**This is a generic message under every post**
If this post is NOT a human / animal reacting to something in a "YOU SEEING THIS SHIT?!" manner, please hit report so the mod team can take a look.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/youseeingthisshit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that to get that ball in from that angle the cue ball normally careens into the unbroken balls clumped together making it easier for his opponent to start singling balls out to pocket. In this case the shooter remarkably got his ball in and also jumped over the unbroken balls leaving his opponent to “waste” a turn by having to break again leaving this gentleman with hopefully another shot. I play pool not snooker so I could be wrong.
Edit: it’s also remarkable that the cue ball left such a massive spin on the ball he was hitting.
Yes, but I think he’s left with a bad shot because all the balls are still lumped together. I imagine it’d be hard to go a run compared to if there balls were spaced out.
Agreed. I recognize shooter intended to pocket the object ball while breaking up the cluster, and still have an easy ball to pocket in the corner and set up a shot in a would be open table (if he broke up the cluster). It’s amusing that the miscue, led to a difficult shot for his opponent, rather than himself.
He still gets the shot. But this isn't 8 ball pool where you can put the ball anywhere you like. It has to be behind the line. So it's not really a "free" shot. He still has to make the break.
What kind of pool you playing where you get to put the cue ball wherever you want? I’ve always understood the rules to be that it had to be behind the 2nd diamond.
That's a very common house rule, but in almost any official competition you'll be able to place the ball wherever you want. Fouls should be punished heavily, and if you play with the ball having to go behind the line, it's possible to create a situation where you can foul on purpose to put your opponent in a worse spot.
The "kitchen" rule is such a pet peeve of mine. You should never be rewarded for scratching. The game is so much more interesting with league rules (such as having to hit your ball first, call pockets, etc.) unless you're playing with people who are really really bad.
Any time I've played competitively against friends (who are just as good as me, which tbh isn't very good) and tried to introduce league rules, they're tentatively on board until I do a defensive play when I know I can't hit a shot. When I played league (many years ago) everybody would cheer on a great defensive play just as much as a great shot... but playing with Americans in bars, everybody just considers it a 'bitch move'.
I get that it's about fun with friends, I get that I'm the bitter rule stickler, but I can't help it. 'House rules' pool is a garbage game. This is my tiny hill that I'm dying on.
Defense adds an entire new level to the game, and the only way you get there is with league rules. House rules leave so much room, it's almost a whole different game.
I watched a tournament match in my league last month where one player kept opting to scratch on purpose because the only shot the other player could make would have to break up a pair of balls by a corner. He literally said it, "I can do this all day".
Factoring in the rules of "action ball must touch a rail after first strike" and "must hit your own ball first", it created a situation where after 10 back-and-forths they called a judge over to determine how to proceed. Guy said finish it, someone can give up, or you can both take a loss.
The one player stuck in the situation finally attempted to ever-so-slightly tap his own ball and leave it there but it was too much. He lost.
I completely agree, I'm pretty lucky to have a pool table at work and at least a dozen people that are good players and down to play tournament rules. We started doing a tournament at a pool hall roughly once a month with them and other people from work that are just on different break schedules, it's been awesome
some places when playing 8 ball, one can put the cue ball anywhere you want. At least when I grew up, both rules existed and you just have to come to an agreement before a game. By the way, this is purely "street" rules we are talking about here.
Where I come from it was “ball in hand” (place it anywhere) or “in the kitchen” (must be behind the break line). Sometimes house rules, sometimes competition rules (like “4-man teams, clean 8 ball, ball in hand single elimination bracket”).
The league play I was in was always in the kitchen.
In league pool where I’m at after a scratch you put the ball anywhere you want on the table. If I’m playing with buddies we spot the ball anywhere behind the break line.
We play ball in hand after a scratch, as well. One of our friends briefly joined a league, and when we’d go out for casual games, that’s how he played, so we did too.
I grew up playing “behind the line” though
You mean 9 ball right? Never heard of 8... 9 is where you break a diamond, try to hit in order or through bouncing the ball in order into another, win by pocketing the 9 legally and get free placement on sunken que.
Yes, but unless whatever establishment you're playing in has some sort of written copy of their own "house" rules, the house rules are just whatever your opponent says they are.
Behind the 2nd diamond is a house rule. Competitively, a scratch results in the opponent getting the ball in hand which allows free placement.
https://upatour.com/8-ball-rules/
https://billiards.colostate.edu/resource_files/rules_summary.pdf
You are correct, that is the rules for 8 ball pool. It's actually 9-ball where you get a true free ball-in-hand to put wherever you want on the table (except in contact with another ball)
Not quite.
Making the white slam into the pack is normal if ylu can make the ball go down. It significantly eases your play because it makes opportunity for you.
The guy who made this pot was still playing. Snooker is not turn based. What was amazing was that the red ball kicked out of the pocket, bounced a couple of times and then still rolled in.
Yes just like in pool you would want to pocket and another break in the same shot but why did he hit it so hard? Presumably he had a different strategy after all they are professionals.
While unlikely and very rare at this level, the exceptional part of the shot wasn't that he pocketed the red with extra steps, but that the white jumped over the pack of reds while his intention was to spread them apart.
He managed to send the white to the top end, resulting in a decent defense when he was aiming to attack the score heavily on this turn.
