PDA

View Full Version : Was Marlon Manalo Robbed ?


spw62
07-05-2006, 12:45 AM
There is allot of mixed feelings about this 6 ball Shot we saw on the sunday show against Francisco Bustamante.
Marlon Manalo played a safety against Bustamante where he thinned the 6 very thin and nestled up behind it. The referee called a foul and gave Bustamante ball-in-hand. Manalo lost the set from there.
so I thought I would start a poll.
PLEASE RESPOND NOW!

bruin70
07-05-2006, 12:56 AM
what shot.

jjinfla
07-05-2006, 04:07 AM
I believe you should have a "I can't tell" choice.

I looked at the shot over and over and since I can't see the edge of the rail I can't tell if the CB hit the edge before it hit the 6 ball.

My "feeling" for whatever that is worth is that it was a foul.

But after watching the OLN tape I see that Manalo thought it was a good hit and he was the closest to the shot. Then he did say that later Bustamante did tell him that he thought it was a bad call. Listening to Manalo I get the feeling that he is upset with Bustamante for not speaking up at the time and just taking the $10,000.

In the interview Manalo says he is not a liar.

I just wish they showed the shot with the overhead camera then we would be able to tell if he skimmed the 6 ball with the CB before the CB hit the rail. Or if he missed the 6 ball on the way by and hit it after the CB touched the rail.

But, as Manalo said, that is all in the past.

Jake

JAM
07-05-2006, 04:17 AM
...But, as Manalo said, that is all in the past.

I think Marlon Manalo reacted, as any player would who thought he made a legitimate good hit. When the referee made a call against Marlon, he obliged the referee and did not mention it again until the match concluded, with Francisco Bustamante winning the set. Marlon accepted the call, and that is the way it is supposed to work.

I have seen bad calls by refs, as they are human beings. Some referees can see things that I sure cannot with my naked eye.

Technology is a wonderful thing. Looking at the video of this questionable shot is of value. However, technology will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER replace a human being. The referee, IMHO, has the best view, as he was right on top of that shot when it occurred. He said it was a foul.

I do not think it was a foul, as I believe the 6 ball was ever so slightly hit, making it a legal shot. Marlon said he grazed the 6-ball when he executed the shot, and I think Marlon believes that he did, in fact, make contact with the 6-ball. However, it is water under the bridge at this juncture.

JAM

pooltchr
07-05-2006, 04:27 AM
When the ref called it a bad hit, it became a bad hit regardless of what actually happened. Maybe the choices should have been "good call" or "bad call". Personally, I think the ref got it right.
Steve

Icon of Sin
07-05-2006, 04:31 AM
On the initial shot I thought it was a good hit. After watching the replays I thought it was bad.

I beleive Marlon truely believed it to be a good hit and had no bad intentions when causing an argument.

Ktown D
07-05-2006, 10:54 AM
It was a foul. I personally think part of his reaction was in disbelief that he had just put himself in that position. He should have realized before the shot that there was at least a fair possibility that the hit would be questionable at best.

ironman
07-05-2006, 11:27 AM
There is allot of mixed feelings about this 6 ball Shot we saw on the sunday show against Francisco Bustamante.
Marlon Manalo played a safety against Bustamante where he thinned the 6 very thin and nestled up behind it. The referee called a foul and gave Bustamante ball-in-hand. Manalo lost the set from there.
so I thought I would start a poll.
PLEASE RESPOND NOW!

Why all the controversary? The call was made! It ain't gonna change! It has happened before! Aren't those APA Officials? There are gonna be other bad calls! Playing and officiating from the rail is the easiest thing in the world!

Cornerman
07-05-2006, 12:08 PM
what shot.

This one: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=22218

Fred

scottycoyote
07-05-2006, 12:12 PM
just watching the match with the naked eye from my viewpoint i thought it was a foul, i didnt see a replay. Manolo is a pro and the way he reacted leads me to believe it was probably a good hit, but ive played with very honest people before who saw a shot one way and i the other, so anyone is prone to a mistake. The ref wasnt right there on the shot, if he was going to play a shot that was that close to a questionable hit, he should have called him over to observe it upclose imo

poolboy17
07-05-2006, 01:06 PM
Aren't those APA Officials?!

Ahhh, no. All were established BCA national and senior national referees.

ironman
07-06-2006, 07:20 AM
Ahhh, no. All were established BCA national and senior national referees.

Being an official can reaally suck. It is a thankless job.
At a recent IPT qualifier I was called to make a call. I didn't want to do it as my allergies were just killing me. I had been up most of the night and was coughing and sneezing and on the brink of jumping right into the gulf.
Anyway, David G asked to make a call Robb Saez was about to shoot. I asked him to wait as I was just about to sneeze and both seemed to get a kick out of this because they thought I just had a bad hangover.
Anyway the siezure seemed to pass and just as He shot, I sneezed. My eyes were closed at the instant he shot and they both looked at me waiting for a call. All I could say, was that I missed the call.
I guess it was pretty obvious and resolved the issue pretty easily. They did laugh at me pretty hard, but I was just glad no harm was done.

