Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[pottr]

I agree... it's ever so slightly... but slightly is more than enough

[throtts]

Guys, It does look fall ball at the point of contact a little after 3 secs. On contact though there is always going to be a debate as to what actually happens.

Played a shot during a break in practice yesterday but on the other side of the table. Potted it but could not tell you the physics of it.

Edit add - as soon as Travs CB leaves his tip it does push slightly out to the left too,,,, slightly though.

[pottr]

hmmmm... looking at it again, I'd actually say it's both...

Definitely not two inches of SIT because my video shows that to be impossible... I think it's both. you slightly swerve more than intended and coupled with the trace amounts of SIT, you make the pot.

Wish you'd posted that one first...

Set up the shot I did, then try to pot the OB and you'll see that inches simply aren't possible.

[pottr]

well showing me the actual shot, I'm certain... it's a mini swerve.

[travisbickle]

a ball is 2 1/16 inches wide. That video shows the white to deviate no more than an eighth to a quarter... Where are you getting this two inches off that line to make the pot from? Two inches off that line of aim and you miss the OB entirely.

Are you looking where the red goes?
Going on what TD believes the red should stay on the line of the tape being as it was a full ball contact.
The pocket is a couple of inches to the left.
I haven't played to make the right angle to pot the red, I have played to throw the red in with side and that's what happened
https://youtu.be/pdlbCohmiCw
The actual shot

[pottr]

a ball is 2 1/16 inches wide. That video shows the white to deviate no more than an eighth to a quarter... Where are you getting this two inches off that line to make the pot from? Two inches off that line of aim and you miss the OB entirely.

[Ramon]

If your identity and experience are not important then why do they demand both when you testify in court? They are important to establish the veracity of the person.

I think what proof has been offered on here is subject to different interpretations. Even Dr. Dave's videos do not prove that SIT exists. Nic Barrow's video with his board proves that a very small amount of CIT exists which I always knew anyway. I said you had little experience but I also said I have at least some.

Ramon...you are a troll who has elected himself to be the master expert on debate here in the forum but I didn't vote for you so how about you go pick on someone else?

Terry ,

Your identity gives you no privilege to prove your right in a court . , it's more about what you say and what you can prove. Tsf is not a court , btw.
good players can smell each other* from miles away. In the game of snooker .
unfortunately I see you are not that far. or you are so frustrated that you start losing it.
tbh, i do'nt care which one.
But it would be nice if you start acting like a coach ??

*and pay more attention to the vid Travis uploaded please . Even a blind chicken can see what's happening there.
You did visit UK about 40 years ago, so you should have no problem with that part.

Btw , get sum rest as soon as you can , looks like you need it.

Oh and , yeah yeah , i'm a troll . Thanks . Very impressive. !!!

[travisbickle]

That's exactly what that video shows.

The pink stops the clean potting angle, so you swerve around it to get to the potting angle... That's a beginner standard shot

There's no imparting of side there... if the camera was in the pocket, you'd see that... That's no way to test for SIT because unless you have a separate camera taking film bang behind the red (which is impossible) you can never deny that it might be the swerve with certainty.

My shot that I set up is the only way to prove it.

place a ball between the OB and the pocket which stops the OB from potting... I did that... I produced the SIT effect and it was millimetres...

Any other way to measure it will always carry that 'it might have just swerved' possibility.

Anyway. Not much more to be said. We disagree on that video... But the problem is that video leaves it open to interpretation... mine does not.

Clearly not hitting correct BOB!
What would you call a shot that was aimed 2in off correct BOB to make the shot then?

[pottr]

TD arguement is that CB has to hit correct back of ball to pot OB. Clearly not the case here.
If that's your opinion then fair enough. You are wrong though lol

That's exactly what that video shows.

The pink stops the clean potting angle, so you swerve around it to get to the potting angle... That's a beginner standard shot

There's no imparting of side there... if the camera was in the pocket, you'd see that... That's no way to test for SIT because unless you have a separate camera taking film bang behind the red (which is impossible) you can never deny that it might be the swerve with certainty.

My shot that I set up is the only way to prove it.

place a ball between the OB and the pocket which stops the OB from potting... I did that... I produced the SIT effect and it was millimetres...

Any other way to measure it will always carry that 'it might have just swerved' possibility.

Anyway. Not much more to be said. We disagree on that video... But the problem is that video leaves it open to interpretation... mine does not.

[travisbickle]

The white clearly arcs... it's obvious it's a swerve.

and a ball is only just over 2 inches in diameter... hitting a ball two inches off line barely glances it...

Please wait for my video, I'm pretty sure I cover it now... coz if that little slow clip was what the debate is based on then it's clear to me it's a swerve.

Sorry to anyone who disagrees, but that's my contention.

TD arguement is that CB has to hit correct back of ball to pot OB. Clearly not the case here.
If that's your opinion then fair enough. You are wrong though lol

[pottr]

If that's not spin induced throw I don't know what is. Hitting OB 2 inch off line and potting it lol

The white clearly arcs... it's obvious it's a swerve.

and a ball is only just over 2 inches in diameter... hitting a ball two inches off line barely glances it...

Please wait for my video, I'm pretty sure I cover it now... coz if that little slow clip was what the debate is based on then it's clear to me it's a swerve.

Sorry to anyone who disagrees, but that's my contention.

[travisbickle]

I don't even know what BOB means to be honest.

The white doesn't hit the ball full in the face, it swerves around and pushes it off the straight line.

SIT does exist, but hat is not an example of it... That's the ball being swerved and not hitting it flush... If we had zoom and enhance like they do on 24, I believe it would show me to be correct.

When you see my video with it's **** poor running commentary, I believe I prove SIT exists but it's millimetres at most... never inches.

And remember, I'm not taking sides...

VMAX and Terry say it doesn't exist, I'm saying it does.
Yourself and Biggie are saying it's inches, I'm saying its millimetres.

If that's not spin induced throw I don't know what is. Hitting OB 2 inch off line and potting it lol

[pottr]

I don't even know what BOB means to be honest.

The white doesn't hit the ball full in the face, it swerves around and pushes it off the straight line.

SIT does exist, but hat is not an example of it... That's the ball being swerved and not hitting it flush... If we had zoom and enhance like they do on 24, I believe it would show me to be correct.

When you see my video with it's **** poor running commentary, I believe I prove SIT exists but it's millimetres at most... never inches.

And remember, I'm not taking sides...

VMAX and Terry say it doesn't exist, I'm saying it does.
Yourself and Biggie are saying it's inches, I'm saying its millimetres.

[travisbickle]

That video, I'm 10 seconds in... seems pretty clear cut that it's a swerve to me?

If you are saying it's hitting the correct BOB then I'm shocked! You can see the way the red reacts to tell you it's not a natural contact

[pottr]

Yes Travis, I did see your video and I agree the OB did move to the left but only as a result of the curving cueball.

I agree with this...

Good video though, at least it was innovative in it's approach.