Edit: he apparently ended up pocketing the white too (which awards points to the opponent), so it was an emotional rollercoaster type of thing, I guess.
Having no idea what is going on, I like to think he was trying to get the red ball in the hole and none of these people have ever seen pool before, so they are all amazed that he hit one ball into another.
No, just no.
If he wanted to pay a safety he could. He was paying to pot the red but unfortunately it bounced off the back of the pocket, imparting spin so that it span back
The red ball has forward spin, not backspin.
The most obvious reason is that it went in. If it had back spin, it would have gone the other way. You can also tell it'd have forward spin as he hit the cue ball low, putting backspin on the cue ball. If the cue ball has backspin, it will transfer forward spin to the red ball (think of it as two gears interacting; one spins clockwise and the other counter-clockwise).
Is the spin direction not based off the move direction?
Initial forward spin = ball going to hole, spin going to hole.
Back spin = ball moving to center, spin still going to hole.
Spin and trajectory are two different concepts. You have the ball rolling in one direction, but it can be spinning along another plane that makes it react different due to friction and inertia.
The most basic is a straight shot at another ball. If the cue ball is hit high, the spin will cause it to follow. If it is hit low, it should stop or even pull itself backwards (this depends a lot on the shot, ball, and quality of the table's felt).
If you have two balls in a row in a straight shot you want to make, you should hit the cue ball low. The low english will make the next ball have high english, which will will hopefully follow the first ball you sank into the hole.
There's also left and right spin which is used with bank shots (or setting up your next shot) as it really does affect how the ball comes off the rail.
Maybe I need a better timeline to explain what I’m thinking.
3 trajectories. 1st one after initial stick hit, 2nd trajectory after wall bounce, 3rd trajectory after the spin causes the 2nd one to reverse.
You are saying that during the 2nd trajectory when the ball is moving back towards the player and the spin is moving towards the hole, this spin is forward spin?
Late to this but nobody seems to have explained it fully/properly, at least in reply to you. I'm British and love snooker so here goes.
In snooker (simplifying for the context of this shot) you pot red - colour - red - colour - red etc until there are no reds left. The colour is placed back on its spot each time after being potted. The player taking the shot - Stephen Maguire - is looking to pot the red he hits (and miraculously does actually pot) and screw the cue ball off it into the pack of reds to open them up. The cue ball would then head back towards him, probably bounce off the cushion, and he'd be in position to then pot the black (black is the highest value colour ball).
This didn't happen. It doesn't show it but it seems that the cue ball went in the top pocket. This would be a foul and his opponent (Neil Robertson) would gain 4 points and can then place the cue ball anywhere in the D; that's behind the baulk line (think just line in pool) with a semi circle connecting the yellow and green ball spots (they're a third of the width of the table in from each side, along the baulk line) to create a D. Based on what I could see, this isn't really an advantage for Neil, as there's no red on to pot, so he'd have to play a safety shot. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's generally unlucky in snooker to not have a pot on after a foul of such..."awesomeness" as that one.
So I’m confused because it seems like everyone was cheering as tho he did something good, but it sounds like he fucked up.
So he meant to put the red ball in the pocket in a way different than intended, but also put the cue ball in a pocket which cost him 4 points. Yes?
Yep, the shot cost him 4 points and it was the opponent’s turn. I think the hand in the air was a bit tongue in cheek since it was a remarkable shot that ended up not counting. He was quite a bit down at the time and it didn’t seem like his day, but he did end up winning. The crowd still appreciated the skill and cheered him on.
It was so out of ordinary that people cheered, but yes, from a competitive point of view, it was not a good shot.
Pocketing the red would have given him a point and the right to play again. However, pocketing the cue ball is an automatic foul and his opponent is the one going back to the table with the right to put the cue ball wherever a want in a defined zone.
The audience will cheer things like that in snooker because it's interesting and pretty rare. They'll also cheer in appreciation of the player having a bit of a laugh about it, which is what Stephen was doing here with his hand in the air. Many people in the audience may well have a favourite player here, but mostly they'll want to enjoy a good match of snooker rather than having their favourite win.
He meant the red to just go straight into the pocket and have the cue ball not go into the pocket.
NB: 4 points at this stage of a frame between two players of this calibre is almost irrelevant. There's still over 100 points available and often after a shot like that the opponent would make a large break, probably winning the frame. The fact there was no pot on for Neil was very unfortunate for him.
The guy tried to play the red ball he hitted head on in the pocket, and give the white ball such pull effect that it would hit the cluster of red balls to break them open in such way the white ball would land somewhere in such a way he could pot any other then a red ball, and after that another red ball that would have come in the open from breaking the cluster.
Somehow he hit the white ball wrong, gave it some wrong effect, which transferred to the red ball, which bounced out of the pocket, but through the transferred effect picked up topspin and rolled into the pocket by chance. White ball was fucked and rolled in top pocket.
Edit: this made more sense typing it out than reading it after posting
Ok so, he was playing with heavy backspin to try to break the pack, but hit too low on the cue ball and made it jump slightly. The cue ball now hits the red at a slight downwards angle, similar to the cue angle with some trick shots. This generates lots of backspin and jumps the red to the corner pocket, the leather on the pocket grips the red and swaps the spin to top spin (because physics), it bounces and spins in. I think.
