I watched the Ko/Wu semifinal tonight. I hadn't watched it previously. As many posters have said, it was a really well played match. Ko missed only 3 balls, Wu missed 2 plus fouled twice. The last 14 games of the match were error free except for a scratch on the break by Wu, which caused one service break, and a poor safety by Wu, which caused another. Ten of those last 14 games were break-and-runs -- 4 by Wu and 6 by Ko. Superior play all around.
But here's something that disappointed me quite a bit. In all 11 of Ko's breaks, he racked the balls in exactly the same positions. They are the same positions shown in post #11 of this thread for Ko's first 3 (and attempted 4th) breaks in the final match -- until the ref spoke to him. I don't know whether he did it in matches before the Wu match, as I have not watched any of them (yet). The order was:
1
47
695
83
2
With this pattern, breaking from about 5" off the long rail to his left, Ko tended to send the low-numbered balls to the top (head) half of the table and the high-numbered balls to the bottom (foot) half of the table with the 9-ball, thereby minimizing cue ball travel. This certainly didn't happen every time, because of all the collisions, but it was a general tendency.
In the semifinal match against Wu, no one spoke to Ko about this. Wu, on the other hand, had a different rack every time, as would be quite likely just placing the 6 variable-location balls randomly with 720 possible arrangements.
Was Ko ignorant of the rule, or was he blatantly disregarding it, or was he under the impression that pattern racking was OK in this event?
Did the ref not know the rule, or was he oblivious to what Ko was doing, or was he intentionally ignoring the rule, or did he feel he could call it only if the opponent asked him to?
Why didn't Wu call it to the attention of the ref? Did he not notice? Did he notice but think it didn't matter? Did he notice but want to beat a rule-breaking Ko just to rub it in more? Did the players have some tacit agreement to not call the infraction on each other?
Was this rule discussed at a players' meeting? What instructions were given to the refs about it? Were players, or at least some players, somehow led to believe that pattern racking was OK in this event?
We aren't going to learn the answers to most such questions. But pattern racking can have a significant effect on the outcome of matches, so it is a shame that the rule against it was not uniformly enforced -- if it was, in fact, the rule in this event.
But here's something that disappointed me quite a bit. In all 11 of Ko's breaks, he racked the balls in exactly the same positions. They are the same positions shown in post #11 of this thread for Ko's first 3 (and attempted 4th) breaks in the final match -- until the ref spoke to him. I don't know whether he did it in matches before the Wu match, as I have not watched any of them (yet). The order was:
1
47
695
83
2
With this pattern, breaking from about 5" off the long rail to his left, Ko tended to send the low-numbered balls to the top (head) half of the table and the high-numbered balls to the bottom (foot) half of the table with the 9-ball, thereby minimizing cue ball travel. This certainly didn't happen every time, because of all the collisions, but it was a general tendency.
In the semifinal match against Wu, no one spoke to Ko about this. Wu, on the other hand, had a different rack every time, as would be quite likely just placing the 6 variable-location balls randomly with 720 possible arrangements.
Was Ko ignorant of the rule, or was he blatantly disregarding it, or was he under the impression that pattern racking was OK in this event?
Did the ref not know the rule, or was he oblivious to what Ko was doing, or was he intentionally ignoring the rule, or did he feel he could call it only if the opponent asked him to?
Why didn't Wu call it to the attention of the ref? Did he not notice? Did he notice but think it didn't matter? Did he notice but want to beat a rule-breaking Ko just to rub it in more? Did the players have some tacit agreement to not call the infraction on each other?
Was this rule discussed at a players' meeting? What instructions were given to the refs about it? Were players, or at least some players, somehow led to believe that pattern racking was OK in this event?
We aren't going to learn the answers to most such questions. But pattern racking can have a significant effect on the outcome of matches, so it is a shame that the rule against it was not uniformly enforced -- if it was, in fact, the rule in this event.
Last edited:
