Thread by @tribunaltweets

This is the afternoon session on day three of the hearing of Harriet Haynes, a male pool player who claims a female identity, v the English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) for alleged discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. We expect to start at 2 pm.

We do not provide a transcript of hearings but endeavour to report all we hear accurately and do so in good faith.

Previous coverage may be found on our Substack page:
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/harriet-hayn…

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/D1 - Paul Thomson, EBPF chairman, defendant
AG/D2 - Anna Goodwin, EBPF secretary, defendant

SC - Sarah Crowther KC, defendants’ barrister
SS - Sapandeep Singh Maini-Thompson, d. barrister
JRL - JR Levins LLP, defendants’ solicitor
JG - James Goodwin, witness for defendant
W - Woman
TS - Transexual
TG - Transgender
TW - Transwoman
PC - Protected Characteristic

GR - Gender Reassignment
GI - Gender Identity
GRA - Gender Recognition Act
EA - Equality Act 2010
IPA - International Pool Association
EPA - English Pool Association
UPG - Ultimate Pool Group
PSSP - Physical Strength, Stamina or Physique

PF - Professor Joseph Formaggio, Professor of Physics at MIT

We are back in the courtroom.

J - JF?
PF - I can hear you
[discussion c moving PF to virtual room]
[PF and court - can hear each other]
PF - you are coming in moderately loud
RW - will be dealing with SC

RW - as well, so check
SC - can you hear me?
PF - yes
[clerk reads out warnings c remote access. Everyone can hear]
J - Please interrupt,PF, if you can't hear at any stage
RW - needs to swear affirmation
[PF swears]
RW - full name
PF - Joseph Angelo Formaggio,

PF - Professor of Physics, MIT, USA
RW - Will hand over to MLF. Re docs - Expert bundle.
[Takes PF to doc] your professional address?

PF - Yes
RW [goes through docs.] Further material added from Dr Alkatore [sp?], your note in response. How do you have these?
PF - separate electronic docs. Can open.
RW - please do. We are treating as same bundle of docs. Then papers sent to you recently -

RW - 'Faster than a speeding bullet' [FTB] and [missed]
RW - Over to SC
J - May I raise a point. First qs of experts set out in PF bundle re does a better break mean more of a spread of balls. May not be the right Q?
I'd query faster or more power behind it break - difference?

J - Q - do you generally get better spread of object balls. I understand re pool - quality of outcome on break shot depends on
-you have to pot a ball or you lose turn
- or you pot a ball or have four balls hit a cushion?
- mustn't pot the cue ball

J - and then you want to be in best poss position for next shot. Better spread of object balls may not mean that. Do you want to clarify, RW?
RW - appropriate to allow SC to cross.
SC - You are not a pool player yourself?
PF - Correct. Would have been embarrassed to play.

SC - Doesn't seem you had copy of current rules of English 8-ball when you were putting report tog?
PF - we were given list of rules by counsel and I used that as ref. I also looked online.
SC List of rules you were given were re diameter of balls, size of table, etc.

SC Given any info c rules of game itself?
PF Can't recall c game rules.
SC [doc] reads c strategy of spreading balls as much as possible after break. ] Four ball hitting cushion is US 8-ball rule not a UK one. In English rules ,have to get two balls crossing back

SC across middle line
PF Did those rules change after 2022?
SC Don't think is contentious
[court discusses]
J - i'd quite like to know what the rules are we are talking about.
J Do we have rules in bundle
SC No. EB PF for a fair not foul break must pot or come back over line

[missed]
J and if a foul break?
[they discuss rules]
J If you pot a ball you don't have to worry about the other rule
SC yes
SC Sorry PF. Hope you are following. We have two difficulties with your expression re rule. First - four balls hitting cushion isn't part of rule.

SC You weren't aware of rule c balls coming back over line. Not aware until just now.
PF Correct
SC And c rule only retain turn if you pot a ball
PF Not how I've based my simulations.
SC you based your sims on being able to keep turn without potting ball
PF Good q

PF Are you saying if player doesn't pocket white or any other ball that person doesn't retain their turn.
SC Yes exactly. Your para 26, modelling is based on idea retain turn even if haven't potted ball.
PF If pot would retain turn
SC Also retain turn if four balls hit

PF - yes but I kept track through simulation. Even though condition of graph I showed looked at if you potted white, condition is still true as I keep track of how many balls you pocketed despite colour. This number was very low.

