Thanks. Can you please post a MM:SS time stamp link so I can easily find the shot in question? Thanks.
Are you talking about the two touches on the 6-ball against Roda here:
ruclips.net/video/-2u90I6rZII/видео.html
@@DrDaveBilliards sorry yes this, clearly a foul not spotted by ref or admitted by filler and this happened in another match aswell a while ago
@@iimiboy It would have been good sportsmanship to call the foul on himself, but the opponent and ref (if one was present) should have watched things more closely.
@@DrDaveBilliards absolutely, don't know why the ref wasn't watching closely
Great video Dr Dave.
Thanks. I'm glad you liked it.
I think the rules have had to catch up to increased physics knowledge in the pool community. It has to be a double hit to go past the tangent line. But as Dr. Dave has pointed out, not all double hits are considered a foul. Miscues, for example, are nearly always a multiple hit, but rarely a foul. I don't think this shot would have been considered a foul say 30 years ago. But that is purely based on watching old videos. I wasn't playing pool yet, so maybe someone who knows better could clarify. Thanks for the expert analysis!
Well stated. You're welcome.
I agree that knowledge has increased over the years, possibly due to high speed videos which has shown that they are double hits. I'm quite certain a few decades ago, they would have called it good, but we know better now. This might be CJ's mistake.
Dr. Dave the GOAT of pool physics
Thanks.
YOU CANT BE 100% BEHIND THE BALL AND NOT EXPECT TO HAVE THE FOLLOW THROUGH , LET SAY A PUSH INSTEAD OF A DOUBLE HIT, NEEDED TO HAVE MORE OF ANOTHER ANGLE ON THE BALL
A "push shot" means something different in pool:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/push/
It is possible the tip was still in contact with the CB during OB contact, but there is no way to distinguish the result from a double hit. Either way, the shot is a foul.
People presenting facts, backed up with science. Imagine this world. I was surprised with Sky here. Love him as a player and personality. Kind of an eye opener really. I've had arguments with people who've been playing as long as I've been alive and they just brush me off "you don't know what you're talking about young man". That mentality is everywhere in life. Just because you have more experience in doing something a long time doesn't mean you can't be wrong when someone you is newer disagrees with you. I usually just laugh and carry on. I thought it was a foul right away based on the information found in your older videos, and I've used that information while ref'ing shots at league night with confidence in knowing the right call was made. I've tried this my shot unsuccessfully before, with someone as a ref watching and was called on me, and he had his horns out ready to have an argument with me. I knew I fouled right away. He was surprised, smiled and said wow. haha With the peanut gallery: it's also amazing how far people will go in an argument while completely being ignorant of the facts. Probably the worst thing about pool. So many people play it. So many people have their own versions of the rules, their own terminology that conflicts with established nomenclature, etc. It may be one of the biggest things holding the game back IMO. Thanks for the video
Well stated. You're welcome.
I think your Wrong Dave. The tip stayed on the cueball longer before seperating as he pushed through the ball. As long as the tip stays on the ball and pushes through the cueball before the seperation it's a good hit. Once the tip leaves the ball you can feel a double hit. But on push shots like that at oblique angles there is some clearance on the follow through and seperation. Or if the balls are touching you can actually go forward through the object ball on one clean stroke downwards with follow through . And push the cueball through the airspace of where the object ball is resting . As long as there is no seperation and double contact. But usually an astute player with enough knowledge and experience who's considered it with practical experience can detect when they've double hit the cueball or followed through and hit the cueball with their ferrule. And might be more likely to notice things like that when somebody else double hits the cueball. Also sometimes when the cb and ob are close to eachother you hear a double click. That can be a double hit ,or it could be the tip hitting the cb and sound of the cb and ob contacting within fractions of a second. Added with the cb and /or ob bouncing simultaneously as the cb goes airborne on a jacked up hit. That can cause two balls ,or more, to go airborne nearly simultaneously . And you could get clicking noises from different sources in near simultaniety. The tip hitting the cb. The cb hitting the ob. One or more balls bouncing . Sometimes five or six auditory clicking sounds all at once in near simultaneous unison. Especially with 14.1 in a warm environment . You can get multiple balls clashing,seperating ,and returning to eachother to create deletereous effects.