Bob Jewett
07-06-2006, 09:56 AM
...
Marlon Manalo played a safety against Bustamante where he thinned the 6 very thin and nestled up behind it. The referee called a foul and gave Bustamante ball-in-hand. Manalo lost the set from there.
...
It was a foul. Beyond that, it was one of the stupidest plays I've ever seen a pro player make. There were five better shots to shoot. I guess Manalo had a brain freeze. He didn't even leave Bustamante hooked.

Blue_chalk
07-06-2006, 10:26 AM
It was a foul. Beyond that, it was one of the stupidest plays I've ever seen a pro player make. There were five better shots to shoot. I guess Manalo had a brain freeze. He didn't even leave Bustamante hooked.

Please don't hold back, tell us how you really feel? LOL

I was at the event. Reyes was warming up on the table next to Manalo's when this happened. Efren saw what happened and shook his head. Reyes set the shot up, put the cueball on the other side, executed a perfect safety three times and just laughed and shook his shoulders. It was kind of funny.

Someone earlier had posted that Bustamante admitted to Manalo later it was a legal shot. I don't know how he could have even seen the shot. He was in his chair 10 feet away with the referee standing between him and the shot. The only way he could have seen it was the overhead monitor with the distorted view that the rest of were watching.

Here's a piece of technical advice for the IPT though. Have someone with technical knowledge of the game tell the cameraman where to stand to get the best view of these shots. We never got the optimal perspective.

cuebuilder
07-06-2006, 02:22 PM
I watched the match lke everyone else. Personally, I feel as bad for the referee as I do for anyone else. He's the guy that got the heat for the call. It could have gone either way. Which ever way it goes, someone was going to think it was a bad call. I thought the call was correct. Over, done with, the end. The ref didn't have the luxory of instant replay to study over and over again. This aint football. He called what he saw. He's the official. Done deal.
Dave

Blue_chalk
07-06-2006, 02:29 PM
I watched the match lke everyone else. Personally, I feel as bad for the referee as I do for anyone else. He's the guy that got the heat for the call. It could have gone either way. Which ever way it goes, someone was going to think it was a bad call. I thought the call was correct. Over, done with, the end. The ref didn't have the luxory of instant replay to study over and over again. This aint football. He called what he saw. He's the official. Done deal.
Dave

Of course you're right. However, the IPT has to be eating this up. It has people talking about their tv show. Those who may not have watched it the first time scrambled to see what everyone was talking about. This reaction is EXACTLY what they were looking for.

tedkaufman
07-09-2006, 06:50 AM
I've watched that safety over and over, and I cannot see the 6-ball move at all before the cueball touches the rail. Had the cueball even touched the 6-ball, it would have at least rocked or jiggled in place. It didn't, though. I think it's a foul and Manalo just plain screwed up.

12squared
07-09-2006, 08:34 AM
I thought it was a good hit. It appeared to me that the cueball and 6 ball moved together for a small amount of time and that's how the cueball stayed so close to the 6. In my opinion, the only way for that kind of action to take place is if the cueball hit the 6 first to get it moving ever so slightly. If the cueball hit the rail first, there is no way for the cueball & 6 to move together. Try it and watch the reaction of both balls when you clearly hit the rail first...you will see immediate separation where the cueball will almost stop cold and the 6 will move.

Dave

Rude Dog
07-09-2006, 10:36 AM
I thought it was a good hit. It appeared to me that the cueball and 6 ball moved together for a small amount of time and that's how the cueball stayed so close to the 6. In my opinion, the only way for that kind of action to take place is if the cueball hit the 6 first to get it moving ever so slightly. If the cueball hit the rail first, there is no way for the cueball & 6 to move together. Try it and watch the reaction of both balls when you clearly hit the rail first...you will see immediate separation where the cueball will almost stop cold and the 6 will move.

Dave
That was my thought exactly. If he hit the rail first, the CB would have stopped. By hitting the 6 first, then the rail, the CB had a chance to follow the 6 the way it did. Manalo was robbed!

mnShooter
07-11-2006, 12:19 AM
Go try it on the table and watch the video again. Rude dog knows a thing or two.

Blue_chalk
07-11-2006, 08:45 AM
Why do you guys keep saying the cueball followed behind the object ball? The cueball hit the rail and lightly touched the six. It's not like both balls rolled four feet together or something. The six ball hardly even moved after being contacted.

As far as everyone else not understanding the shot, I think you're wrong. They understand what you're saying (I do) but they don't agree that the cueball "followed" the object ball. I believe their contention is the cueball hit rail first and merely rolled up on the six.

Besides, I would sure accept the technical opinion of someone like Bob Jewett and some of the others on here before that of some MN nobody. Unless of course you're Jimmy Wetch. Which I HIGHLY doubt.

Koop
07-11-2006, 12:56 PM
Why do you guys keep saying the cueball followed behind the object ball? The cueball hit the rail and lightly touched the six. It's not like both balls rolled four feet together or something. The six ball hardly even moved after being contacted.

