3rd rack foul looks like a right call at first glance, but when you check the rules, you can see that unintetional miscue isn't a foul even if he scoops the cue ball. This situation is a clear example of a referee's bad call and Sanjin should've said it.
My Dad thought me hanging around the local pool hall was not good for me, I was maybe 12, So he bought a nice Brunswick Table, kicked all the living room into a spare bedroom, it was only me and him living in the house, after he leveled it up, he took a stick and ran 11 racked of balls, he had not shot pool for 25 years, and the sticks that came with the table were warped badly, he could beat you with a broom stick, I learned everything I know about pool from him.
@@faizzuliskandar This is not snooker bro... cue ball can jump over any object ball... the foul is with respect to scooping... but it is clear that he did not do it intentionally as he was trying maximum draw...
Only a foul if you scooped it intentionally. He obviously didn't want to jump. He wanted to make the 1 ball. And a pro wouldn't jump a ball like that on purpose anyways.
3rd rack ref called wrong. That was not a foul shot, scooping the ball would be a foul if it is intentionally done in this case it was accidental. If the cue ball had not come back and hit the 1-ball first which then hit a rail then it would be a foul but that's not what happened, it did come hit the 1 which hit a rail. Ref made the wrong call.
The reason those types of shots are usually considered foul (3rd rack mis cue jump) is because it’s a scooping motion that causes the ball to jump. He had the cue elevated, the down word strike is what caused the jump which is legal.
I don’t think so. It’s very difficult to jump with a shooting cue when you’re trying to do it, and I’ve never seen someone get that much air with one. He was trying to draw and miscued, which caused the ball to jump, we’ve all been there.
@@stephenmcneil4573facts because Earl Strickland and Sammy Jones/Loree jon jones ex husband who still runs his pool store here in Greenville Sc which the store is still named after her but him and Earl Strickland was one of the first players who could jump with a regular cue before jump cues were even thought about and yes most definitely with a draw shot you really have to make sure you chalk up your cue tip like crazy especially around the edges of the tip as well
I thought this type of double hit, was only a foul if it was deemed intentional. There was nothing to gain by playing this way, so highly unlikely to be intentional. I would not have called a foul.
The reason why he fouled is because you can't jump shot by cueing from below the ball. You can only perform a jump shot by forcing the ball downwards. It looks from the video replay that he did that, but I understand what the ref saw live. I think you can classify that as foul since it really looked like he pushed the ball "up" in order to jump it
How is it possible that jump shots are allowed but that was a foul. I know about the "scooping" thing. So by extension almost any miscue could be a foul. That is not the first time I've seen that ref screw the pooch. It makes no sense whatsoever. Very arbitrary call. Sanjin was robbed. That would a be rule that should not apply to the pros. That's the kind of non-sense you seen on bar tables playing with drunks.
Dr.Dave has a video about the foul call: ruclips.net/video/UOERQUw25DQ/видео.html He says it was a bad call, because the tournament is played under WPA rules which state that an unintentional scoop shot is a miscue, and unintentional miscues are NOT a foul.
You’re exactly right and thanks for posting the link to Dr. Dave’s video. Very useful. Funny to see how many people are arguing against this and they’re just wrong…
Isn't Sanjin also the guy that threw a fit and conceded a game when he was called for a breaking foul by placing the ball across the headstring? Was that also Marcel Eckhart reffing, and possibly ALSO against SVB?! And then he had his little tantrum against Wu Kun Lin... this dude is easily my least favorite player to watch.
i saw "TWICE-PLUS-TENTHS … The Most Useful Bank Shot Diamond System You’ll Ever Learn" :D and i realy dont know why he post such vids... and sry dr dave i learned a better system.
@@verekertam8921 But that's NOT the WPA rule. Rule 8.18 says a scoop is a miscue, and rule 6.17 says an *intentional* miscue is an unsportsmanlike conduct foul. Therefore, an unintentional miscue is not a foul if the shot is otherwise a legal hit. Here's Dr.Dave's video: ruclips.net/video/UOERQUw25DQ/видео.htmlsi=0p2QYpzorjwA-fkH
WPA rules states: 8.18 A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note that intentional miscues are covered by 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c). 6.17 unsportsmanlike conduct (foul) (c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing; 9 ball uses rules 6.17 which states that it is only a foul if it is intentional. It was a miscue by definition but the rules state it has to be INTENTIONAL.