@@miketaylor7023 See my latest video on this topic:
Pool Made Simple … How to Easily Detect a DOUBLE HIT FOUL
ruclips.net/video/5IyX1wMZfF4/видео.html
Good call.
@@Poolology101 Without a doubt, based on the info and demos in the video.
You’re the man Dr Dave! Thanks for making this!
Thanks, and you're welcome!
Marcel is right and he is one of the best snooker and pool referees.
He has made some mistakes in the past, as most referees do at times, but he is a true professional who admits his errors and learns from his mistakes.
@@DrDaveBilliards Yeah every referee does mistakes. But compared to other referees Marcel is one of the better one's. I think he has a better understanding of the game itself like in this situation.
@@udtojanpestillos2094 Agreed. Marcel is an excellent ref.
I'm surprised there's a controversy. It's a clear foul.
Agreed; although, there were many people on social media debating otherwise. I hope those people watch (and learn from) the video.
There are always going to be people who deny that things like laws of physics exist and rely solely on their own bad understanding of how cue ball reaction works. I've relied on your videos to help educate people. Not sure how much it's helped, but I am doing my part.
Thank you for helping to spread the “Good Word.” 🤓
Styler was creating reasonable doubt. The cue ball travel always tells the truth.
Agreed. The CB motion tells all.
People love arguing, the Referee is GOD, always right,
Personally do have trim for Arguing.🥰
Dr. Dave do a UTube about tips, and debunking the BS.
Done. See the videos and info here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/cue-tip/hardness/
Robert Byrne would’ve called Sky’s shot a Felony
I like it. I might have to steal this someday.
Imagine if this had been Earl disagreeing with the ref!
I would prefer not. :)
I was under the impression that the cue ball couldn't go further forward than the half-way point of the object ball. In other words where the object ball contacts the bed. That would be a half ball width further ahead than your tangent line. Even at that extra 1.25 inches, he still crossed it.
There is no official rule like this.
If the balls were glued to one another then it’s ok to plow through. If the balls have a gap, then double hit is a foul.
Good summary. For more info and demonstrations, see:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/frozen/
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/double-hit/
Dr.Dave, I want to make this video too! haha. where can I find Marcel and Sky's comments on there being a gap between the two balls?
I heard about Sky's verification secondhand through Facebook. I communicated with Marcel directly. But it is obvious from the video. Sky did not ask for frozen ball verification; so even if the balls were frozen, Marcel would still need to judge the shot as if they were not frozen.
With a froze cueball. Is it still a foul if the cueball follows with speed, but well behind the object ball. Not going with it , then it hits the object ball that bobbled into the pocket. Jacked up 30° straight in and just off the rail near the side pocket if helpful.
I had to make this call at league and thought 100% it was going to be fine, but I ended up call it bad. They didn't care, but I would like to know in case.
See the videos and info here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/frozen/
Sometimes you don’t *want* it to be a foul! So I understand both sides…and been on both sides! 😅
Yep. Some people want to believe only what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.
I even linked your channel and your old video for Sky to learn in my last video😂
If he or anybody else truly wants to learn about double hits, lots of videos and other resources are available here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/double-hit/
Pretty easy/clear call to me. Hate when I have someone watch a shot and call it clean :/
Agreed. Hopefully, the "someone" you mention will watch the video.
Simple solution, add tangent line to the push shot rules
WPA Rule 6.7 requires all it needs:
wpapool.com/rules/
BTW, a "push shot" is not what many people think. See Rule 6.7 and:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/push/
0:11 Fowl!
@@cyberninjarappa I didn’t see any birds in the video. 🤓
This is just a meme, because Foul and Fowl are homophones. (i.e. faʊl)
I thought for years now that as long as the cue is 45 degrees or more it isn't considered a foul. I thought you had to see clear evidence. Like a blatant foul. That was to stop this kind of 50/50 controversy. I guess not along these rules.
The antiquated 45 degree rule has many problems as I summarize here:
ruclips.net/video/HVXOBUAsPSc/видео.html
@@DrDaveBilliards but how many different rule sets are there? A lot.