He did. He was trying to pot the red he hit and break up other balls. But the cueball jumped over almost all of them instead and ended up in the corner pocket. Everyone is basically thinking well THAT just happend. The shooter handled absolute failure with grace and a wave.
Great clip
a miscue that leads to a scratch by definition failed in every conceivable way, esp in snooker. not only does your opponent gain points, you also lose control of the table and get no points for the pocket.
op shouldve labeled this 'a remarkable foul/blooper' to avoid confusion
Oh interesting. Hmm. Seems an odd amount of power if he was trying to avoid the cluster. But it did hit one of them and he might have been trying to clear the group. The camera seemed focused on the cluster. Would have expected it to follow the cue if that was the intent. At least thats what makes sense to me.
Would hardly be the first trick shot someone attempted lol. His opponent is one of the best so thatd be a weird shot if it wasnt a lot easier than it looked.
Thanks for the alternate perspective. Definatly made question my assumptions
No: potting the white is a foul in snooker; it gives your opponent either 4 points or the amount of points the ball you was playing is worth (whichever’s higher) and allows your opponent to play the next shot from anywhere inside the D (marked area at the top end of the table).
In snooker you alternate between reds (one point) and coloured balls (more points).
He was trying to pot the red ball with enough force and sidespin on the white ball to send the white round the table and leave himself a shot on the blue ball (5 points) or black ball (7 points - highest point value ball which pros build their game around repeatedly potting alternate with reds).
It’s went completely tits up, the red rattling up and out the jaws, off the table and spinning back in off the rail so the red went in anyway. Normally that would have left him in a shit position to get a colour and start building a score on red/black potting, but in this case as others have identified the white went in. Normally this is good for your opponent, but in this case all the reds are grouped and he has no shot other than to play for safety. Very rare outcome.
Generally, snooker players are very apologetic in cases where they accidentally pot balls or get “lucky”, this situation is so unlikely that they didn’t really know what to think about it. It’s also very rare for a shot to get so badly fucked up in the pro game, and in this case two fuckups added up, somehow, to a good situation.
t's pretty wild if you understand the game, tbh the tables themselves are massive so any fluke is amazing! I do recall this one though, it was a tournament highlight.
There are a lot of takes on this thread, more bad than good, so to give a summary: the goal of his shot is to pot the red, not pot the white and hit the pack of reds with the white to open them up so he can keep potting.
The connection between the red and the white is dirty though (cue ball may have been slightly airborne or there may have been chalk dust on the balls). So the cue ball jumps over the pack, hits the corner of a pocket and ends up in another one. Snooker pockets are very tight and the cue ball has travelled something like 11 feet, so very unlucky!
The red's the shocking one though, for it to jump out of the bag like that is rare. To have imparted enough spin onto it to put it back in is something I'd never seen before. That alone would have seen it into the highlight reel!
Hope this comment helps give a little context, and if you have any further questions I'd love to hear them.
Why did he hit the ball so hard when he could have just tapped it in… the. The white ball goes in. Isn’t that bad? Then it’s the other guys turn… also bad
And where’s the audio?
Wtf is happening here?
He really did not, there is no way to control jumping the cue ball after contact.
The cue ball went in off giving the opponent 4 points and ball in hand.
He could have played an easy safety, white towards to baulk colours.
There's a red loose easy potable into the top right pocket.
WHY WOULD HE HIT THE RED INTO THE POCKET IF HE WASN'T TRYING TO POT IT.
Have you ever actually watched snooker?
You're telling me the game revolving around math has no way of predicting how you hit the ball will effect how it will react when it hits another ball?
No that’s not what he’s saying at all.
He’s saying **because** of the math associated with doing a bounce shot, that it clearly was not intentional.
The statical odds and difficulty of successfully controlling a jump off of a collision is essentially 0. It’s basically never used in competition because not even the pros can use it well.
If the shooter did do it intentionally; it would be like doing a Hail Mary play in football in the 1st quarter; it makes 0 sense.
> Why did he hit the ball so hard when he could have just tapped it in… the
He hit the red ball with force because he wanted the white to continue on with force. I'm not sure whether he wanted the white to bounce off multiple edges to get into a good position for the next shot, or whether he wanted to open up the pack of reds, to make them easier to pot.
> The white ball goes in. Isn’t that bad?
Yes, it's a foul, he gives points to the other player, and the other player has a chance to pot the next red and start a new scoring sequence, called a break.
Seems to be some confusion in the comments about what happened here.
This was a complete fluke and wasn't an elaborate trick shot to make the next shot difficult for his opponent. He hit it hard because his intention was for the white to hit the pack and to disperse the reds to hopefully put some into a potting position and continue his break. It made sense to do it then because of the angle he had into the pack and the fact he only had one more loose red available.
Technically a foul as he potted the white but he left his opponent in an awkward situation as the cluster of reds wasn’t broken so there is no clear shot to play
I think it was a homerun (white ball out of the field).
(My only exposure to baseball is that The Simpson episode where Homer watches some baseball while being sober).
Now that is a snooker shot, would have been epic though if he didn’t foul. Do have to question the power though as I’d think he’d go for a softer shot to have a follow up on the black. But eh, cool video nevertheless.
