Another controversy with Mike Dechaine. This is beyond imagination...

[fastone371]

That said a lot of the pros were being rather flippant with putting the magic rack on the rail and having the edge over on the table. Maybe I am jus too OCD but I noticed every time it as placed somewhere it could actually be contacted by a ball and I would have likely put the thing off to the side on a pole like many of the pros did so it is out of the way.

I notice the same thing when the Magic Rack is used, they often haphazardly set it on the rail with it over hanging the cushion. Why even take the risk of this being called a foul? Get it off the table surface completely.
As others have mentioned earlier, get rid of the Magic Rack and use the wooden rack, if they are worried about competitors playing with the rack just outline the rack location on the table.

 

[sonny_burnett]

I'm not sure there was a TD to call in.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Celophanewrap]

That was a Boyes move from Dechaine. And Grabe implied that it was a lie and the American audience was in on it, which is an even more serious accusation. If someone in the audience saw it and confirmed it, that's different, but still doesn't excuse Dechaine from the APA league type call.

In The APA this wouldn't have been an issue. If there was no referee, by rule the shooter would have made the call.
- jus' sayin' ...

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

I'm with Jay in just issuing a warning first.

I was sitting at a table at Turning Stone last year, watching Mike Dechaine play Fred Gokey in an early round. Mike was having problems with a new tip he just had installed. He miscued badly twice in one game. After one of his miscues he decided to change shafts. Fred saw him doing this and said something about it being technically a concession to unscrew while it was Fred's turn at the table. Mike just laughed it off and said, "I'm not conceding, I'm just changing shafts. Do you really want to win like that?" It is in the rules, and Fred had the right to call in a ref on the matter, but he was basically just issuing a warning.

So I have to ask Mike, "Do you really want to win like that?"

 

[PoolBum]

So I have to ask Mike, "Do you really want to win like that?"

I'm guessing that's one of them there rhetorical type questions.

 

[pt109]

I saw your post and I like you so I wasn't going to respond.

In snooker there are no foreign objects near the table. The players keep their chalk in their pocket. Unless Jay Helfert is playing and his toupee falls off his head and lands on a ball there is zero chance of a foreign object being on the table - just joking Jay.

The template by definition is not a foreign object or every break would be a foul.

Al, I think a player has the right to be as sloppy as he feels like.....
....but he doesn't have the right to impose his sloppiness on his opponent.
There is NO reason for the template to be left on the rail...many of the players were putting
it on a side table.....and I think it should be lifted from the break area immediately after
the break, also....many of the players show that this is not a problem also.

A good pool match is also like a dance...you have a responsibility to your opponent.

...and I have also appreciated every time you post, Al....
...we can be AZ friends and still differ once in a while.

regards
pt.....waiting for a vid of you running a 100 on your home table

 

[Celophanewrap]

I see the OP stopped posting.
So just a couple of questions for the OP, - Was it a foul?

not "was it a home town call" or anything else...

Was it a foul? and Did Dennis call it on himself?

 

[alstl]

Al, I think a player has the right to be as sloppy as he feels like.....
....but he doesn't have the right to impose his sloppiness on his opponent.
There is NO reason for the template to be left on the rail...many of the players were putting
it on a side table.....and I think it should be lifted from the break area immediately after
the break, also....many of the players show that this is not a problem also.

A good pool match is also like a dance...you have a responsibility to your opponent.

...and I have also appreciated every time you post, Al....
...we can be AZ friends and still differ once in a while.

regards
pt.....waiting for a vid of you running a 100 on your home table

That's it - I'm offended and I demand the return of the Balabushka I loaned you years ago.

You are going to wait a long time for me to post a 100 ball run. I think I might have a 50 on video. I need a different table. I was playing recently and the end rail fell off the table onto the floor. The pockets all float loose and spit balls out like they are allergic to them.

 

[Island Drive]

The Ref said "the audience" means he addressed the audience in general = random people. That's "trusted witnesses" ??? Come on give me a break.