@@tyarnold4088 The only “rule set” that I am aware of that still uses the 45° rule is the Derby City Classic tournament. None of the major league systems (BCAPL, USAPL, CSI, APA, VNEA) use the rule. See:
billiards.colostate.edu/resources/rules/rule-differences
and it is certainly not part of the WPA 0official rules of pool:
billiards.colostate.edu/resources/rules/
For a pro as seasoned as Sky, that is very embarassing on his part for not knowing the physics of the bad hit. If he thought that was a good hit, then how many bad hits has he called good in the past?
Agreed. He honestly thought the shot was a good hit. I hope he and others who also think shots like this are OK watch this video.
Exactly like I said. CJ Wiley thinks otherwise. I agree with you.
I'm glad to hear it because the facts are on my side. :)
does anyone have a good explanation as to why frozen balls are not a foul still? Is it not a push shot with prolonged contact with the cue ball?
@blaine4973 it's just the rule. If they are frozen you can go ahead and shoot through the balls. I believe Dr Dave has a video of this with a high-speed camera also.
This is covered in great detail here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/frozen/
Using a normal stroke on frozen balls is fine, it's not prolonged contact unless you purposely prolong contact in an attempt to manipulate the shot in a way that wouldn't be possible with a normal stroke. An example would be using a push stroke (prolonged contact with cue ball) into a frozen ball to throw it farther than what would be possible with a normal stroke.
@@fullonbatshit9428 FYI to those interested, examples of push shots can be found here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/push/
CJ will be fuming!
Hopefully, he will see the clear logic. At least I wasn't mean to him in my video. I could have been.
@TheSnookerGym chat was hilarious man, after all the non-sycophants called it out, he then switched to telling everyone the balls were frozen. Twas a sad day for basic physics and obvious fouls...
@@AdamMarr He can say whatever he wants, but it is not true. Both Sky and Marcel confirmed there was a gap. That's why Sky didn't ask for the balls to be declared frozen ... because they were not.
Since the balls were not frozen, and the shot required an obvious slight cut, would the tangent line not be exactly where the ball traveled before reversing? It appeared to me that the cue ball when sideways, not straight.
Watch the complete video again. I think I make everything very clear. The tangent line is perpendicular to the OB direction. Sky's shot went well forward of the tangent line.
Dave is right ( as usual lol). Tangent line is always 90 degrees from the object ball pocket line
@@shortbus3300 If people want to learn more and see illustrations and demonstrations, go here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/stun/90-degree-rule/
Sided with Woodward at the start... immediately after your arguments I side with Marcel, what a tough job to be a ref
Agreed. Refs rarely get positive feedback, and they are under almost as much pressure as the players.
So how do you eliminate inertial forward movement of a mass...when a car runs into another car that is sitting still at an angle, the car continues to move forward at a vector of its original path...saying that the car continues to move forward on a path past the tangent line doesn't mean the car had an additional impetus of force applied to make it move forward...so the cue ball is a smaller mass, and hence won't move forward as far, but the inertia of it's mass will cause it to move forward after contact with an object ball without an additional impetus of the cue stick. And how can you tell that the cue ball did not become slightly airborne?
See the videos, illustrations, and info here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/stun/90-degree-rule/
And if you want a math/physics proof, see:
billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/TP_3-1.pdf
It's easy to see with a larger gap that a ball never goes forward of the tangent line unless it's airborne. Why would that change if the gap is made smaller? Car accidents have a lot more physics involved, as energy transfer is not nearly as straightforward with automobiles of different weights and hardnesses.
Dr Dave has videos showing that is in fact possible to move forward of the contact line with a jumping or bouncing cue ball... Sky was jacked 75 to 80 degrees with cue. The cue ball absolutely has to become airborne at some point. My opinion, he hasn't settled this at all. No way he can replicate Sky's equipment, tip, or stroke and say 100% is was a double hit...
@@thehossdriver Watch the CB with Sky’s shot again. It does not hop noticeably. And even if it did, with the gap so small, the hop would have occurred mostly after OB impact, so the CB would have still headed very close to the tangent line. The only way the CB could head forward or the tangent line as much as it did with Sky’s shot without a foul is if the CB jumped significantly and if the gap size were much bigger.