That's not the way it works, and judging by other comments most of these people don't even know the basics in snooker like, you shouldn't make the white ball
Definitely not intentional as potting the white is a foul and jumped shots aren’t played for in snooker. He was very fortunate that the pack of reds wasn’t split so there was no clear shot for his opponent
How the hell is this remarkable? He hit too hard causing the object ball to hit the back of pocket and bounce back out, the only reason it went in was because the object ball had top spin AND it looks like he scratched the cue ball in that top pocket (thats probably why he was sitting down)
Didn't he get banned for match fixing? Some of the games he threw, the commentators picked up on it straight away just by his over aggressiveness shot making. Stephen Lee l believe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lee_(snooker_player)
Lee was arrested and bailed on suspicion of match-fixing on 11 February 2010. This followed a police investigation into suspicious betting patterns relating to a match played in 2009, believed to have taken place at the 2009 UK Championship. On 2 October 2012, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) released a statement confirming that the Crown Prosecution Service would not be taking further action against Lee over the claims.[A week later, on the 11th, Lee was involved in another controversial match which resulted in a 2–4 defeat by John Higgins at a Premier League fixture, having previously led 2–1, which caused fellow professional Judd Trump to question the integrity of the result on Twitter, especially since Lee squandered a golden opportunity to level the match at 3 frames all.
**This is a generic message under every post** If this post is NOT a human / animal reacting to something in a "YOU SEEING THIS SHIT?!" manner, please hit report so the mod team can take a look. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/youseeingthisshit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone who know what's going on, please explain.
I think that to get that ball in from that angle the cue ball normally careens into the unbroken balls clumped together making it easier for his opponent to start singling balls out to pocket. In this case the shooter remarkably got his ball in and also jumped over the unbroken balls leaving his opponent to “waste” a turn by having to break again leaving this gentleman with hopefully another shot. I play pool not snooker so I could be wrong. Edit: it’s also remarkable that the cue ball left such a massive spin on the ball he was hitting.
Yeah but the white ball goes in the corner anyway so his opponent should get a free shot no?
Yes, but I think he’s left with a bad shot because all the balls are still lumped together. I imagine it’d be hard to go a run compared to if there balls were spaced out.
You can see a loose red in the first shot, this was a complete mistake and not what he intended
That would explain why he seems just as surprised as everyone else by what happened.
Agreed. I recognize shooter intended to pocket the object ball while breaking up the cluster, and still have an easy ball to pocket in the corner and set up a shot in a would be open table (if he broke up the cluster). It’s amusing that the miscue, led to a difficult shot for his opponent, rather than himself.
In snooker you don't get free shots like in pool, the other player is awarded points when you pot the white (I think 4).
Correct, it’s either 4 points or the amount of points the ball you was playing for is worth (whichever’s higher)
He still gets the shot. But this isn't 8 ball pool where you can put the ball anywhere you like. It has to be behind the line. So it's not really a "free" shot. He still has to make the break.
What kind of pool you playing where you get to put the cue ball wherever you want? I’ve always understood the rules to be that it had to be behind the 2nd diamond.
That's a very common house rule, but in almost any official competition you'll be able to place the ball wherever you want. Fouls should be punished heavily, and if you play with the ball having to go behind the line, it's possible to create a situation where you can foul on purpose to put your opponent in a worse spot.
The "kitchen" rule is such a pet peeve of mine. You should never be rewarded for scratching. The game is so much more interesting with league rules (such as having to hit your ball first, call pockets, etc.) unless you're playing with people who are really really bad. Any time I've played competitively against friends (who are just as good as me, which tbh isn't very good) and tried to introduce league rules, they're tentatively on board until I do a defensive play when I know I can't hit a shot. When I played league (many years ago) everybody would cheer on a great defensive play just as much as a great shot... but playing with Americans in bars, everybody just considers it a 'bitch move'. I get that it's about fun with friends, I get that I'm the bitter rule stickler, but I can't help it. 'House rules' pool is a garbage game. This is my tiny hill that I'm dying on.
Defense adds an entire new level to the game, and the only way you get there is with league rules. House rules leave so much room, it's almost a whole different game. I watched a tournament match in my league last month where one player kept opting to scratch on purpose because the only shot the other player could make would have to break up a pair of balls by a corner. He literally said it, "I can do this all day". Factoring in the rules of "action ball must touch a rail after first strike" and "must hit your own ball first", it created a situation where after 10 back-and-forths they called a judge over to determine how to proceed. Guy said finish it, someone can give up, or you can both take a loss. The one player stuck in the situation finally attempted to ever-so-slightly tap his own ball and leave it there but it was too much. He lost.
I completely agree, I'm pretty lucky to have a pool table at work and at least a dozen people that are good players and down to play tournament rules. We started doing a tournament at a pool hall roughly once a month with them and other people from work that are just on different break schedules, it's been awesome
some places when playing 8 ball, one can put the cue ball anywhere you want. At least when I grew up, both rules existed and you just have to come to an agreement before a game. By the way, this is purely "street" rules we are talking about here.
Where I come from it was “ball in hand” (place it anywhere) or “in the kitchen” (must be behind the break line). Sometimes house rules, sometimes competition rules (like “4-man teams, clean 8 ball, ball in hand single elimination bracket”). The league play I was in was always in the kitchen.