Having played in the event twice Twenty some years ago, one thing I noticed. Those east coasters Know their 9 ball. And they are all from Europe :thumbup:.

 

[decent dennis]

That's a good point: The magic rack (actually outsville rack?) is an exception to the normal rule about other objects being touched. No way this should have been called a foul, even if it did happen, IMO.

It was on the rail not the playing surface.

 

[Skippy27]

Another opinion, just opinion

He should consider reading the rules as he clearly does not know them.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Right, and I revert to my two points.

1. Is it a foul? This isn't a rack, it is a template which by definition is not the same as a rack because it is left on the table during the game and is contacted by the balls.

I have a hard time seeing how it is a foul for a ball to touch the template since balls touch the template on every rack.

2. If it is a foul - which I'm not willing to concede - then whoever put the template in the wrong place is the guilty party.

For your point 1, I can't possibly see how once the template is on top of the rail it isn't a foreign object. If the cue ball hits anything hanging over the edge of the rail, even a piece of chalk, it is a foul. If the template is still on the playing surface a reasonable argument could be made for it being ok for a ball to contact it. If it is on the top of the rail there are no reasonable arguments and it is just another foreign object like any other and if a ball hits it it is a foul.

For point 2, if a piece of chalk is hanging slightly over the edge of the rail and a ball hits is it only a foul if you were the one that left it there but not a foul if it was your opponent that left it there? What if a pocket gets so full of balls that when you shoot your ball into that pocket your object ball comes back out and doesn't stay pocketed? If your opponent was the one that had made every single one of the balls in that pocket is he responsible for your ball coming back out and not you? It has always been the responsibility of the person shooting to make sure the table is clear of anything that could interfere with the balls. I see no reason that a rack left hanging over the edge of the rail is somehow an exception when nothing else is.

 

[Marc]

MD Controversy

Helfert is 100% right, as usual.

A warning should have been in place here (if decided by the head ref at the Open that that is even a foul to begin with.)

Dechaine clearly felt the pressure too much and moved on Denis.
Simple as that.

He is no saint. He's never been, and he would probably laugh if talking about this incident afterwards and even admit he had to put a move on Denis, trust me, I know him.But I could be wrong. Just hard for me not to see his grind if I was to tell him face to face...

Accept it Stu because that is what happened, maybe I don't like Mike Dechaine as much as you do, but I do like him alright.


I think players from Europe have as many moves as americans, but they use them less, lets just put it this way.
I don't even like differentiating a man by the continent they live at.But if I have to that's what I would have to say between americans and european players. Like it or not,that's a fact.

However,I've seen cheating in all continents I played pool at.
There are cheaters everywhere.And sometimes it's just the heat of the battle talking, or nerves, or thinking you are the one being cheated in the first place when in reality you are the one cheating first! Haha


And nothing wrong with it. I personally like to play by the rules, and if I saw that the present ref. could make a mistake about the rule (wich he probably did when he decided to give ball in hand to Dechaine), I would probably do it too, if I thought I could get away with it and I thought that the opponent was not being fair with me or sharking me in any kind of way during a match. (wich is what sometimes could be the cause of an "unethical" call)


All Pro players,especially the ones who travel internationally, have hit a magic rack template laying on the rail in major tournaments in Japan,China,Qatar,Philippines and in many other major events throught the world,and probably in the USA as well, at one point or another.

That has never been considered a foul, wether the template was left on the table or on the rail.

That is probably the reason why Helfert (who's been all over the world for pool), considers a warning the right call here.

But, people should not absolutize the truth, because no one knows what went down that particular set.

Just like Boyes and Daulton incident, I can't entirely blame Boyes, cuz he may have had reasons to make that call. WE DON'T KNOW.
But either way, Boyes' call was not exactly a move, just a bit unethical, Dechaine's was more of a move, and he probably got the foul when in reality it wasn't a foul at all.

Jay Helfert is right. And Jay's call on Boyes incident would have had to favored Boyes,since Daulton's stick hit a cue ball in movement.

I don't consider myself a mover, but I can't say I never moved on someone during a game. I like to think I've always had a reason to move on someone, but I'm probably wrong there too.