That was clearly not a foul. I'm on Sanjin's side. He knew it wasn't a foul. It was a miscue, and the tip of his cue clearly hit the cue ball first. These refs need to be retrained on this issue...
@@cerkcerkcerk4791 nice conclusion to jump to, person that doesn’t know me. I’m actually quite a skilled player, but even if I wasn’t, it doesn’t take someone to play pool to be able to identify a foul if they know what to look for. So, double fail on your part there. But besides being just wrong (and wrongheaded I might add) I’ll surmise that it’s actually you that is the lesser knowledgeable player between the two of us. Even Dr. Dave disagrees with you. Maybe learn a bit more before opening your mouth in the future…
If he miscued and it flew off the table, you'd not question whether or not it was a foul. He scooped it, which you aren't allowed to do, intentional or not. It is a foul.
@@suewoo5 Sorry, that's not correct - the WPA rules are clear: unintended miscues are not a foul. If he scooped AND it went off the table, it would be a foul because it went off the table, not the (clearly unintended) scoop. If he had NOT come off the rail and hit the one ball and drove it to a rail, it would have been a "bad hit" foul, not because of the scoop, but he did get a perfectly legal hit. Definitely a bad call.
Game 3: This was NOT a foul!!! If it's a miscue, even if you touch the cue-ball twice, it is NOT. Intentional scooping is, but unintentional miscues are not!
@@jadams1722 Nope, after scooping over it, he hit the intended object ball from behind and drove it to a rail, so it was a legal hit. Again, WPA rules say *unintended* miscues are not fouls.
@@leogoku13 That is simply not true. You can watch it frame by frame: In one frame you see the contact, and the in the very next frame the cue ball is in the air and the cue tip is on the table. That's not absolute proof it wasn't a double hit, but it's absolute proof that your "slow mo" claim is simply not true.
@@RocketRoomVideo the physics of that doesn't make any sense dude. There is no way to make a cue ball jump over another ball right in front of it just by making straight forward level contact.
I continue to wonder when the pool world will look at other major sports and see what theyre doing. Or in this case what theyre not doing. None of them use the overhead camera as much as pool does and its for a reason. Because it doesn’t make sense. I would rather match the matches where they stick an iphone on a tripod somewhere in the philippines than watch these matches because i dont want to view the game from a 2D perspective.
@@JacobJones2148 maybe ive just played enough pool to be able to know where the cue ball is going to go from the view looking down at the table from an angle (the same view you have when you’re actually standing at the table and playing). Plus we want to see the players stance, stroke, mechanics, demeanor, where hes cueing at the cue ball ect ect all of which you cannot see with the overhead camera.
My understanding of a lot of rulesets, is that “intentional miscues” are illegal. I don’t know if that’s different under this rule set, and I’m having trouble finding exactly which rules they’re are following. This was obviously not an intentional miscue, so it’s either a case of the player not being aware of the miscue rule, or the referee applying it incorrectly. Edit: maybe falls under the wpa push shot rules, about prolonged contact with cue ball beyond a normal shot. They don’t mention miscues, but that’s probably what was ruled here, which makes sense.
@@stephenmcneil4573the foul isnt for any miscue. if it was a regular miscue and he hit the correct ball, it would not be a foul. however he hit under the cue ball causing it to jump, this is called a scoup shot and is a foul regardless of what occurs after it. The reason it is a foul is because it is counted as hitting the ball twice
That is NOT the case, and on the official rules I was unable to verify that Matchroom has a particular issue with players mis-cueing and causing an accidental scoop. The APA and other pool leagues specifically state scooping being a foul if it is done intentionally, that's the only nuance that matters - hence the confusion of the player - it was an accident.