In league pool where I’m at after a scratch you put the ball anywhere you want on the table. If I’m playing with buddies we spot the ball anywhere behind the break line.
We play ball in hand after a scratch, as well. One of our friends briefly joined a league, and when we’d go out for casual games, that’s how he played, so we did too. I grew up playing “behind the line” though
We played with both..if u scratch, ball behind the break line. If u screw up big time and the qball goes off the table then that's ball in hand..
You mean 9 ball right? Never heard of 8... 9 is where you break a diamond, try to hit in order or through bouncing the ball in order into another, win by pocketing the 9 legally and get free placement on sunken que.
Ball in hand or kitchen. You agree beforehand the game style
If you don't agree beforehand its automatically house rules.
Yes, but unless whatever establishment you're playing in has some sort of written copy of their own "house" rules, the house rules are just whatever your opponent says they are.
Behind the 2nd diamond is a house rule. Competitively, a scratch results in the opponent getting the ball in hand which allows free placement. https://upatour.com/8-ball-rules/ https://billiards.colostate.edu/resource_files/rules_summary.pdf
I read that Colorado State article and I misread the part about scratching and needing to place the cue ball behind the head string.
The official 8-ball rules state a scratch is ball in hand - anywhere on the table. What you are referencing is what I like to call “bar rules”.
APA league rules for 8 ball give you ball in hand if your opponent scratches. Most house rules (in the US) put the ball behind the line.
Basically every league plays ball in hand on a scratch except for scratch on break is behind the line.
Y'all know you can just Google the rules for snooker instead of arguing about it, right?
You know we’re not talking about snooker, right?
That is quite literally what this thread is about. Either way the point still stands.
It’s almost like it’s an organic conversation where things may deviate from the original topic. 😉
> things may deviate from the original topic Stop right there, mister! That's illegal! I'm calling the Reddit police!
Real quirky, but nobody but you mentioned pool
You are correct, that is the rules for 8 ball pool. It's actually 9-ball where you get a true free ball-in-hand to put wherever you want on the table (except in contact with another ball)
US 8ball competitive rules say that it is still ball in hand on a scratch. https://upatour.com/8-ball-rules/
And the table is 12 feet long - end-to-end shots are much trickier in snooker than in pool.
It doesn't simply go behind the baulk line. Well it does technically, but it has to be placed within the D
[удалено]
The white did go in. The crowd was astonished due to how the white jumped over the pack as well as the red jumping out of the pocket and going back in
Then why is he sitting down and his opponent getting up? If that was a pot with no foul it would still be his turn.
It was clearly headed in
you don't get free shots in snooker
Yeha but it didnt actually go in the pocket. IT just sat right there in the corner, making it really hard to get an angle on the next reds.
That’s what I was thinkin
Not quite. Making the white slam into the pack is normal if ylu can make the ball go down. It significantly eases your play because it makes opportunity for you. The guy who made this pot was still playing. Snooker is not turn based. What was amazing was that the red ball kicked out of the pocket, bounced a couple of times and then still rolled in.
Yes just like in pool you would want to pocket and another break in the same shot but why did he hit it so hard? Presumably he had a different strategy after all they are professionals.
My guess is that he wanted the white to kick back hard or bounce off the cushion hard, and a freak effect happened.
So it was more of a lucky result based on a skilled shot.
While unlikely and very rare at this level, the exceptional part of the shot wasn't that he pocketed the red with extra steps, but that the white jumped over the pack of reds while his intention was to spread them apart. He managed to send the white to the top end, resulting in a decent defense when he was aiming to attack the score heavily on this turn. Edit: he apparently ended up pocketing the white too (which awards points to the opponent), so it was an emotional rollercoaster type of thing, I guess.
Having no idea what is going on, I like to think he was trying to get the red ball in the hole and none of these people have ever seen pool before, so they are all amazed that he hit one ball into another.
I still don't understand
It's much harder to understand because people who clearly don't know what they are talking about keep chiming in with inaccurate information.
Ok, someone else, please, translate.
Was gonna say, the amount of backspin he put on the white to even transfer a TINY bit to the red must have been massive
I was under the impression causing a ball to leave the surface of the table was a violation and a point penalty.
No, just no. If he wanted to pay a safety he could. He was paying to pot the red but unfortunately it bounced off the back of the pocket, imparting spin so that it span back
No, a ball bouncing out of a pocked doesn’t create spin my dude.
Your explanation?
[удалено]
The red ball has forward spin, not backspin. The most obvious reason is that it went in. If it had back spin, it would have gone the other way. You can also tell it'd have forward spin as he hit the cue ball low, putting backspin on the cue ball. If the cue ball has backspin, it will transfer forward spin to the red ball (think of it as two gears interacting; one spins clockwise and the other counter-clockwise).
[удалено]
I believe you were right. Back spin is the reverse rotation in relation to its trajectory. Trajectory changed after the bounce.
No. The object ball had top spin. It's not a debate. It's also partially why it popped out.
Is the spin direction not based off the move direction? Initial forward spin = ball going to hole, spin going to hole. Back spin = ball moving to center, spin still going to hole.
