Idea for referees putting the balls back correctly

[Billy]

Well of course exact, to the mm replacement is impossible. I thought that was a given? I'm not sure there's a technology even available that could do that. All third-eye technology, whatever the sport, is fallible.

[jonny66]

The problem with the perspective is that the balls can look like they are in the same position, but in reality be a few mm out. The same way you hear commentators saying that a ball can look easily pottable on the screen but that is not the case.

[Mark187187]

What it has to do with it is what i said, but I don't mind expanding on what I wrote.

A mm or two isn't going to be picked up easily by the eye on a small screen. Let's say the screen is 10 times smaller than the table (i.e the size of a largish monitor) that mm is now the width of a sheet of paper. If it is the baulk cushion, with the perspective squeeze, it's half the width of a piece of paper. If they're using a small monitor like they seem to be at the Players Championship, it's the width of a quarter of a sheet of paper or less. It's at the point where the difference isn't perceptable without a magnifying glass.

The alternative, without new technology, is the referee getting as close as they reasonably can with the monitor and consulting the player who knows exactly where it was to make sure. This is what they do now.

[Billy]

Well, a screen is always going to be significantly smaller than the table, so there's always going to be some discrepancy. Add to that a perspective which squeezes the baulk cushion 1/3 narrower, and lessens the perceived depth, and the current set up is always going to need player imput, unless the referee is absolutely certain (in which case they wouldn't have asked for the video freeze frame).

But what does this have to do with replacing the balls correctly?

Look, you have two images, both from the same camera and giving the exact same perspective on balls, cushions etc. One shows the balls as they were before the shot, the other shows the balls after foul & miss has been called. The assistant ref then blends the two images. All he has to do now, is guide the referee at the table until the position of any balls that moved have been replaced and sit directly over the balls in the 'before' image. Where's the discrepancy or need for player input?

[Mark187187]

But no. If, for example, a player is snookered and decides to come off side cushion to nestle on a red on the black cushion, and in doing so is in no danger of going anywhere near an offending ball, a cueball incorrectly replaced by a few mm is going to make no difference whatsoever.



Again I'd have to argue this is wrong. A 'before' image overlaid onto an 'after' image, from the same camera, is perfectly adequate to replace balls exactly. Perspective doesn't come into it because the two images come from the same camera. All they're concerned with is the position of the ball(s), and if you move the ball(s) until they're positioned over the ball(s) in the before image... bullseye!

Well, a screen is always going to be significantly smaller than the table, so there's always going to be some discrepancy. Add to that a perspective which squeezes the baulk cushion 1/3 narrower, and lessens the perceived depth, and the current set up is always going to need player imput, unless the referee is absolutely certain (in which case they wouldn't have asked for the video freeze frame).

The options are either to keep in as is, or to improve the technology. Introducing into the rules a presumption that a player isn't going to be purposefully obstructive in replacing the balls (to the extent that their opponent has to jump in to resolve the issue) would also help in certain circumstances.

[Billy]

Even in that example, It makes a difference, no matter how insignificant it may seem. But the same system will also have to be used for more complex ball replacement situations where mm are indeed crucial, so it has to be as accurate as possible.

-

Okay, let's say I concede the point regarding the importance of the ball(s) being replaced precisely, I still maintain it can be done with the current methods, and I'm still baffled as to why they seem to struggle so.

[PatBlock]

But no. If, for example, a player is snookered and decides to come off side cushion to nestle on a red on the black cushion, and in doing so is in no danger of going anywhere near an offending ball, a cueball incorrectly replaced by a few mm is going to make no difference whatsoever.

Even in that example, It makes a difference, no matter how insignificant it may seem. But the same system will also have to be used for more complex ball replacement situations where mm are indeed crucial, so it has to be as accurate as possible.

-

[Billy]

Have to disagree here Billy.



Exactly. And there's chaos theory, an apparently insignificant change can significantly alter things further down the line.