15:45 to clear this up. most comments here are right. jumping a ball by scooping/ miscueing under it is a foul wether you intended it or not. What most are missing here is that by performing this you actually hit the ball twice (once with the tip and then with the ferrule/ shaft) thats why you always hear that indistinguish sound. dr. dave made a video about it where you can see it in slow motion. *flies away on a miscued shot*
to clear this up again, if you actually read the rules like I did then you would understand that while scooping is a miscue, it is only a foul if the miscue (scoop) was intentional. WPA rules, look it up or watch Dr dave’s other video on this EXACT match and why this wasn’t a foul. ruclips.net/video/UOERQUw25DQ/видео.htmlsi=2gfp61yXvs_rFPw_
3rd rack foul looks like a right call at first glance, but when you check the rules, you can see that unintetional miscue isn't a foul even if he scoops the cue ball. This situation is a clear example of a referee's bad call and Sanjin should've said it.
My Dad thought me hanging around the local pool hall was not good for me, I was maybe 12, So he bought a nice Brunswick Table, kicked all the living room into a spare bedroom, it was only me and him living in the house, after he leveled it up, he took a stick and ran 11 racked of balls, he had not shot pool for 25 years, and the sticks that came with the table were warped badly, he could beat you with a broom stick, I learned everything I know about pool from him.
Intentionally scooping the ball to make a jump is a foul.
Unintentionally jumping a cue ball because of miscue is not a foul.
Bad call by the referee…
Its a foul bro, cus the cue ball " jump over " an object ball. If the cue ball didn't jump over, then it wasn't a foul
@@faizzuliskandar This is not snooker bro... cue ball can jump over any object ball... the foul is with respect to scooping... but it is clear that he did not do it intentionally as he was trying maximum draw...
Only a foul if you scooped it intentionally. He obviously didn't want to jump. He wanted to make the 1 ball. And a pro wouldn't jump a ball like that on purpose anyways.
3rd rack ref called wrong. That was not a foul shot, scooping the ball would be a foul if it is intentionally done in this case it was accidental. If the cue ball had not come back and hit the 1-ball first which then hit a rail then it would be a foul but that's not what happened, it did come hit the 1 which hit a rail. Ref made the wrong call.
The reason those types of shots are usually considered foul (3rd rack mis cue jump) is because it’s a scooping motion that causes the ball to jump. He had the cue elevated, the down word strike is what caused the jump which is legal.
I don’t think so. It’s very difficult to jump with a shooting cue when you’re trying to do it, and I’ve never seen someone get that much air with one. He was trying to draw and miscued, which caused the ball to jump, we’ve all been there.
@@stephenmcneil4573exactly right
@@stephenmcneil4573facts because Earl Strickland and Sammy Jones/Loree jon jones ex husband who still runs his pool store here in Greenville Sc which the store is still named after her but him and Earl Strickland was one of the first players who could jump with a regular cue before jump cues were even thought about and yes most definitely with a draw shot you really have to make sure you chalk up your cue tip like crazy especially around the edges of the tip as well
I agree. It clearly was a miscue, and that's why he scooped it. Why are we even talking about this? This thread is like a commercial for chalk.
I thought this type of double hit, was only a foul if it was deemed intentional. There was nothing to gain by playing this way, so highly unlikely to be intentional. I would not have called a foul.
The reason why he fouled is because you can't jump shot by cueing from below the ball. You can only perform a jump shot by forcing the ball downwards. It looks from the video replay that he did that, but I understand what the ref saw live. I think you can classify that as foul since it really looked like he pushed the ball "up" in order to jump it
How is it possible that jump shots are allowed but that was a foul. I know about the "scooping" thing. So by extension almost any miscue could be a foul. That is not the first time I've seen that ref screw the pooch. It makes no sense whatsoever. Very arbitrary call. Sanjin was robbed. That would a be rule that should not apply to the pros. That's the kind of non-sense you seen on bar tables playing with drunks.
Dr.Dave has a video about the foul call: ruclips.net/video/UOERQUw25DQ/видео.html He says it was a bad call, because the tournament is played under WPA rules which state that an unintentional scoop shot is a miscue, and unintentional miscues are NOT a foul.
You’re exactly right and thanks for posting the link to Dr. Dave’s video. Very useful.