PF - Report, was c 2 metres per second, then at 3 or 4. At c 3, you are potting more than one ball on average.
SC But your assumption on modelling didn't matter to player if potted or not. Not correct assumption.
PF If condition is met for potting not white, simulation

works at more than 3m/sec.
SC In English, primary purpose is to pot ball so keep control of table.
PF Y
SC Spreading balls also player purpose but secondary purpose in Eng game
PF Depends on player strategy but yes. [missed] True for UK and US players

SC [missed]
PF Condition fulfilled by more than 3m/sec cos you likely pot at least one ball.
[Something c not potting white by accident/other foul break]
SC Dr A Will say need to apply force. Break shot:
Decide where to put cue ball. Can go anywhere along cue line.

SC Decide what angle of shot to make
Decide speed of moving cue to hit white ball
Do it accurately. Skill element
PF [agrees with all]
SC You talk c archery [to doc]. Re pool, success often c thinking moves ahead so placement is important.

PF And how the other balls are going to land at the end of your shot.
SC [reads] pool combines chess and archery [moves ahead and executing components] Physical aspect to cue sports inc pool
PF Yes
SC Combination inc physical aspects you say gives variety to the game.
PF Y

SC So what you were asked to do.
Q1 To consider if faster break results in better spread.
Q2 Were they other factors for a good break - weight of equipment, how set up, etc. Not asked to consider if speed of break shot relevant factor.

PF I took that as part of charge of Q1
SC Are you sure? You say, c delivering more power would mean more spread - looks as though you are considering the relationship between speed and spread balls.
PF Clarify q please
SC In your opinion section under Q1, esp para 27

SC appears to be addressing relationship speed break/spread balls. You are not addressing q of whether faster break would result in higher result of potting ball.
PF Are you saying does q ask c potting ball with regard to speed?
SC Y
PF But third q - part of my charge

PF Also asking c if optimal speed associated with - I concentrated on break for my report.
SC I understand why you might say that now, but your report - you answered q3 with ref to q1.
SC You conclude - amount of disorder on table independent on initial white ball cos randomness

PF can I clarify
SC You are looking at how much energy needing to create randomness
Pf Y
SC Not to do with player potting balls
PF Potting balls outcome was part of same study looking at randomness. Chance determined by energy balls received during break.

SC Player under Eng rules wouldn't leave it to chance. Would do utmost to pot a ball.
PF I was simulating wide variety of possibilities, not what a prof player would do. Looking at do the mechanics of pool favour having a faster break. [missed]

PF Mostly - if you hit a ball with some velocity what is outcome. White potted? How much random spread? Number of bumpers hit by other ball? Other balls pocketed during break. Want to be clear - did not adopt prof stance. Let simulation run as amateur or prof would do.

SC Results of simulation. [reads] You need c 5m/sec for break to be legal re four cushion rule you were working to.
PF Probably below that. Was being conservative in my sim. With no control over white it had increasing chance of being potted. Not part of study but I looked at

PF likelihood of potting other balls as well.
SC [reads - individual player may opt for harder break.] To hit cue ball harder/more randomness
PF Y
PF Sentence meant player could use diff approaches, may strike harder to get randomness or side break to better control outcome.

SC You say hitting break harder doesn't necessarily help Could increase chances of fouling
PF Y. Taking risk in hitting harder
SC But that wouldn't hold under Eng rules. You need to pot a ball, not just a fair break.
PF You are more likely to do it if you exercise control

PF and aim white and pot ball in process. If you give more energy to system, the risk you take is might pot white. My sims show better off not putting in as much energy into the system.
SC Did you view any real-world pool footage.
PF Saw some. Not an expert.

SC Didn't watch [missed]
PF Didn't have the means. Thought about it.
SC 'Faster than a speeding bullet'
PF One of the things I had.
SC To table, p 19. What is source
PF White ball in UK and US are different masses. Re speed - wanted simple table so you could go

PF between us and UK speeds given a certain energy. Then there is my assessment on speeds..
SC I asked what is the source for info in this table.
PF the article you mentioned and Dr A's info. I had to look up other things
SC Where did you look for that other info
PF Google

SC And Dr A's website
PF Y. Found that afterwards but could confirm rough speeds.
SC Given you don't play pool - How can you attribute your notes to various speeds in table.
PF Dr A, etc. Didn't have good resource for speeds apart from one you found.
SC So when it says av women

speeds, that's the Bullet data from Dr A
SC [reads] Dr A asks friends and makes measurements. He films and counts frames.
PF As good as one can make with info they have
SC Not first class data
PF Agree
SC And D A uses oscilloscope - 1986 - working off recordings. Quality?

PF It's a way of doing it, but yes.
SC Reads working off videos, 1982. Limited data set.
PF Agree
SC [reading - c women pool players] Jean X [one of best ever] and others, av speed 23 = 83 per cent of men.
PF Dr A himself says data sparse and there's an uncertainty

SC Difference between speed prof players are hitting break shots and your model
PF Wouldn't say that.
SC Your table - c 10/11 miles/hour is optimal speed.
PF In paper was 18-22, that's 5-7m cue velocity. That's for US I assume number done on US rules.
SC We don't know that

PF No
SC Women less able to hit as fast as men
PF Based on that paper, yes.
SC I know you are not expert on physiology. Most likely explanation = difference physiology men/women.
PF Would be assumption. I'm not an expert, as you say.