As far as everyone else not understanding the shot, I think you're wrong. They understand what you're saying (I do) but they don't agree that the cueball "followed" the object ball. I believe their contention is the cueball hit rail first and merely rolled up on the six.

Besides, I would sure accept the technical opinion of someone like Bob Jewett and some of the others on here before that of some MN nobody. Unless of course you're Jimmy Wetch. Which I HIGHLY doubt.

You would accept the word of Bob Jewett over 12squared(David Gross) and and RudeDog(John Morton)? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think all he was saying is that he values their opinion on this and so do I.

As for the call, I honestly couldn't tell and therefore really have no beef with the ref's call. Even with instant replay, which we had the fortune of seeing, it still seems too tough to call.

Blue_chalk
07-11-2006, 01:18 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think all he was saying is that he values their opinion on this... .

You're wrong.

You would accept the word of Bob Jewett over 12squared(David Gross) and and RudeDog(John Morton)? .

When did I say that? No, that's putting words in my mouth. Here's what he actually said, you might need to re-read it.

I can see now how few people that actually know what the hell they're talking about. The majority of voters and even well known instructors making the wrong call. Maybe you should go try it on the table before you publicly humiliate yourself. Rude dog knows a thing or two.

Of course Rude Dog and 12squared know what they're talking about. I never challenged that. I was flat out referring to MN Shooter. He is saying that anyone that believes otherwise does not have the technical knowledge to understand what would indicate a good hit or a bad hit. I do not believe that to be true.

Can't we disagree without taking personal shots? Of course they know what they are talking about. I'm just saying that because someone has an alternate point of view doesn't mean they are not knowledgeable.

Koop
07-11-2006, 02:55 PM
You're wrong.



When did I say that? No, that's putting words in my mouth. Here's what he actually said, you might need to re-read it.



Of course Rude Dog and 12squared know what they're talking about. I never challenged that. I was flat out referring to MN Shooter. He is saying that anyone that believes otherwise does not have the technical knowledge to understand what would indicate a good hit or a bad hit. I do not believe that to be true.

Can't we disagree without taking personal shots? Of course they know what they are talking about. I'm just saying that because someone has an alternate point of view doesn't mean they are not knowledgeable.


You're right and I'm wrong. When did I take personal shot? I was asking a question.

I'll be sure to steer clear of your posts as it seems you are the one taking pot shots with the re-read comment. Trust me, my comprehension is just fine thank you.

Bye,
Koop

PoolSleuth
07-11-2006, 03:37 PM
I vote for None of the Above, as I do not CARE....

etimmons
07-11-2006, 03:48 PM
It was a foul. Beyond that, it was one of the stupidest plays I've ever seen a pro player make. There were five better shots to shoot. I guess Manalo had a brain freeze. He didn't even leave Bustamante hooked.
I agree it was a foul and was stupid.

mnShooter
07-12-2006, 09:07 PM
Why do you guys keep saying the cueball followed behind the object ball? The cueball hit the rail and lightly touched the six. It's not like both balls rolled four feet together or something. The six ball hardly even moved after being contacted.

As far as everyone else not understanding the shot, I think you're wrong. They understand what you're saying (I do) but they don't agree that the cueball "followed" the object ball. I believe their contention is the cueball hit rail first and merely rolled up on the six.

Besides, I would sure accept the technical opinion of someone like Bob Jewett and some of the others on here before that of some MN nobody. Unless of course you're Jimmy Wetch. Which I HIGHLY doubt.


OK, maybe I was a little harsh. All I'm saying is to take what everyone says on here with a grain of salt. No one can be right all the time. Heck maybe it was a foul, maybe not. But don't tell me you're right and I'm wrong unless you've watched the shot a few times and tried it on the table.

Blue_chalk
07-12-2006, 10:38 PM
OK, maybe I was a little harsh. All I'm saying is to take what everyone says on here with a grain of salt. No one can be right all the time. Heck maybe it was a foul, maybe not. But don't tell me you're right and I'm wrong unless you've watched the shot a few times and tried it on the table.

I am not saying you're wrong. I completely understand what you're saying. The cueball sets the six in motion (creating seperation) and the cueball rebounds off the end rail, following behind the object ball. If the cueball hits the rail first, it would impart almost all of its energy to the object ball and thus stop almost dead. I get that.

We just have a slightly different perception of how the balls reacted on this particular shot.

jsp
07-18-2006, 07:13 AM
To add more fuel to the fire, here is the video of the infamous Busta vs. Manalo match, courtesy of Yokita...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQPGzwcuy3w

I still think it was a foul, if you look at the camera view directly overhead (6:28 into the video). But we can all agree that it was a piss-poor decision by Marlon.

Other things to look for...Sigel hacking up the pronunciation of both Bustamante and Manalo, Busta cursing in Tagalog, and Busta making the bad-ass bank.

tirador
07-23-2006, 08:04 AM
Yes it was a foul I think manalo has his presure coz sometime when you play especialy in big presure with too much concentration, sometimes you forgot your shot, correct me if I'm wrong

DanielM
07-23-2006, 08:43 AM
I thought it was a foul.

The hit between the cushion and the 6 was almost simultaneous, a very tough call though.