-

But no. If, for example, a player is snookered and decides to come off side cushion to nestle on a red on the black cushion, and in doing so is in no danger of going anywhere near an offending ball, a cueball incorrectly replaced by a few mm is going to make no difference whatsoever.

I don't know how many views the ref and assistant can see. But, if its just the main view of the full table we get, there getting a view distorted by perspective, and there's no way of knowing proximity to the baulk cushion to within a mm or 2. They really need an overhead view fed from many cameras, which probably isn't going to happen. Most sports would use something lime hawk eye, but even that has a couple mm tolerance

Again I'd have to argue this is wrong. A 'before' image overlaid onto an 'after' image, from the same camera, is perfectly adequate to replace balls exactly. Perspective doesn't come into it because the two images come from the same camera. All they're concerned with is the position of the ball(s), and if you move the ball(s) until they're positioned over the ball(s) in the before image... bullseye!

[PatBlock]

But half the time we're talking about a situation where this doesn't apply. A mm - even a cm - here or there would make no difference to the shot in most cases.

Have to disagree here Billy.

Unfortunately fractions of mm make a huge amounts of difference to all shots...
It's the mm which prevents a lot of amateur players from being century making, professional potting machines.

Exactly. And there's chaos theory, an apparently insignificant change can significantly alter things further down the line.

-

[Mike P]

In discrepancies of ball placement, I would say more than 90% of the time, it’s the cue ball. By marking the location of the cue ball, other ball placements would be the only guesswork. Also, I am not saying that the camera can’t ever be used.

[Mark187187]

I don't know how many views the ref and assistant can see. But, if its just the main view of the full table we get, there getting a view distorted by perspective, and there's no way of knowing proximity to the baulk cushion to within a mm or 2. They really need an overhead view fed from many cameras, which probably isn't going to happen. Most sports would use something lime hawk eye, but even that has a couple mm tolerance

[the lone wolf]

But half the time we're talking about a situation where this doesn't apply. A mm - even a cm - here or there would make no difference to the shot in most cases. And when it does they have the technology to replace it exactly. How difficult is it to overlay before and after images, and then guide the referee in?

Yes, this is precisely what they do but they seem to find it the most difficult thing in the world. A lot of the time I find myself shouting at the TV, "Right! That's perfect... why are you moving it again??!!" I completely fail to understand why the two refs can't see what I'm seeing.

Unfortunately fractions of mm make a huge amounts of difference to all shots...
It's the mm which prevents a lot of amateur players from being century making, professional potting machines.

[Billy]

It pretty much is when youre talking about a game where fractions of a mm can mean a ball goes or doesn't, or you can hit a ball or not.

But half the time we're talking about a situation where this doesn't apply. A mm - even a cm - here or there would make no difference to the shot in most cases. And when it does they have the technology to replace it exactly. How difficult is it to overlay before and after images, and then guide the referee in?

Yes, this is precisely what they do but they seem to find it the most difficult thing in the world. A lot of the time I find myself shouting at the TV, "Right! That's perfect... why are you moving it again??!!" I completely fail to understand why the two refs can't see what I'm seeing.

[the lone wolf]

Marking chalk will only work for the cue ball.
What about all other potential moving balls?
Or in this case. A red that was repositioned when it hadn't been moved by the players attempted shot...

[Railfan87]

Why not make full use of the ball marker the referee already has. All he would have to do is mark the cue balls’ original location. The guess work in replacing the ball would be eliminated. This could even be done for a ball that is close to the ball on.
People replied that all this marking would slow the players’ rhythm down. It would take all of maybe 5 seconds to mark a ball. When there is a disagreement on the placement of the ball, how much time does that take?

I was just at a referee's meeting last weekend. Our national head ref in Canada advocates doing just this if he thinks a miss is likely. It literally takes a few seconds. A tailor's chalk pencil in the opposite pocket from your ball marker, and Bob's your uncle. It's a lot less upsetting to a player than sitting through a lengthy debate.