@DrDaveBilliards that is implying that the tangent is set in stone. Easy to calculate in 2D. If you know point of contact. With a gap, and using contact and/or spin induced throw, the shot line and resultant tangent line changes dramatically. That's all in XY. Add any Z component, noticeable or not with the naked eye, the tangent line changes that much more... Point being, Marcel never took the time to analyze this. I'm not aware of any rule basing a double hit on a cue ball 'moving' forward. My opinion he made an immediate call based on false premise. No way to make that call in that environment. I can't say good or bad hit, and that always defaults to the shooter with 800 Fargo.
I couldn’t quite tell where the cue ball stopped for the next shot, but it looked like it might’ve been headed for the same situation on the 8. Lol
... not quite, but I like the way you think.
It puzzled me when I first played pool having come from a snooker background. In snooker, you have to play away from the touching ball (frozen ball) and the frozen ball must not move at all, otherwise it’s deemed a push. Simple. In pool however you are allowed to play into a touching ball so, in my opinion, you’re inviting controversy.
@@Neil_Gibson There is no controversy at all when the balls are frozen. In pool, you can hit into a frozen CB at any angle since it involves a normal single hit with no push per the info and videos here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/frozen/
A pool “push shot” (different usage from snooker) is a foul per the videos and info here:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/push/
@@DrDaveBilliards Thanks, great resources as always. I think "controversy" was the wrong word in my previous comment, I meant to say "confusion" . It’s great how you clarify situations, Cheers!
@@Neil_Gibson There is no confusion either per my message above.
The balls move forward together...foul
The foul is obvious based on all the info and demos in the video.
Either the white hit the cue or it’s a push shot. Impossible not to be a foul
Agreed, per the info and demos in this video.
100% "FOUL" clear as day!.
@@ociferpete2755 Per the info and demos in this video, I agree 100%!
Once I seen the birds eye view, the downward angle, and how full he was aiming the object ball, along with the balls not being frozen, I knew it was likely a foul even before he shot it.
@@NefariousMinds I was shocked he was attempting that shot the way he did. It was totally obvious the shot would be a foul well before he even shot it.
It would behoove the captain of the Mosconi Cup team to fully understand these concepts in the very near future.
@@robertmeadows1657 It would be a better world if all pool players (pros, league players, others) were solid with knowing how to detect fouls, but I know I am asking a lot.
For those who want to learn more, the videos and other resources here can be very helpful:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/
billiards.colostate.edu/resources/rules/
You can get away with push shots more than in snooker.
A "push shot" in pool is very different than in snooker:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/push/
In pool, you are allowed to hit into a frozen CB since it is not a "double hit" or "push:"
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/frozen/
@@DrDaveBilliards thanks Dave. Also isn’t there a rule about how it’s ok to play a kind of push shot if you hit away at a particular angle
That rule doesn't exist anymore, except at the Derby City Classic pro tournament.
@@DrDaveBilliards interesting
@@TheJohnCooperShow Btw, for the reasons why this antiquated rule is stupid, see:
ruclips.net/video/HVXOBUAsPSc/видео.html
Obvious push through Had the balls been frozen it would have been legal.
Agreed, but this video is mostly for the people who don't agree. I hope they watch it.
Clear foul
Agreed, per the info and demos in this video.
Dave clearly says 'non jumping cueball' in the video, but he doesn't elaborate. Sky is jacked close to 80 degrees which makes the cue ball jump, every time, discernable or not. He also struck the ball harder than any of the examples. A jumping, or bouncing, cue has the potential to move forward of the tangent. That's why the 45 degree rule has been excepted when shooting close shots. It's too close to see with the naked eye. And it's bullshit to make an immediate foul call on false generalities. I have yet to find a rule that states that the cue ball can't move forward. In fact, I'd argue a double hit would help to negate any spin put on the cueball from the first hit. And that's clearly not the case here.
@@thehossdriver Sky’s cue elevation was much less than 80 degrees, but this is a moot point since his CB barely left the surface. With a larger gap and significant jump, the CB can go forward of the tangent line, but that was. It the case here. No league or the WPA currently uses the antiquated 45° rule. The only tournament that uses it is the Derby Cit Classic. The rule has many problems per this video:
ruclips.net/video/HVXOBUAsPSc/видео.html
@@thehossdriver A double hit can reduce spin in the CB, but it can also increase it if the 2nd hit has more tip offset. Regardless, the effect is less with cue elevation. Watch the video again. I clearly demonstrate a legal hit and a foul, and the foul shot obviously retained enough spin to draw back.
