The ref shure knows his game, but how can there be no rail after contact if the cue ball is touching the rail? Maybe it was not touching but how come it runs along the rail a bit then?
It was a bad call. Either the cue ball hill the object ball and ran into rail, on cue ball bounced away from rail before making contact and then redirected back into the rail with almost a full rotation of the cue ball. Physics doesn't lie
Sure looked like it got a rail. If the CB was frozen to the rail when the ref grabbed it then it was a good hit. Can’t say from the footage though Edited to fix autocorrect error of “radio” to “rail”
It looked like it hit the ball and rail at the same time. The cue ball stayed on the rail and never bounced off. I'm guessing the rule would be something has to it a rail after contact.
The cue ball did not hit the 5 as it was approaching the rail and since the cue ball was frozen to the rail upon hitting the 5 afterward, the discretion goes to the judge to make the call. So he ruled no contact after the hit, which was the correct call.
An object ball must be potted or a rail must be hit after the target ball is struck. In this case, no ball hit the rail after the orange 5 was struck. However, it's very close. You could argue the cue ball hit the rail after the 5, but live in person would be hard to see.
difficult to say, but i think that you're right. I guess the rational was that it hit the rail and the 5 at the same time and then didn't hit a rail... But i do think it was rail-5-rail...
@@Agiyi I think it hit the rail before the 5 but then came back towards the rail because of the roll it had after. Can’t really tell if it made it all the way back to the rail but sure looks like it is frozen at the end
@@Quatsch83 yes, that's the problem, that it looks frozen at the end. Theoretically speaking, it the cb hit the rail and the 5 at the same time, and then remained frozen, it is a foul...
@@Agiyiit’s physically impossible to hit the rail and ball at the same time and remain frozen. Human eyes might not be able to see it happen, but basic physics won’t allow that to happen. There will always be a microscopic bounce between the two objects.
Commentary was embarrassing to listen to. If you’re gonna bring up the size of the pockets it makes you both sound dumb when neither of you know the size.
Спорт
That was a good safety battle
He did hit the 5 ball but it was a foul because no ball touched a rail after contact
Ouschan is the closest player ever to Efren Reyes in terms of the execution on escaping snooker. His angles are precise and he never hit and hope.
🤔ehh
The ref shure knows his game, but how can there be no rail after contact if the cue ball is touching the rail? Maybe it was not touching but how come it runs along the rail a bit then?
Because it was a bad call by the ref
Predator coming w their own short form content 😎 fair play lads
Man these guys were still on point, although missing a run pattern, they opted for safeties which are in deed challenging. Aaaand they nailed em.
The Referee (if that's what their Title is), looks like Jeff Ross.
It was a bad call. Either the cue ball hill the object ball and ran into rail, on cue ball bounced away from rail before making contact and then redirected back into the rail with almost a full rotation of the cue ball.
Physics doesn't lie
That cue ball did made contact with the rail after the 5-ball. Nevertheless, it was a tough one to judge.
Close but it was a bad hit.
@@davidparker8475 Agreed, correct call.
Sure looked like it got a rail. If the CB was frozen to the rail when the ref grabbed it then it was a good hit. Can’t say from the footage though
Edited to fix autocorrect error of “radio” to “rail”
It looked like it hit the ball and rail at the same time. The cue ball stayed on the rail and never bounced off. I'm guessing the rule would be something has to it a rail after contact.
The cue ball did not hit the 5 as it was approaching the rail and since the cue ball was frozen to the rail upon hitting the 5 afterward, the discretion goes to the judge to make the call. So he ruled no contact after the hit, which was the correct call.
Science says the ref f’d the call.
Yup, I’m surprised Albin didn’t contest that one
8:07 Can anyone told me Why Is Foul?
An object ball must be potted or a rail must be hit after the target ball is struck. In this case, no ball hit the rail after the orange 5 was struck. However, it's very close. You could argue the cue ball hit the rail after the 5, but live in person would be hard to see.
no foul at ruclips.net/video/JRPZ_rJfEuk/видео.html .
btw you just can write the time stamp like 7:44 and it automatically becomes clickable
difficult to say, but i think that you're right. I guess the rational was that it hit the rail and the 5 at the same time and then didn't hit a rail... But i do think it was rail-5-rail...
@@Agiyi I think it hit the rail before the 5 but then came back towards the rail because of the roll it had after. Can’t really tell if it made it all the way back to the rail but sure looks like it is frozen at the end
@@Quatsch83 yes, that's the problem, that it looks frozen at the end. Theoretically speaking, it the cb hit the rail and the 5 at the same time, and then remained frozen, it is a foul...
@@Agiyiit’s physically impossible to hit the rail and ball at the same time and remain frozen. Human eyes might not be able to see it happen, but basic physics won’t allow that to happen. There will always be a microscopic bounce between the two objects.
Van b looks like et 😮
Both your wrists will get offly tired
Commentary was embarrassing to listen to. If you’re gonna bring up the size of the pockets it makes you both sound dumb when neither of you know the size.
I can beat these guys
Never seen you playing 😅
beat em then
Fortnite doesn’t count
Who gives a 💩!
You’d beat them off. You look like you’re quite a shaft stroker, bud.