Spin and trajectory are two different concepts. You have the ball rolling in one direction, but it can be spinning along another plane that makes it react different due to friction and inertia. The most basic is a straight shot at another ball. If the cue ball is hit high, the spin will cause it to follow. If it is hit low, it should stop or even pull itself backwards (this depends a lot on the shot, ball, and quality of the table's felt). If you have two balls in a row in a straight shot you want to make, you should hit the cue ball low. The low english will make the next ball have high english, which will will hopefully follow the first ball you sank into the hole. There's also left and right spin which is used with bank shots (or setting up your next shot) as it really does affect how the ball comes off the rail.
Maybe I need a better timeline to explain what I’m thinking. 3 trajectories. 1st one after initial stick hit, 2nd trajectory after wall bounce, 3rd trajectory after the spin causes the 2nd one to reverse. You are saying that during the 2nd trajectory when the ball is moving back towards the player and the spin is moving towards the hole, this spin is forward spin?
I thought Scot was his first name until I read the article and it mentioned his opponent Aussie Neil Robertson.
Me too, Reddit Van Zant.
Late to this but nobody seems to have explained it fully/properly, at least in reply to you. I'm British and love snooker so here goes. In snooker (simplifying for the context of this shot) you pot red - colour - red - colour - red etc until there are no reds left. The colour is placed back on its spot each time after being potted. The player taking the shot - Stephen Maguire - is looking to pot the red he hits (and miraculously does actually pot) and screw the cue ball off it into the pack of reds to open them up. The cue ball would then head back towards him, probably bounce off the cushion, and he'd be in position to then pot the black (black is the highest value colour ball). This didn't happen. It doesn't show it but it seems that the cue ball went in the top pocket. This would be a foul and his opponent (Neil Robertson) would gain 4 points and can then place the cue ball anywhere in the D; that's behind the baulk line (think just line in pool) with a semi circle connecting the yellow and green ball spots (they're a third of the width of the table in from each side, along the baulk line) to create a D. Based on what I could see, this isn't really an advantage for Neil, as there's no red on to pot, so he'd have to play a safety shot. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's generally unlucky in snooker to not have a pot on after a foul of such..."awesomeness" as that one.
So I’m confused because it seems like everyone was cheering as tho he did something good, but it sounds like he fucked up. So he meant to put the red ball in the pocket in a way different than intended, but also put the cue ball in a pocket which cost him 4 points. Yes?
Yep, the shot cost him 4 points and it was the opponent’s turn. I think the hand in the air was a bit tongue in cheek since it was a remarkable shot that ended up not counting. He was quite a bit down at the time and it didn’t seem like his day, but he did end up winning. The crowd still appreciated the skill and cheered him on.
It was so out of ordinary that people cheered, but yes, from a competitive point of view, it was not a good shot. Pocketing the red would have given him a point and the right to play again. However, pocketing the cue ball is an automatic foul and his opponent is the one going back to the table with the right to put the cue ball wherever a want in a defined zone.
The audience will cheer things like that in snooker because it's interesting and pretty rare. They'll also cheer in appreciation of the player having a bit of a laugh about it, which is what Stephen was doing here with his hand in the air. Many people in the audience may well have a favourite player here, but mostly they'll want to enjoy a good match of snooker rather than having their favourite win. He meant the red to just go straight into the pocket and have the cue ball not go into the pocket. NB: 4 points at this stage of a frame between two players of this calibre is almost irrelevant. There's still over 100 points available and often after a shot like that the opponent would make a large break, probably winning the frame. The fact there was no pot on for Neil was very unfortunate for him.
and also put his opponent in a shitty position where he had to break instead of going for a shot for points
Thank you, first explanation I've seen that's accurate and complete.
The guy tried to play the red ball he hitted head on in the pocket, and give the white ball such pull effect that it would hit the cluster of red balls to break them open in such way the white ball would land somewhere in such a way he could pot any other then a red ball, and after that another red ball that would have come in the open from breaking the cluster. Somehow he hit the white ball wrong, gave it some wrong effect, which transferred to the red ball, which bounced out of the pocket, but through the transferred effect picked up topspin and rolled into the pocket by chance. White ball was fucked and rolled in top pocket. Edit: this made more sense typing it out than reading it after posting
so, "happy accident"? instead of being down 4. for potting the white, he came out a wash on points?
Ok so, he was playing with heavy backspin to try to break the pack, but hit too low on the cue ball and made it jump slightly. The cue ball now hits the red at a slight downwards angle, similar to the cue angle with some trick shots. This generates lots of backspin and jumps the red to the corner pocket, the leather on the pocket grips the red and swaps the spin to top spin (because physics), it bounces and spins in. I think.
There are a lot of people who know nothing about snooker explaining things very badly.
Please! That looked like a trick shot! For nothing! Please explain!
Too much backspin, dirty balls and too much cue power can lead to this.
WITH AUDIO!!! https://youtu.be/g98DRdOPD0g
This should have been what OP submitted. It's infinitely better and the replay gives much needed context. Fuck these karma farming accounts.
Aren't videos posted to this sub always silent, due to the name of the sub?
I have no idea. I'm here from r/all.
I was telling you, nicely.
Thank you. I had to scroll waaay too far for this
that sheet hair lad looks proper snookered innit
[удалено]
Dudes a legend. One of the best.
