Earl won,......
Who thinks earl called the 2
- Thread starter pocketsplitter
- Start date
Earl won,......
No, they agreed to resume the match tomorrow in the octagon.
the video that is out now clearly shows ealr calling the 2
he was playing the ten but called the wrong ball
shaw called it and earl denied it therefore cheating
10 should have been spotted and shaw shooting
another day where earl disgraces the game
he was playing the ten but called the wrong ball
shaw called it and earl denied it therefore cheating
10 should have been spotted and shaw shooting
another day where earl disgraces the game
NYC cue dude
Banned
For those that were there know Earl called the 2. That was NEVER in doubt. He admitted as much when the first thing he said in his defense was "but it was obvious what I was shooting".
Who ? ... Not Earl :rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1:
My comment after the spectator's video of the shot is released:
1. Although this is not a WPA sanctioned event (correct me if I'm wrong) this is essentially "the" current Straight Pool World Championship. Even though the background is a "warm" kind one, at least for the semi finals and final it should be considered (if possible) to have them in a more "isolated" atmosphere (no criticism to the people making a huge effort to keep this great game alive). Referees are hard to find (even on pay roll) and this in general is a problem in Pool. In this case the sitting player could ask the referee to watch the shot closely, he didn't (forgot maybe) so there were no perfect "referee conditions".
2. It is clear that the 2 ball is called, and we have to take it from commentators the 10ball was the one the shooter wanted to pocket (we have no clear view from this video, but it does look so).
3. It's hard to believe if a spectator's video captured the call on the 2 that the official equipment didn't (the final decision was based on that too), that is to be further examined.
4. It is clearly a loss of turn, the sitting player could out of "sportsmanship" let it go, but on the other hand rules are rules and calling the right ball is part of them, so he can't be blamed for asking them to be applied properly.
5. The final decision, although a wrong one, should be respected after that, or an official protest should follow. No need to argue with the opponent, which also had the option to call the foul on himself but didn't (not necessarily because he wanted to cheat, it doesn't look so), anyway.
6. Not obvious why the winner didn't shake hands in the end, too much tension, maybe he didn't want to finish the match this way.
Points 5 and 6 from another relative video. The rest is history.
1. Although this is not a WPA sanctioned event (correct me if I'm wrong) this is essentially "the" current Straight Pool World Championship. Even though the background is a "warm" kind one, at least for the semi finals and final it should be considered (if possible) to have them in a more "isolated" atmosphere (no criticism to the people making a huge effort to keep this great game alive). Referees are hard to find (even on pay roll) and this in general is a problem in Pool. In this case the sitting player could ask the referee to watch the shot closely, he didn't (forgot maybe) so there were no perfect "referee conditions".
2. It is clear that the 2 ball is called, and we have to take it from commentators the 10ball was the one the shooter wanted to pocket (we have no clear view from this video, but it does look so).
3. It's hard to believe if a spectator's video captured the call on the 2 that the official equipment didn't (the final decision was based on that too), that is to be further examined.
4. It is clearly a loss of turn, the sitting player could out of "sportsmanship" let it go, but on the other hand rules are rules and calling the right ball is part of them, so he can't be blamed for asking them to be applied properly.
5. The final decision, although a wrong one, should be respected after that, or an official protest should follow. No need to argue with the opponent, which also had the option to call the foul on himself but didn't (not necessarily because he wanted to cheat, it doesn't look so), anyway.
6. Not obvious why the winner didn't shake hands in the end, too much tension, maybe he didn't want to finish the match this way.
Points 5 and 6 from another relative video. The rest is history.
Last edited:
Transcript of video with time stamps:
[00:00:33] EARL: Two shots.
[00:00:35] EARL: 15 In the side, cut the 10, and play the carom. What would happen [?] play?
[00:00:41] EARL: You play the carom.
[00:00:50] EARL: That's a [?] shot.
[00:01:08] EARL: 2 ball.
[Earl points his cue stick towards left corner pocket and shoots the shot.]
[00:01:14] EARL: 10 ball!
[00:01:16] JAYSON: You called the--you called the 2.
[00:01:17] EARL: Agh!
[00:01:18] JAYSON: You called the 2.
[00:00:33] EARL: Two shots.
[00:00:35] EARL: 15 In the side, cut the 10, and play the carom. What would happen [?] play?
[00:00:41] EARL: You play the carom.
[00:00:50] EARL: That's a [?] shot.
[00:01:08] EARL: 2 ball.
[Earl points his cue stick towards left corner pocket and shoots the shot.]
[00:01:14] EARL: 10 ball!
[00:01:16] JAYSON: You called the--you called the 2.
[00:01:17] EARL: Agh!
[00:01:18] JAYSON: You called the 2.
Correct, it's not a foul, it's loss of turn.
The ref was nowhere near the table.
I think the 2 was make-able with a carom after hitting the 10 first.
Earl definitely meant to shoot the 10-ball. He pointed the cue stick at that pocket where the 10-ball was pocketed. He did, however, say the "2." It was a human speak error. His actions spoke louder than his words, however.
Bottom line is ref ruled, and that's the end of it. Doesn't matter what's right and what's wrong at this juncture. The only right decision is the ref's, as ugly as it is. :embarrassed2:
It was the TD's decision not the referee's, and in case the referee was not 100% of the whole situation (which is the case here) then the rule of satisfying his estimation of the shot made is not applied by fact. If a spectator could record something that the referee didn't hear proves by fact that the referee was not in correct place during a crucial moment of the match (no criticism, just human mistake), so he could not be 100% on top of the situation.
Also commentator's voices covering the shooter's call does not mean that careful inspection cannot clarify the issue.
Finally, there is no personal issue here, not by common sense. There is indeed influence in people's views by the specific player/s involved but most arguments I've seen so far (either side) are based on logical analysis.
Whoever the little short guy is with the mullet haircut that made the decision, whether he's called a "TD" or "referee," that is the final decision.
Nothing else matters after that, no matter who is right and who is wrong.
It doesn't matter. The person who made the final decision, that's the end of it. Whatever happened is immaterial.
Of course it does matter, not only about this specific situation but all future similar ones, at least in terms of tournament conditions.
I don't think people behind this tournament, players, fans of the game, want controversy such as this to be repeated and I'm sure organizers of this great event will take what happened into consideration.
I got it from Facebook.
On the WPA website, in doing some research, it says this:
1.6 Standard Call Shot
In games in which the shooter is required to call shots, the intended ball and pocket must be indicated for each shot if they are not obvious. Details of the shot, such as cushions struck or other balls contacted or pocketed are irrelevant. Only one ball may be called on each shot.
For a called shot to count, the referee must be satisfied that the intended shot was made, so if there is any chance of confusion, e.g. with bank, combination and similar shots, the shooter should indicate the ball and pocket. If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.
Bottom line, again, referee makes the final decision.
Source: http://www.wpa-pool.com/web/index.asp?id=116&pagetype=rules#1.6