Funny to see how many people are arguing against this and they’re just wrong…
SVB MY IDOLA 🔥🔥🔥
Anyone in september 2024
Efren, earl and Shane
& Shane can still win more titles if he's keeps this up.
why is this ref still there? he doesn't know the basic rules..
Yes it is a foul the initial hit then the cue ball rolls up on the stick it is a double hit
I think it is a foul because the ferrule touched the cue ball and I think that is illegal
Sanjan is vey good, dry break and white ball fowls stole his time to play, otherwise he is a better player
Anyone else want to take a break from the foul shot and sign petition to outlaw clapping like that
You tell of Sajen’s
celebration than missing the ball against Filler.But you don’t say if he lost the game. ( just curious )
They do mention. He did end up losing the game. Very embarrassing moment of premature celebration for sure.
If it is foul,why the referee doesnt call immediately
Sheldon Cooper no need to be refree at this sports
Isn't Sanjin also the guy that threw a fit and conceded a game when he was called for a breaking foul by placing the ball across the headstring? Was that also Marcel Eckhart reffing, and possibly ALSO against SVB?! And then he had his little tantrum against Wu Kun Lin... this dude is easily my least favorite player to watch.
what are you on about?? he should not complain if the guy is making bad calls ? legit questionable if it is a faul
also this happend last year and what you are on about happend recently so yeah ..
Id love to hear Dr. Daves opinion on this. I thought it had to be intentional to be a scoup shot. As in a miscue makes it not a foul but idk
Posted already: ruclips.net/video/UOERQUw25DQ/видео.html
i saw "TWICE-PLUS-TENTHS … The Most Useful Bank Shot Diamond System You’ll Ever Learn" :D and i realy dont know why he post such vids... and sry dr dave i learned a better system.
It depends on the rules that you are playing under. in this case, he scooped it. WPA rules, its a foul. so its a foul. so its a foul. so its a foul.
@@verekertam8921 But that's NOT the WPA rule. Rule 8.18 says a scoop is a miscue, and rule 6.17 says an *intentional* miscue is an unsportsmanlike conduct foul. Therefore, an unintentional miscue is not a foul if the shot is otherwise a legal hit. Here's Dr.Dave's video: ruclips.net/video/UOERQUw25DQ/видео.htmlsi=0p2QYpzorjwA-fkH
WPA rules states:
8.18
A scoop shot, in which the cue tip contacts the playing surface and the cue ball at
the same time and this causes the cue ball to rise off the cloth, is treated like a miscue. Note
that intentional miscues are covered by 6.17 Unsportsmanlike Conduct (c).
6.17 unsportsmanlike conduct (foul)
(c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing;
9 ball uses rules 6.17 which states that it is only a foul if it is intentional. It was a miscue by definition but the rules state it has to be INTENTIONAL.
cmon svb
That was clearly not a foul. I'm on Sanjin's side. He knew it wasn't a foul. It was a miscue, and the tip of his cue clearly hit the cue ball first. These refs need to be retrained on this issue...
Then you obviously doesn't play pool
@@cerkcerkcerk4791 nice conclusion to jump to, person that doesn’t know me. I’m actually quite a skilled player, but even if I wasn’t, it doesn’t take someone to play pool to be able to identify a foul if they know what to look for. So, double fail on your part there.
But besides being just wrong (and wrongheaded I might add) I’ll surmise that it’s actually you that is the lesser knowledgeable player between the two of us. Even Dr. Dave disagrees with you. Maybe learn a bit more before opening your mouth in the future…
If he miscued and it flew off the table, you'd not question whether or not it was a foul. He scooped it, which you aren't allowed to do, intentional or not. It is a foul.
95% of fouls are unintentional still fouls
@@suewoo5 Sorry, that's not correct - the WPA rules are clear: unintended miscues are not a foul. If he scooped AND it went off the table, it would be a foul because it went off the table, not the (clearly unintended) scoop. If he had NOT come off the rail and hit the one ball and drove it to a rail, it would have been a "bad hit" foul, not because of the scoop, but he did get a perfectly legal hit. Definitely a bad call.
Shan 😩🔥🔥
WTG, SVB
Game 3: This was NOT a foul!!!
If it's a miscue, even if you touch the cue-ball twice, it is NOT. Intentional scooping is, but unintentional miscues are not!