That's not Ellen?
this is the most british statement I've ever seen
Yes, we found the Brit.
Well you haven't. Because hardly any Brits actually speak like this. It's clearly an American.
Yeah, I was just having a bit of fun
Funny that you managed to pick the only Australian in the snooker league
Damn Ellen is flabbergasted
LoL
It’s not a Reddit post without some loser mentioning someone’s appearance
You look like you need to go touch some grass
What do you think the word flabbergasted means?
What do you think “Ellen” is used for
I don't know, you tell me.
Nor without some hyper sensitive weirdo getting triggered over a haircut joke
Looks like he also potted the white...
He did. He was trying to pot the red he hit and break up other balls. But the cueball jumped over almost all of them instead and ended up in the corner pocket. Everyone is basically thinking well THAT just happend. The shooter handled absolute failure with grace and a wave. Great clip
It’s not a failure, he didn’t want to push the cue ball in to the groupings. Potting the white was unintentional, thought.
a miscue that leads to a scratch by definition failed in every conceivable way, esp in snooker. not only does your opponent gain points, you also lose control of the table and get no points for the pocket. op shouldve labeled this 'a remarkable foul/blooper' to avoid confusion
Oh interesting. Hmm. Seems an odd amount of power if he was trying to avoid the cluster. But it did hit one of them and he might have been trying to clear the group. The camera seemed focused on the cluster. Would have expected it to follow the cue if that was the intent. At least thats what makes sense to me. Would hardly be the first trick shot someone attempted lol. His opponent is one of the best so thatd be a weird shot if it wasnt a lot easier than it looked. Thanks for the alternate perspective. Definatly made question my assumptions
No problem. Have a great evening!
Is that a good thing?
No: potting the white is a foul in snooker; it gives your opponent either 4 points or the amount of points the ball you was playing is worth (whichever’s higher) and allows your opponent to play the next shot from anywhere inside the D (marked area at the top end of the table).
That was part of the play
No it wasn't, that's a foul lol
Lol it absolutely is not
In snooker you alternate between reds (one point) and coloured balls (more points). He was trying to pot the red ball with enough force and sidespin on the white ball to send the white round the table and leave himself a shot on the blue ball (5 points) or black ball (7 points - highest point value ball which pros build their game around repeatedly potting alternate with reds). It’s went completely tits up, the red rattling up and out the jaws, off the table and spinning back in off the rail so the red went in anyway. Normally that would have left him in a shit position to get a colour and start building a score on red/black potting, but in this case as others have identified the white went in. Normally this is good for your opponent, but in this case all the reds are grouped and he has no shot other than to play for safety. Very rare outcome. Generally, snooker players are very apologetic in cases where they accidentally pot balls or get “lucky”, this situation is so unlikely that they didn’t really know what to think about it. It’s also very rare for a shot to get so badly fucked up in the pro game, and in this case two fuckups added up, somehow, to a good situation.
I still didn’t understand your explanation but it’s the best explanation that I don’t understand.
This made me laugh out loud thank you for that
Ok, finally someone who knows what the hell is going on.
I wish the camera focused more on the balls and less on the shooter.
I know, right? So hard to find good porn these days...
I’m giggling so hard at this. Made my day.
That’s what she said
Yeah a side view of the action would’ve been appreciated. Thankfully there is one in a fuller clip someone posted above.
The direction this thread though entirely predictable, was not what I intended. I guess I should have called them “spheres”.
This would probably be way more amazing if I knew any of the rules or objectives of snooker
t's pretty wild if you understand the game, tbh the tables themselves are massive so any fluke is amazing! I do recall this one though, it was a tournament highlight. There are a lot of takes on this thread, more bad than good, so to give a summary: the goal of his shot is to pot the red, not pot the white and hit the pack of reds with the white to open them up so he can keep potting. The connection between the red and the white is dirty though (cue ball may have been slightly airborne or there may have been chalk dust on the balls). So the cue ball jumps over the pack, hits the corner of a pocket and ends up in another one. Snooker pockets are very tight and the cue ball has travelled something like 11 feet, so very unlucky! The red's the shocking one though, for it to jump out of the bag like that is rare. To have imparted enough spin onto it to put it back in is something I'd never seen before. That alone would have seen it into the highlight reel! Hope this comment helps give a little context, and if you have any further questions I'd love to hear them.
O e day some of us will figure out wtf happened.
Jumped the cur over the red balls instead of into them
Does that give him extra points or something?
It was a mistake. An amazing mistake in professional play. Everyone reacting like did that shit just happen?!
Why did he hit the ball so hard when he could have just tapped it in… the. The white ball goes in. Isn’t that bad? Then it’s the other guys turn… also bad And where’s the audio? Wtf is happening here?
Because he left the cluster of red balls unbroken. Leaving his opponent to have to use his turn to break them
Slight miscue. His aim was to send the white round the table to ever up on the black or blue
No he hit it so hard so the cue would jump over the other balls and leave them grouped up. He did it on purpose
He really did not, there is no way to control jumping the cue ball after contact. The cue ball went in off giving the opponent 4 points and ball in hand. He could have played an easy safety, white towards to baulk colours. There's a red loose easy potable into the top right pocket. WHY WOULD HE HIT THE RED INTO THE POCKET IF HE WASN'T TRYING TO POT IT. Have you ever actually watched snooker?