SC To your report. Optimal strategy. We sent you a paper:
Analysis of a winning Computational Billiards Player
It's computer playing against each other at Computational Pool?
PF Correct
SC CUeCard and PickPocket were the players. Ccd consistently won

PF Yes
SC Describes the model tournament based on PoolPhys simulator.
PF Yes
SC [doc - re break shot. Reads] Forgive me if I get this wrong. Needs info re domain, how to place cue ball, etc]
SC You can put cue ball in a different place or angle cue ball. You can't change speed.

PF No . You cannot
SC Speed is fixed at 4.5/sec
PF Yes
SC Ideal break shot would keep turn and spread balls. As in English.
PF Yes
SC [missed] Mutually exclusive
PF Algorithm is looking - programmers decided on strategy that didn't maximise ball spread but didn't lose it.

SC reads c break shots that pot ball 97% of time but didn't spread balls. Others did. Ccd kept more weight on keeping turn - 92% of time - and often spread balls.
PF TO put more randomness into break short was determined to be less advantageous. Authors did override

PF machine's preference. I took that that computer in limited situation decided to keep control of where the balls went. Hitting ball harder loses that control. Even if you had choice of hitting ball harder - increasing randomness - may not be strategy to win or keep turn.

SC But from study can't address real world scenario with different speeds.
PF Yes, I contacted author re this. But still didn't see this as definitive. May not be to players' advantage to put lot of energy into break shot and hit as hard as poss.

PF Hitting ball harder doesn't necessarily result in better outcome in US or UK outcome.
SC Randomisation up to a point - nothing in your report to say hitting ball harder is advantage to potting.
PF Not in my report. But number of pockets you get increases

PF with speed. Algorithm tries to pot ball
SC Algorithm prioritising potting. Ccd strategy is to keep the turn.
PF Yes, in my sims as well.
SC Doesn't follow. Your studies don't show relationship hitting ball and potting it.
PF Highly correlated. Chance of white ball going in

PF increases with number of balls potted. [was longer explanation ]
SC Randomisation.
PF Not if you put randomisation into algorithm.
SC Where in your report.
PF Goes to report c variations, adding spin. And in variables in friction/energy loss

SC Adding side spin
PF For players not being entirely controlled.
SC What was basis for variation of 1%?
PF Great q. Difficult to estimate - needed to be larger than typical specs of game (textbook - Marlow). Took that as baseline.
SC Not based on real world poolplaying

PF Based on Marlow textbook on physics of billiards.
SC You don't spell that out in your report
PF Mention of Monte Carlo in combined report. [reads c considering variations, running mock games, Monte Carlo method. I used for my study.
SC In that data - any difference

between accuracy in women and mens play?
PF Does my variation in modelling take into account differences men and women? No. That is in the speed and energy I gave the cue ball. Cue stick I should say.
SC Different levels of energy in cue stick?
PF Every time I run this.

SC Where do we see this data?
PF [goes to report and re diminishing returns of hitting ball, each one has a cue stick speed re the amount of energy into system]
SC Did any of your modelling take into account average speed of men and women. Doesn't look like it.
PF Reads re the

cue speeds. That refers to our assessment of men and women playing.
SC Data from Dr A
J Don't understand this sub issue. This deals with speeds, but are assumptions. The 1% variations built in - are different discussions.
PF I applied 1% to both
J - Sims, apply 1% or minus 1%?

PF Yes
SC Fargo rate system. Measure of absolute performance in pool.
PF Measure of how ppl perform in tournaments
SC Players rankings - if lower ranked player wins against higher ranked player, lower ranking goes up and v versa
PF Agree

SC Fargo rating shows difference in rating between men and women in pool
PF Yes
SC But Dr A does show why the difference.
PF Y
SC Dr A says most likely explanation is that men more successful on break shot.
PPF Y, think that's what he says.

SCStrategy of potting ball on break more successfully carried out by men than women, Dr A says
PF Not sure
SC Nothing in your modelling is inconsistent with that?
PF My modelling - diminishing returns in hitting ball with as much energy as possible.

SC Metrics - not included potting an object cos you haven't modelled for that.
PF Not correct. It's in my data. Would you like to see it.
SC Not now. Getting a bit late.
PF It's only morning here [laughter]
SC Transfer of energy. You are talking here about things

SC that could be in real world but can't model. Eg how cue is held.
PF Lots of variables.
SC So as Dr A found, if men on average can hit ball harder can hit it harder with control as well.
PF I wouldn't be able to make that conjecture. My intuition says at risk

PF one versus other but would expect experts on human physiology for answer on that.
SC - [reads c height of player would assist in mechanical terms to deliver more energy through cue]
PF Being higher can affect how you use your pendulum [body]. Wide range in performance.