Plain as day that its a foul.
@@GearheadDaily I obviously agree 100% per the info and demos in the video.
@@DrDaveBilliards Any time they aren't frozen and the cue ball moves forward, its a clear double hit. Albeit a very fast double hit, still hit twice.
0:03 That's definitely double hit (assuming balls are not frozen to eachother)
@@Jake-b6e6i Yep. No doubt whatsoever.
He almost shot the same direction as the 6. Way bad Sky
I can almost guarantee that Marcel, at least partially, definitely based his decision on your analysis of previous refereeing errors/CB physics breakdowns! 😁
Marcel has made mistakes in the past, but he is a true professional. He admits and learns from his mistakes.
I have done shots like this and im an average player.. if it goes forward like he said its a foul.. if i can manage to make the ball go straight back then i dont know how they can even question the call 🤨 clearly a foul and like i said im average so dont know how it was even questioned
Agreed. The call was obvious, but not to everybody apparently.
@@DrDaveBilliardsyeah just seems weird that so many people cant clearly see the foul.. and questioning the ref when he is literally right there watching.. and he clearly stated why it was a foul 🤷♂️
@@rangrybillymaddin2459 Refs sometimes make mistakes, but not this time. For many examples of ref mistakes in pro tournaments over the years, see:
billiards.colostate.edu/faq/foul/examples/
@@DrDaveBilliards yeah i have seen them make mistakes but it isnt as often as the players making mistakes..
Foul is for sure!
@@LauraLe-g8p Most definitely, based on the info and demos in this video.
I play myself and if the ball goes forward its always a foul. If Skylar had had his cue STRAIGHT UP he might have got away with it. The way he had his cue he was always going to PUSH .
Agreed. The shot was obviously going to be foul even before he hit it.
Foul.. I sent everyone your video.
I hope the people who need to watch it actually watch it.
You can hear the sound on the double tab after you get accustomed.
@@joefunk1611 Sound is not a reliable indicator of a double hit. Luckily, we don’t need to here it since the CB motion tells all. No experienced ref would ever use sound to judge a double hit.
In the APA league, I usually see leniency on lower skill level players in this double hit situation (and even more obvious situations), and the higher skill level players are experienced enough to have some seasoned, neutral player 'watch the shot'. That being said, I think most in the APA would have let Sky's shot go as 'legal' just because he hit down at an oblique angle, despite the cue ball traveling forward of the tangent line.
That all being said... you're right, the tangent line 'tells the tale' of the hit being legal or not.... and pro's should absolutely be held to that standard. However, in the low skill level armature league matches, maybe some 'grace' is given if an attempt to be a legal hit is made, because come on, in low skill level matches we're already having to go 25 innings just to get one game in, and it can be exhausting! :)
That is kind of how almost any amateur league goes. Lower skill or new players basically never get called for double hits on close balls. It's expected that a seasoned player will call the foul on themself but if they don't then its usually not called anyways unless a ref was called to watch the shot. Amateur leagues aren't (and honestly SHOULD'NT) be held to the same strict standards that the pros play under, especially the APA that uses a weird mix of bar rules and pro rules but also allows slop/flukes. Amateur leagues like that are mostly for fun and making friends. If you're the guy calling a double hit on a shot like that on APA league night then you're not really going to be making many friends or having much fun.
In a professional setting, however... absolutely a foul.
Well stated. Offering "grace" to lower-skilled players in leagues is certainly a fair thing to do. Although, I still think it is important to help these players learn the rules.
@@seanzie24 That is true, nobody likes an anal retentive tickey tackey rule enforcer! (at least not in the APA) LOL
Hopefully our paths cross in the future. you sound like the kind of dude that would be fun to play a match with.
I often let it slide with lower skilled players simply because I don't feel like the time explaining it to them is worth the reward. They aren't winning anyway, unless thing got closer in the match than I'd like.
Somebody please show this to CJ Wiley :D I bet he'll just say it's the matrix that's trying to get him and thus not even take it into consideration. What a total joke that this is even a topic for discussion.
I hope CJ does see the video, and I hope it helps change his position on the matter. I agree that all the "discussion" on this shot was disturbing. The shot was a blatant and totally obvious foul.