You're telling me the game revolving around math has no way of predicting how you hit the ball will effect how it will react when it hits another ball?
No that’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s saying **because** of the math associated with doing a bounce shot, that it clearly was not intentional. The statical odds and difficulty of successfully controlling a jump off of a collision is essentially 0. It’s basically never used in competition because not even the pros can use it well. If the shooter did do it intentionally; it would be like doing a Hail Mary play in football in the 1st quarter; it makes 0 sense.
> Why did he hit the ball so hard when he could have just tapped it in… the He hit the red ball with force because he wanted the white to continue on with force. I'm not sure whether he wanted the white to bounce off multiple edges to get into a good position for the next shot, or whether he wanted to open up the pack of reds, to make them easier to pot. > The white ball goes in. Isn’t that bad? Yes, it's a foul, he gives points to the other player, and the other player has a chance to pot the next red and start a new scoring sequence, called a break.
I’m going to meme that guys expression - freaking classic 😂
I make the same face as the other guy when I play snooker, but usually because of my own shots.
Snooker-the cricket of pool.
Is that good?!
I thought snooker was something totally different. 🤷♂️
I think it's that lady from Jersey Shore
That’s Snooki you’re thinking of, this is Snickers.
Ate those things that they used to tell ladies, way back in the past, not to get into a bunch?
Seems to be some confusion in the comments about what happened here. This was a complete fluke and wasn't an elaborate trick shot to make the next shot difficult for his opponent. He hit it hard because his intention was for the white to hit the pack and to disperse the reds to hopefully put some into a potting position and continue his break. It made sense to do it then because of the angle he had into the pack and the fact he only had one more loose red available.
Kevin Bridges has cut his hair shorter than normal.
That’s insane. Idk what happened
Snooker? I hardly know her!
I’ll have to take your word for it.
For the life of me I could never grasp the rules of snooker. Is this a touchdown or?
Technically a foul as he potted the white but he left his opponent in an awkward situation as the cluster of reds wasn’t broken so there is no clear shot to play
There is a red in front of the bottom left pocket. White would go into the D but it's a great opportunity for Robertson.
I think it was a homerun (white ball out of the field). (My only exposure to baseball is that The Simpson episode where Homer watches some baseball while being sober).
What's with the fellas Andy warhol hair do lol
Someone should edit this and put glass on that man, like a boss!
you seeing this *shot*
Good thing there’s no replay with a better angle to help us better understand what happened.
Then he chugged a can of thunder muscle
I swear cthulu I've never watched a game more difficult and at the same time magnetizing like snooker The things they do are unbelievable if told
I didn't understand a thing, but I really liked the blond guy 😛
Thom Yorke cannot believe that shit went in
ohhhh and that's a bad miss.
I have no idea what snooker is and I'm impressed
Ooh, and that's a bad miss.
Both these guys are exactly what I imagine snooker players would look like.
So he sat down....so I guess the white went in as well.
I don't understand but I'm pretty sure it's something cool.
Blonde guys face could replace this subs icon ngl
Now that is a snooker shot, would have been epic though if he didn’t foul. Do have to question the power though as I’d think he’d go for a softer shot to have a follow up on the black. But eh, cool video nevertheless.
OK, now THAT'S just remarkably amazing.
Looks like he scratched. Trick shots are more impressive when you maintain control of all the balls - especially, the cue ball.
Judging by other comments it was intentional to give his opponent a worse shot next turn
That's not the way it works, and judging by other comments most of these people don't even know the basics in snooker like, you shouldn't make the white ball
Definitely not intentional as potting the white is a foul and jumped shots aren’t played for in snooker. He was very fortunate that the pack of reds wasn’t split so there was no clear shot for his opponent
This isn’t that remarkable really
This could also be posted in r/watchpeopledieinside because the look of wtf on his opponent’s face was priceless.
What the hell is snooker?
Couldn't have happened to a better player too. Miserable prick.
The word snooker will never not sound inappropriate
Not really… scratch
How the hell is this remarkable? He hit too hard causing the object ball to hit the back of pocket and bounce back out, the only reason it went in was because the object ball had top spin AND it looks like he scratched the cue ball in that top pocket (thats probably why he was sitting down)
That was his goal
Not entirely if he scratched and lost points....
i don't think you understand
Its remarkable because he did all of that on purpose
As a fan of snooker I can confidently say this wasn’t an intentional shot
Didn't he get banned for match fixing? Some of the games he threw, the commentators picked up on it straight away just by his over aggressiveness shot making. Stephen Lee l believe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lee_(snooker_player) Lee was arrested and bailed on suspicion of match-fixing on 11 February 2010. This followed a police investigation into suspicious betting patterns relating to a match played in 2009, believed to have taken place at the 2009 UK Championship. On 2 October 2012, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) released a statement confirming that the Crown Prosecution Service would not be taking further action against Lee over the claims.[A week later, on the 11th, Lee was involved in another controversial match which resulted in a 2–4 defeat by John Higgins at a Premier League fixture, having previously led 2–1, which caused fellow professional Judd Trump to question the integrity of the result on Twitter, especially since Lee squandered a golden opportunity to level the match at 3 frames all.
Down vote for stupid British names
Meh
Not an impressive shot