BadBeef67 said:

Commentators will never stop talking and will fill every available second with their yapping, regardless of accuracy, or relevance to the situation or game in general.

Click to expand...

I think the commentators going on about that money makes the sport seem small time. People watching know what kind of money is in professional sports. This year's Masters made four and a half million dollars for first place.
Last place, guys who didn't even make the cut got $25,000.

Rookie for the Miami Marlins even if he never plays a second year starts at $550,000. If he's around for another year so it will probably go over a million. The public knows that. So if somebody happens to tune into that pool match, to them these guys are like amateurs playing for very little. I just found it, I guess in my mind kind of demeaning.

Bob Jewett said:

Curiously enough, it was that if you could not actually see the tip hit the ball a second time, you could not call a double hit. Physics be damned. And that's the rule I used. Richie Florence was the victim of one of the most obvious double hits one could hope to see, except it was too fast to see, of course. What I said was, "39", which was the ball count. The shooter said, "You made a good call." Ritchie was irritated.

Click to expand...

worked that way for decades and was fair as it applied to both sides. the ref calls it as he sees it.

if you want to put physics in it to get always the perfect absolute call, then you need to add cameras.

In league one night we had 2 situations where the shot was close, we would sometimes record them for review. The first hit was very very close, but a bad hit, the second was also very close but a good hit as we could essentially identify a specific frame. I ran both recorded videos through Google Gemini AI and it came to the exact same conclusion with detail. I asked it to analyze the Yapp shot and it came to the same conclusion as Dr Dave.

Perhaps through some test of 100s of close hits you could define the actual accuracy, but Gemini AI can also see every frame and come up with a conclusion. The benefit of using it in a professional setting is that you remove any human bias and its a true neutral third party making the decision.

chuckpilegis said:

The first year? the later years I didnt mind because at the time it was only a few minutes from my house instead of an hour plus drive

Click to expand...

A few minutes from your house would make it more enjoyable for sure. Both years were bad. It just wasn’t a good location. The pros being out in the open with people treating it like a lunch room was terrible. Just not enough space

I copied those rules from the wpa pdf there now, the "2025-09-15" version, which I thought was the current set of rules. Please let me know if I'm looking in the wrong spot. Would definitely be interested in seeing the current rule.

Cynergy plays great!

In the 90s 1st prize at the Sands Reno tournament was around $11,000 to $12,000.

Likely because they are young and not educated/schooled speakers. You can't compare these announcers with the likes of one you'd find discussion the Masters Golf event last week. Also, many announcers in the past were close friends of the production crew, and got an ''in''. That still occurs.

Commentators will never stop talking and will fill every available second with their yapping, regardless of accuracy, or relevance to the situation or game in general.