Mah gaud. One of the best shots in pool.

24:36

There would be one less rule to worry about if they just forget about the box.

@@geoffreyvanwyk4588 break is way too easy and predictable at this level without the box. However, this break would have still been illegal because it was past the head string line. Had nothing to do with the box.

In this format the cue ball must be in the break box on the break. The ref ruled it was outside the box when he shot.

Jose Parica: wanna play 8ball Efren? I'll spot you 3 balls.

Where's that shot in the match?

@@markgargan5793 thinking he maybe meant the Z bank kick earlier in the match

@@jh3809 have you got the time handy? Be nice to see it. I saw a kicked three that went in like a hanger but it was just a kick?

@@markgargan5793 it was the Z bank russian twister kick early in the match by Shane Dawg

@@blakefriedman8794 no time handy for that shot Blake?

4:04 as well. The ref is out of control.

It's a bit further - but still within the line, is it the line or diamonds that determine that?

The whole ball is supposed to be inside the line, i think. That looks like it should have been a foul, too. I saw a couple foul at the Derby because edge of cue ball was pass the line.

​@@observer991I'm genuinely curious about this. Let me preface by saying objectively, it appears to be a foul with my naked eye. People don't seem to understand that the camera angle is favorable to the breaker. Nearly impossible to tell because of perspective and the fact the camera lense isn't flat. The thing I'm curious about, is even with an app and telestrator lines, what amount of certainty can you say it was a foul? I know you can tell how different each break position is pretty easily. Seems the only way to tell with absolute certainty if it was a foul, is to be able to see the break box line. Could get near certain with a camera perfectly inline with the break line, with the right tools. Seems it's impossible to have great certainty given the angle, no matter what. I honestly have no idea why matchroom doesn't have a camera behind the breaker, to each side at 35° zoomed into the break box line. Seems to be a simple way to solve the issue. Also seems crazy to even risk going past the line. The extra millimeter seems silly when considering the risk vs reward. But what do I know?🤷🤣

​@@joshuastover5533no, atleast 50% of the ball has to be behind the line for matchroom. To put it more precisely, where the cue ball comes in contact with the table can not be past the break box line. Can't speak for Darby but would guess it's the same. It's easy to tell from the refs position because if he can see the line, in it's entirety, behind the cueball, it's a foul. Nearly impossible to tell from the angle offered. Perspective is very favorable to the breaker and can't see exactly where the cue ball is in contact with the table.

Apparently he sucks reffin pool, i saw videi where he was titulered best snooker ref

It was clearly a foul...he's made mistaken but not this time

@@kevinbailey7052 so was he over the line? what was the foul... i'm actually not sure whatsoever

can someone explain me why it was a foul? im a newbie in billiards

@@70bidadari48 the ball has to be behind the headstring or that line you see as well as inside of the other 2 vertical lines present. They switched to where the professionals can only break the balls with in a designated space to make it more difficult for them. But always ask away the billiard world is a beautiful place my friend👍

That's cool and all but a precise conclusion can't be taken given the angle. Which is why it's not reviewable. Unless you can see threw the cue ball, you can't tell if the bottom of the cue ball, what matters, is past the cue ball. If the bottom of the cue ball is past the line, then over half the cue ball is past the line. Which is a foul. The PERSPECTIVE is favorable to sanjen because the camera is in the middle of the table, past the line. If the camera was behind him the by same distance and you did the same trick, it'd look like he clearly fouled. The should have a table high camera view at 45° behind the breaker, then the line would be visable. The ref is perfectly positioned, slightly behind the line. They look down the line and if there is not a break in the line, where the cue ball is in contact,it's obvious. Marcel could see the entire line across the table. It was a foul.

You'd have to be EXACTLY in line with the break line in order for your method to work.

@@donkeydiehard879 That's all very nice .................... I disagree. Sanjin got robbed on an arbitrary call.

@@donkeydiehard879 I accounted for that. Nah, Sanjin got robbed on an arbitrary call.

Camera placement not really accurate. Just unfortunate that the ref saw it. He’s been paid to do his job, not by a player. Learn from it and move on.

I politely disagree. He'll never be able to break in. He has a terrible temper and a God complex. At the Olympics in Birmingham, he was punished heavily for his behavior against Alyousos Yapp.

You are talking a millimeter or 2 difference. Can't tell that it was "exact," given the camera angle. The only way to know is by looking down the line from the position the ref is in. The ref only calls a foul if the entire line is visable. As there should be a break in the line where the bottom of the cue ball is in contact with the line. In the case of the foul, he saw the whole line and called a foul. It was a foul. That being said, match room should have a camera angle that is zoomed in on the break box and can also see the line. Then it would be reviewable and take away all speculation.

Dude I screen shot it and is was the exact same spot

He's played way better before, plenty.

it's the equipment i think. some pool cues are heavier than snooker cues, and players who grow up with such equipment can't lazer straight like that even if they try, and over time the dip becomes more accentuated

@@truonglongnguyen2148 that's interesting. I do see it a lot more in American pool vs English pool. Maybe the English pool players started off in snooker?