SC Men on average would be better placed to deliver cue at given speed.
PF Don't fully agree. Would provide smoother delivery but doesn't necessary mean more speed/accuracy. That's a leap. I say that in 41. Match your physiology to the cue you have.

PF Lots of bending over for precision shots. Male player if taller would be at slight disadvantage.
SC I think you are straying into physiology. You were talking about levers.
PF Will go back into my box :)
SC Not considered stamina in your report.
PF N

SC Considered strength
PF Yes, with relation to the faster balls I talk about.
SC Where
PF Re the speed of the white - the energy that is imparted into the system. And l looked at the impact of that on outcomes. Conclusions I drew is there is set of diminishing returns

PF hitting ball harder doesn't always mean better outcomes. That is where the strength part is implied.
SC To the recent update paper.
PF Apologies. Told a day before about this. Sorry if grammar issues.
SC Not going to ask about grammar.
PF Thank god.
SC You seem to have

applied new details to racked balls in modelling.
PF In earlier modelling assumed were gaps in balls in rack, randomly distributed. Then Dr A report, we talked about this in our joint expert report. To settle the matter I put in that model. Now balls are in contact with nearest

PF neighbours. Dr A pointed to video he had made c importance of gap v no gap and how behaviour is different. A v controlled environment. You get different result with gap than if in contact. I reproduced that video's outcome and I applied it to these models.

PF the randomnesss occurs much earlier in this model.
Have I explained it.
SC I'm grateful. Thank you. No further qs.
J - Qs from Ms White
SW group of 8 balls that have been racked
SC 15 balls
J Might be basic point you are missing. Seriously, need to make sure

RW 8 refers to number 8 ball not number of balls
[they discuss]
RW - we have triangle of balls, racked, ready for cue ball. Done by human. In real world do we know how many balls in real world would be touching each other.
PF Great q. Depends. I would say only a few would be

PF touching. And how much energy could impart would depend on conditions.
RW How many variations between 15 balls?
PF Order of 50, may be more. I'd have to compute it. Can't do it on the fly
RW It is a v large number
PF Close to 100. To me that's large.
RW Your original model.

RW Assume balls contact.
PF Only once. There are more collisions to sim - fact that you are in contact with many balls at once.
RW To model this would need as much computer time as you have put in?
PF Much more.

RW You have been answering Dr A criticism.
PF Y
RW To run all variations - great deal of computer time.
PF Y
RW Have your changes got you nearer to perfection in model
PF Never claim perfection. But better.
RW Did it show much in way of different outcome.

PF If you hit ball not so fast you get randomness much faster. But v quickly things move towards the same results. DIdn't think my conclusions were altered, actually reinforced.
RW Re you and Dr A. If there was an ideal break speed or range of speeds where would you put that

PF For old data would put it 5 or below. In speed.
Where things are maximised around this range, show the same things.
RW and the new graphs you have produced. Ideal break speed - here it's mean kinetic energy. Can we translate between the two.

RW New sim, where would you place ideal range?
PF I have a better plot. Couldn't submit to court in time. But in a similar spot - below 3. Between 3-4metres/sec.
RW Has change in modelling made any difference to answer.
PF Changes things at the v low speeds. But after a while

difference becomes less and less. My observation.
RW Different area now. Re ball potting/correlated
PF Highly correlated because when you enter random system balls are hitting each other, losing info c where they came from. When balls hit side is possible they will hit pocket

PF Not doing sim as a prof player. Id of ball doesn't matter - they are just travelling - probability of going into pocket increases the further the ball travels. But cos it's randomised it doesn't matter what number ball you are - you are equally likely to fall into a pocket.

PF Balls travel faster, hit more surfaces, get more randomised, balls more like to go into pocket whichever ball they are, the white or another one. Modelling the white ball outcome tells you also about the outcome for the other balls.
RW [talking about a cut break

targeting the second ball along the triangle ]
PF I took that but didn't know how to optimise that strategy. Didn't study as much detail as the centre.
RW Your data is on hitting centre ball at front of triangle. Is there any more player strategy than that.
[various ppl talk]

RW Based on your sims, PF
PF Yes.
RW Front ball of triangle.
RW Those are my qs.
J - PF, I know once you are gone you are definitely gone. I may have some qs. Could I have a minute...

RW Could we have a break.
J - Would you like a break, PF?
PF - Okay, thanks. I'll be here.
J - Ten minutes.

@threadreaderapp

@threadreaderapp Please unroll