It was a foul because he hit the objective ball. That is the deference between a miscue and a table scratch.
@@jadams1722 Nope, after scooping over it, he hit the intended object ball from behind and drove it to a rail, so it was a legal hit. Again, WPA rules say *unintended* miscues are not fouls.
If you look at it in slow mo you will see that the cue tip hits the ball twice.
@@leogoku13 That is simply not true. You can watch it frame by frame: In one frame you see the contact, and the in the very next frame the cue ball is in the air and the cue tip is on the table. That's not absolute proof it wasn't a double hit, but it's absolute proof that your "slow mo" claim is simply not true.
@@RocketRoomVideo the physics of that doesn't make any sense dude. There is no way to make a cue ball jump over another ball right in front of it just by making straight forward level contact.
Go Shane Go!
I don’t think that would’ve been a foul. His cue was pointed down and miscued but it wasn’t a scoop to make it jump. That’s a weird rule
I continue to wonder when the pool world will look at other major sports and see what theyre doing. Or in this case what theyre not doing. None of them use the overhead camera as much as pool does and its for a reason. Because it doesn’t make sense. I would rather match the matches where they stick an iphone on a tripod somewhere in the philippines than watch these matches because i dont want to view the game from a 2D perspective.
I love the overhead view
Think you're on your own here.. I love it. It's the only way to see how the balls are traveling
@@gregorpesek respectfully do you play alot of pool yourself or do you mostly just watch?
@@Jack3dBrettover head is better. It makes it much easier to imagine where the cue ball will travel. It shouldn't be over head every shot though
@@JacobJones2148 maybe ive just played enough pool to be able to know where the cue ball is going to go from the view looking down at the table from an angle (the same view you have when you’re actually standing at the table and playing). Plus we want to see the players stance, stroke, mechanics, demeanor, where hes cueing at the cue ball ect ect all of which you cannot see with the overhead camera.
Doesn't matter whether you meant to do it or not...if you make an illegal jump it's a foul. Don't know why he was confused about that
the confusion was over the illegal jump, he didnt know that you may not jump the ball by hitting the bottom of it
and looks like the commentators didnt know either
My understanding of a lot of rulesets, is that “intentional miscues” are illegal. I don’t know if that’s different under this rule set, and I’m having trouble finding exactly which rules they’re are following. This was obviously not an intentional miscue, so it’s either a case of the player not being aware of the miscue rule, or the referee applying it incorrectly.
Edit: maybe falls under the wpa push shot rules, about prolonged contact with cue ball beyond a normal shot. They don’t mention miscues, but that’s probably what was ruled here, which makes sense.
@@stephenmcneil4573the foul isnt for any miscue. if it was a regular miscue and he hit the correct ball, it would not be a foul. however he hit under the cue ball causing it to jump, this is called a scoup shot and is a foul regardless of what occurs after it. The reason it is a foul is because it is counted as hitting the ball twice
That is NOT the case, and on the official rules I was unable to verify that Matchroom has a particular issue with players mis-cueing and causing an accidental scoop. The APA and other pool leagues specifically state scooping being a foul if it is done intentionally, that's the only nuance that matters - hence the confusion of the player - it was an accident.
15:45 to clear this up. most comments here are right. jumping a ball by scooping/ miscueing under it is a foul wether you intended it or not. What most are missing here is that by performing this you actually hit the ball twice (once with the tip and then with the ferrule/ shaft) thats why you always hear that indistinguish sound. dr. dave made a video about it where you can see it in slow motion. *flies away on a miscued shot*
Ok that makes sense that it's a foul because you hit the cue ball twice. Didn't consider it a foul before.
to clear this up again, if you actually read the rules like I did then you would understand that while scooping is a miscue, it is only a foul if the miscue (scoop) was intentional. WPA rules, look it up or watch Dr dave’s other video on this EXACT match and why this wasn’t a foul.
ruclips.net/video/UOERQUw25DQ/видео.htmlsi=2gfp61yXvs_rFPw_
Ty for the link@@johnnyklasing4002
15:58 "you sure?" 😂
Edjonmrak1999
29