@@mxcafx English pool players play with snooker cues it seems. i think the closest game to American pool in terms of equipment is actually Carom or 3-cushions, and players there also have the same kinda dip

@@truonglongnguyen2148 I've seen carom, but not enough to notice. That's great! Thanks!

My guess is maybe because Shane does it so everyone has copied it haha

Those are called magic racks. Used to keep the rack as tight as possible for the break and they are removed as soon as possible when no balls are on top of them.

Whole ball, not the edge, right?

it was more inside than outside.

The cue ball can not be more than 50% past the breakline. It's not the back edge. The perspective will make it seem that the cue ball is in the break box, even if it's 5mm past it. It's literally impossible to make a conclusion from the camera angle offered. The only way to tell with 100% certainty is to be able to see the break line. If the breakline is visable, the length of the table, behind the cue ball, it's a foul. The ref is in the PERFECT position to see that. It was a foul. Hopefully matchroom puts a camera behind the breaker, zoomed in on the break box line in the future. That will make it reviewable and end all unnecessary controversy.

Nitko normalan….

Ball was over the line, but didn't

You have x ray vision?! It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to tell that with the camera angle offered. The ref is in a much better position to make the call than any of us. That being said, hopefully matchroom gets a camera angle from behind the breaker, zoomed into to the break box line. Then it'd be reviewable and end unnecessary controversy.

@@donkeydiehard879 no its not literally impossible, you can see the center of the cue ball, and you can see the line. it is CLEARLY behind the line. stop with that "a hurr durr its the camera angle" bs

9 by 4.5 feet

🗣️

It's supposed to be clearly behind the line. No part of the ball. So no, you're wrong...

And the same ref called a soft break warning in AlexP-Filler match / called SVB no rail foul last year. Why always him??

The cue ball has to be 50% behind the break box line. To be more precise, where the cue ball comes in contact with the table, must be on or behind the line. It was a foul because the ref was able to see the line behind where the cue ball was. Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell from the camera angle given because perspective makes it APPEAR to be behind the line. Given that the ref is in perfect position to see the line, it was a foul.

just try to click the time you tag, its different. click the @13:30 and click the @21:30

Part of the problem is that refs are inconsistent. As the rule is written, it was a foul. Even from a favorable camera position, it is pretty clear that the half the cue ball is beyond line. Which is the only way we can judge if it's past the line. Which is far from precise. Refs are standing perfectly inline or slightly behind to ensure the bottom of the cue ball is not past the line. Marcel is young and has made mistakes. This however, was not one of them. In this event, it was the mistake of the young competitor losing his head and conceding a rack on a foul, with plenty of balls still on the table. Which is what cost him the match. I will say, my hat is off to him composing himself and making shots when he returned.

I just don’t get why the ref didn’t (A) say hey you need to back up before even striking. Then (B) when he did strike and foul he should have just shown him the replay it doesn’t affect anything not like the balls are going anywhere just show the replay prove to him he was in the wrong and move on plain and simple.

@@mikemillican5852 Refs aren't supposed to interfere at all, and the replay wasn't in an angle you can see anything from, that's why he said that there was no replay

@@mikemillican5852well, no. It’s not the ref’s job to stop a player from committing a foul. It’s his job to call the foul when it occurs. If he says something to him before he breaks, then that sets the precedent that a ref should warn a player before any foul, like “Hey, your shirt is about to touch that ball.” Can’t be done.

Brain dead take lol

you can see the center of the cue ball, and you can see the line. it is CLEARLY behind the line. stop with that "a hurr durr the camera isnt reliable" bs. referee acted like a complete baby too. he's a good ref for snooker, not for pool, wayyy too many terrible calls in pool.

Unfair for the other players that would get ball in hand from that error

@@andresilius5790 depends on how you define fair.

Its against the rules for a ref to interfere with the game during the shot. He is not allowed to warn him of an incoming foul, that would be like giving a player advice on how to pocket a ball. Think of it in football, the ref doesn't run over and let a lineman know he is lined up in the neutral zone, you let the play happen then call the foul.

Reyes is great all around but the level of players today would smoke anyone from his era.

Dumb

This exactly what I was asking, thank u

ها حب

Marcel is good but this ruling was not one of those examples. You can clearly see it wasn't an illegal break on the overhead. You don't judge someones decision based on "He's one of the best there is", you judge their decision based on the evidence presented for that decision.

@@ClassicMist360 between his judgement and our so called evidence i.e. an overhead view which was not even exactly from above the cue ball, I’d trust him

@@rezhaadriantanuharja3389 it doesnt need to be "exactly from above the cue ball", there are no camera angle tricks because our frame of reference for "depth" isnt an issue, as the cue ball is directly on the table, and not floating above it. you can clearly see the middle of the cue ball is within the kitchen on the break shot