English Blackball Pool Federation

[Signalbox]

The hearing is scheduled for 7th-11th April at Canterbury County Court.

Tribunal Tweets will be following the case…

Live tweeting sessions Abbreviations
J - His Honour Judge Parker
HH - Harriet Haynes, claimant
RW - Robin White, claimant’s barrister
CC - Colman Coyle, claimant's solicitor
EBPF - English Blackball Pool Federation
PT - Paul Thomson, defendant
AG - Anna Goodwin, defendant
SC - Sarah Crowther KC, defendants’ barristers, and
SS - Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson
JRL - JR Levins LLP, defendants’ solicitor
JG - James Goodwin, witness for defendant

The original thread has been deleted for “breaking Mumsnet guidelines”. Not sure why but possibly “misgendering” or possibly making it too easy to find the crowdfund @mumsnet it would be good if you could let us know so this thread can stay up. Do we have to pretend that the Claimant is female?

Oh my. RW and PF together. It will be clarity itself, I’m sure.

So more speed gives less randomisation so clearly an advantage in a sport where you want to control movement of the balls

PF? Is that this witness?

Yes. Professor Joseph Fromaggio.

Ah, Prof Joe Cheese.

Just reading commentary here this expert is talking twaddle.

Every single pool table has its own “personality some are faster and some baulks are more bouncy than others for start off.

Tables vary in size and balls vary in weight.

Most players have a knock around on unfamiliar tables to get a feel. So unclear how a phycisist could draw conclusions with so many variables.

Height is an advantage as have a better view of ball placement, and a longer reach so less likely to use a bridge which makes potting harder, and white ball placement.

Strength means you can do better spin backs side, or top hits, which is a way of curving the white on impact. Height helps with this too.

Larger hands mean able to create hand bridge over a cluster of balls, where smaller hands may have to resort to playing off the cushion to hit the white.

Out tits get in the way aswell lol

Yes. And?

Not you Pithy, I am sounding off about what is coming out with this witness. I mean that is surely 'physics'. It blows my mind that this has to be even said.

More control over power gives greater range of options for precision. ie. gives a male person more control. d'oh!!!!! grip strength, height, leverage points of skeleton, stability of hips, twitch muscles - everything.

Well @Bannedontherun tits don't get in the way of neutrinos so I think you are just being unkind to this witness 😂

Oh! Not Joe Cheese? The Mexican expert?

(Apologies. I tried to restrain myself.)

So, are they actually trying to claim there is no advantage to males in women's sports/games in this case now. It is not just how the rules were made. It is men in women's sports. And PF said that men could be at a disadvantage because of their physiology. Being able to get right into the centre of the table by bending.

You'd wonder how the two lads ended up playing each other in the women's final. Supermen or something?

Also HH will claim he has tits.

I genuinely think PF has gone a bit mad now, he's just randomly wittering on about different balls in a pool game. To bring it back to reality PF the balls we are worried about are not on the table

Similar to cricket where bowling is actually measured. Bowling as fast as able is a disadvantage because of lack of accuracy. However male bowlers continue to have an advantage over female bowlers physiologically as they can bowl faster and more accurately for longer.

Telegraph readers donating as we type. People outside the bubble can see what nonsense this is and grossly unfair nonsense at that.

Yes, not just that there is no advantage, but actually those unfortunate female players who have been through male puberty are facing terrible disadvantages.

Honestly, even RMW appears to have given up trying to get sense out of this witness.

I think the defence will be bringing in the expert whom this 'expert' disagrees with so I look forward to that

It's a disadvantage in being able to hit the wicket directly, sure, but an advantage in that it makes batters flap at it and therefore be more likely to be caught out.

Sure the top two wicket takers of all time are spinners, but they were exceptional, and it's pretty much a straight line of quicks after that.

The lady in the back row is all of us - she's thinking:
I gave up my free time for this Federation, and tried really hard to make it open to everyone, and now I'm wasting a sunny day listening to some Physics man talk shit about balls

On a positive note, it is kind of reassuring that they did have to go to America to find an "expert" like this, and couldn't find anyone local prepared to do it.

(But it makes sense - if you wanted Soviet physics, you'd be off to Moscow, for Catholic physics, it'd probably pay to poke around the Vatican, and if you want Genderism physics, USA or Canada's the place.)

True you also want to include some very quick balls in an over. I suppose my better phrasing is that in cricket continuing bowling as fast as you can isn't the optimal strategy either, which aligns with the defence witness. However it doesn't follow that cricket isn't gender affected. Arguably also as a batter being very tall poses a disadvantage but it also doesn't follow that men have a disadvantage. Ignoring spin for now...

I suspect that RMW had to employ this expert because he could not find anyone else to say men are not at an advantage.

Pace Anil Kumble in 4th. But it's worth noting that spinners bowl more overs as their run up is shorter and they don't get injured as often.

Anyway, back to pool.

But how did RMW know this witness would say this? Is there a list of batshit witnesses?

Let me get this right - the expert witness is a professor of physics, who - according to the MIT website -

“Explores the nature of neutrinos and their deep connection between particle physics, quantum mechanics and cosmology.”

What the almighty fuck does he know about how men compete in pool compared to women? That is in no way his area of professional expertise. I’m pretty sure subatomic particles don’t behave like pool balls 🧐 Surely you’d get a sports scientist? Are they hoping the judge will hear “MIT” and “professor” and assume they must be an expert in whatever they want them to be? Identifies as a sport scientist perhaps 🤷

I was hoping for Ross tucker sports scientist and owner of best Twitter burn ever to be a witness but alas!

but then he knows men have advantages over women…

I think I have had more success by having a quick chat with Grok:

"No, I’m not suggesting that at all—your point makes total sense, and I’m not dismissing it. At 160 cm (about 5’3”), you’re spot-on that someone 15 cm taller (175 cm, or 5’9”) could have real physical advantages in English pool, especially in reach and potentially strength or hand size. Let’s break it down without the fluff.
Height and reach: On a 7-foot pool table (roughly 213 cm long), a taller player’s longer arms could mean less leaning or bridging for shots across the table. If you’re stretching to hit a ball near the far cushion, they might just extend comfortably. Arm span often scales with height—someone 15 cm taller could have a 10-20 cm reach edge, depending on proportions. No data says this wins games outright, but it’s a practical perk you’d notice in play.

Hand width: Bigger hands, which often come with height, could grip the cue more firmly or bridge with less strain. Cue sports pros like Ronnie O’Sullivan (about 5’11”) have long fingers, and while skill trumps all, a wider grip might stabilize shots. No studies measure this in pool, but your intuition isn’t wrong—it could help.

Strength: Taller folks tend to have more muscle mass potential, even if lean. The break shot’s where this kicks in—more force could scatter balls better, upping the chance of pocketing one early. A 2012 study on snooker breaks found power correlates with upper body strength, and while English pool’s different (smaller table, lighter balls), a stronger frame could still carry over. You at 160 cm might generate less raw force than a 175 cm player, all else equal.

I’m not saying these don’t matter— they could, and likely do, to some degree. My earlier “marginal” comment was sloppy speculation, trying to guess how much they tip the scales without numbers. We don’t have data to say a 15 cm height gap equals X more wins, but in a one-on-one match, you’d feel it: they’re reaching shots you’re straining for. Skill can close gaps—plenty of shorter players excel—but physics gives the taller person a head start. Does that match what you’ve seen on the table?"