Many Pros like to argue to the end about their good standing integrity. I don't give 2 shits about mine. I make mistakes,I'm not God.
I apologize when I feel I have to, I'm not afraid of making mistakes or being wrong.

Too many drama queens in pool.
And too many Pro events that are not ran properly,not only in the US (wich I think most of them are a joke, and lack professionalism,but also in many other countries)


This is just an opinion.

 

[worldbeater]

If Grabe had called the foul on himself like a normal human being, neither the ref nor the audience would have been involved.

I'm watching 2013 ultimate 10 ball Reyes vs pagulayan and same thing happened. Magic rack overhanging the rail and Alex hit it with the cueball. They looked at each other for an instant and Alex kept shooting. Because it's a show of mutual respect.

It is most definitely a foul. So if you are playing somebody you don't respect then it's fine to call the foul. In this case the shooter should start by acknowledging he hit the rack. Yet another reason the magic rack creates more problems than it will ever solve.

 

[poolplaya1976]

I'd bet the ball hit the rack. I'd also bet that the spectators were 100% honest and would have been so had the players' roles been reversed.

I saw the match and mike was 100 percent right.....the ball hit the rack that was hanging over the edge of the table

 

[hang-the-9]

That's a good point: The magic rack (actually outsville rack?) is an exception to the normal rule about other objects being touched. No way this should have been called a foul, even if it did happen, IMO.

If it was on the table during the break and a ball rolled over it, or left on the table if there was a ball in the way.

I have seen people leave it on the table when it was easy to remove, I think if a ball hits it then, it should be a foul, same as any other foreign object.

I actually did not even think of that angle till your post.

It's especially true if it's not on the table as a rack but as a piece of equipment no longer in use. It's like using the bridge, then leaving it on the side of the rail and having a ball run into it.

I'd like to know who left the rack there over the side. If it was Mike, then no foul should have been called.

 

[alstl]

For your point 1, I can't possibly see how once the template is on top of the rail it isn't a foreign object. If the cue ball hits anything hanging over the edge of the rail, even a piece of chalk, it is a foul. If the template is still on the playing surface a reasonable argument could be made for it being ok for a ball to contact it. If it is on the top of the rail there are no reasonable arguments and it is just another foreign object like any other and if a ball hits it it is a foul.

For point 2, if a piece of chalk is hanging slightly over the edge of the rail and a ball hits is it only a foul if you were the one that left it there but not a foul if it was your opponent that left it there? What if a pocket gets so full of balls that when you shoot your ball into that pocket your object ball comes back out and doesn't stay pocketed? If your opponent was the one that had made every single one of the balls in that pocket is he responsible for your ball coming back out and not you? It has always been the responsibility of the person shooting to make sure the table is clear of anything that could interfere with the balls. I see no reason that a rack left hanging over the edge of the rail is somehow an exception when nothing else is.

You are conflating a piece of chalk which never is placed on the table with the template which always is on the table. It isn't a piece of chalk. It isn't a rack. It is a paper thin template.

How can the template be a foreign object when it is on the table to begin with? The whole idea behind the template is it's so thin it won't alter the course of a ball.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

How can the template be a foreign object when it is on the table to begin with? The whole idea behind the template is it's so thin it won't alter the course of a ball.

Well, because it can affect the course of a ball. That's why they like to get it off the table whenever possible. I have the first design of the Accu Rack and a slow rolling ball will take quite a different direction if it hits one of those little arms just before the ball comes to rest. I've had the thing suddenly hook me behind another ball on the last half roll more than once.

More importantly in this case, a ball that hits the rail with anything draping over the edge could certainly come off the rail differently than if it just hit the cloth-covered cushion. If a small change in humidity can affect the cloth, why wouldn't a whole other material added between the ball and the rubber have an even bigger effect? At least that my thinking on the subject.

 

[rjb1168]

Another opinion, just opinion

suck it up and move on whinner. :crying:

 

[sheffield6]

suck it up and move on whinner. :crying:

theres no "H" in winner