Did Ken Schuman Shortchange Ko in His Match Against Shaw?

Kickin' Chicken

Kickin' Chicken

Kick Shot Aficionado
Gold Member
Silver Member
While watching this match, Jayson left Ko snookered from seeing I believe it was the 2b. The obstructing ball was maybe just 3" from whitey and when Ko went to get his specialty short-range jumper, Ken said no because there was a limit to I believe 3 cues that can be used in a match.

The 2b, btw, was positioned pretty close to the side pocket looking like a very make-able ball if the shooter could get up in the air fast. Since he couldn't use his other jumper he kicked and sold out the rack.

In a subsequent stream I heard them say that there is no restriction on how many cues a player could use and that the the rule Ken cited was no longer in effect.

If this was actually the case it's too bad for Ko because I would have figured him to be a favorite to make that jump shot.

Did I get all of this right?

best,
brian kc
 
Last edited:
Kickin' Chicken said:
While watching this match, Jayson left Ko snookered from seeing I believe it was the 2b. The obstructing ball was maybe just 3" from whitey and when Ko went to get his specialty short-range jumper, Ken said no because there was a limit to I believe 3 cues that can be used in a match.

The 2b, btw, was positioned pretty close to the side pocket looking like a very make-able ball if the shooter could get up in the air fast. Since he couldn't use his other jumper he kicked and sold out the rack.

In a subsequent stream I heard them say that there is no restriction on how many cues a player could use and that the the rule Ken cited was no longer in effect.

If this was actually the case I would say too bad for Ko because I would have figured him to be a favorite to make that jump shot.

Did I get all of this right?

best,
brian kc
Click to expand...
Was he already using 3 cues? Play cue, break cue, and what else?
 
Kickin' Chicken said:
another jump cue.
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on what was put out at the player’s meeting.

However, the website says the meeting is recommended, but not required. Which to be fair should mean the rules are the same as what is posted in the website. Nothing is mentioned about how many or what type of cues are allowed.

They should probably either have all the rules posted on the website or hand out a paper copy to every player when you register.

And they may have done exactly that, I’m not there. But when commentators don’t know concretely if a rule is it isn’t in effect, that tells me it’s probably not readily available, which is bad.
 
vapoolplayer said:
Guess it depends on what was put out at the player’s meeting.

However, the website says the meeting is recommended, but not required. Which to be fair should mean the rules are the same as what is posted in the website. Nothing is mentioned about how many or what type of cues are allowed.

They should probably either have all the rules posted on the website or hand out a paper copy to every player when you register.


And they may have done exactly that, I’m not there. But when commentators don’t know concretely if a rule is it isn’t in effect, that tells me it’s probably not readily available, which is bad.
Click to expand...


From what I over heard from the TD was the rules online were outdated from the rules they are currently using, Earl ran into the same problem with his ear plugs, on the website it says they are allowed, but the updated rules say otherwise, Ken has the updated rules by his area, I'm sure he made the right call.
 
Pool websites are the slowest to every be updated. I would not trust any rules there. Even the WPA rules for table specs are full of typos, and have been for over 10 years.
 
JoseV said:
From what I over heard from the TD was the rules online were outdated from the rules they are currently using, Earl ran into the same problem with his ear plugs, on the website it says they are allowed, but the updated rules say otherwise, Ken has the updated rules by his area, I'm sure he made the right call.
Click to expand...

As long as all players were given a copy, that’s perfectly fine. If the TD has one of the only copies and players have to seek it out to check on things, I’d venture to say that’s not the best way to do it.

In this case if the rules were readily available and he chose to put together those three cues, that’s in him.
 
My understanding was that Little Ko wanted to use a special short-range jumper but was told he couldn't because he already had 3 cues in use and that was the limit.

But later (after that match) it was said that the rule Ken cited was outdated and did not apply to this years Open so Ko, could have used the special short range cue.

best,
brian kc
 
vapoolplayer said:
As long as all players were given a copy, that’s perfectly fine. If the TD has one of the only copies and players have to seek it out to check on things, I’d venture to say that’s not the best way to do it.

In this case if the rules were readily available and he chose to put together those three cues, that’s in him.
Click to expand...


Giving the players a copy in their native language seems like it would be automatic for a tournament which draws so many top players from around the world.

Is this the same Ko who had a problem in an earlier match when the referee wouldn't give a re-rack?
 
alstl said:
Giving the players a copy in their native language seems like it would be automatic for a tournament which draws so many top players from around the world.

Is this the same Ko who had a problem in an earlier match when the referee wouldn't give a re-rack?
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
alstl said:
Giving the players a copy in their native language seems like it would be automatic for a tournament which draws so many top players from around the world.

Is this the same Ko who had a problem in an earlier match when the referee wouldn't give a re-rack?
Click to expand...

Ha, no way. Who's going to translate into 20 languages? Those foreign players probably speak English better than some of the American players.
 
alstl said:
Giving the players a copy in their native language seems like it would be automatic for a tournament which draws so many top players from around the world.

Is this the same Ko who had a problem in an earlier match when the referee wouldn't give a re-rack?
Click to expand...

That was Big Ko(older brother) that asked for a re-rack and wasnt granted, but the ref re-racked for Shaw.

Then Baby Ko match yesterday motioned for a re-rack and his request was denied.
 
Last edited:
Most of these overseas contingents would have some translator and go thru any new rules handed out. KC already said the 3 cues limit "rule Ken cited was outdated and did not apply to this years Open" so if the rule remained there was no need to hand out updated rules anyway. KC be may onto something and if he is right that would be 3th ref bad decision (excluding time penalty on Little Ko in Ko-Chang match which I think is a fair call). Someone can make a show called "Refs under spotlight" with all these :D
 
Sounds like its time for an online presence overhaul. In my spare time, I volunteer for 501c7 social club. We used to have a heck of a time updating our web presence. We switched our web platform to WordPress. Instead of requiring an advance Unix administrator or a full stack developer (whom we have on staff), it takes only 10 minutes of training for a volunteer to become a web editor.

Was Ken the head referee? It's someone's job to make sure the rules are available and consistent. I don't know what kind of support and resources were available to the referees, but on site training and clear path of escalation should be available.

iusedtoberich said:
Pool websites are the slowest to every be updated. I would not trust any rules there. Even the WPA rules for table specs are full of typos, and have been for over 10 years.
Click to expand...
 
How many refs do they need in the kaci-chang match? Lady wearing one glove racking in one game none the next, wiping the cueball with a gove while holding it in other,then sitting it down with bare hand.
 
Kickin' Chicken said:
My understanding was that Little Ko wanted to use a special short-range jumper but was told he couldn't because he already had 3 cues in use and that was the limit.

But later (after that match) it was said that the rule Ken cited was outdated and did not apply to this years Open so Ko, could have used the special short range cue.

best,
brian kc
Click to expand...

The no limit on cues rule is ABSURD! Imagine playing Earl and you bring 30 jump cues and then delay the match while you set them up.-If you are allowed to have them i assume you are allowed to set them up before hand. "Hey Earl, you mind if i put 10 of these over on your side?-Im out of room over here"

IT'S A Shark!!!
 
Last edited:
gxman said:
That was Big Ko(older brother) that asked for a re-rack and wasnt granted, but the ref re-racked for Shaw.

Then Baby Ko match yesterday motioned for a re-rack and his request was denied.
Click to expand...

After the big KO fiasco they changed the rule to NO RE-RACKS. Period !

Examine all you want but no reracks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top