Deuel/Hall One Pocket: Ethical Question

sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Some of you may have seen this as it occurred on the stream table, and I'd like to preface this thread with the fact that I'm not trying to suggest either player was out of line in the handling of a situation that arose in the US Open 1-pocket event.

In the US Open one pocket match last week between Corey Deuel and Justin Hall, a strange situation arose. Deuel left himself in a position in which it was very close whether he could see enough of an object ball to cut it into his pocket. He called a referee and requested that the cue ball be cleaned. Justin looked at the cue ball and found no evidence that the cue ball required cleaning, and took exception.

In Justin's estimation, and I am in no position to determine whether he was right or wrong, Corey, just barely, couldn't see the shot and was hoping that if the referee marked, cleaned and replaced the cue ball, even the slightest error in replacement of the cue ball might result in Corey being able to pocket the object ball in question. Justin suggested to referee Ken Shuman that Corey's request to clean the cue ball should be rejected.

Ken explained that it is not within the rights of a referee to reject a player's request to clean the cue ball and proceeded to clean it, after which Deuel pocketed the object ball.

I found this situation unusual and thought it raised some ethical questions. It also occurred to me that, perhaps, a referee ought to be permitted to reject a player's request to clean the cue ball if they see no evidence that the cue ball needs cleaning.

Would anyone care to comment on this?
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
It also occurred to me that, perhaps, a referee ought to be permitted to reject a player's request to clean the cue ball if they see no evidence that the cue ball needs cleaning.
Click to expand...
I agree with you - if moving it could change the shot significantly and there's no obvious reason to clean it, the ref should have discretion to reject the request.

Or maybe the ref could clean it and accidentally leave it a little worse off. :thumbup:
 
sjm said:
... I found this situation unusual and thought it raised some ethical questions. It also occurred to me that, perhaps, a referee ought to be permitted to reject a player's request to clean the cue ball if they see no evidence that the cue ball needs cleaning.

Would anyone care to comment on this?
Click to expand...
At one time the rules included a clause about cleaning to the effect that the referee would "clean any visibly soiled ball" or some such. The current rules (WPA and BCAPL) seem to have no such clause.

Referees should have a ball marker that allows replacement of the ball within a fraction of a millimeter of where it was.

In the particular case above, it might also have been useful for the referee to sight the tangent line between the cue ball and object ball and/or blocker to help make sure that the cue ball was replaced in a position no easier than the original.

Sometimes in those positions (maybe can see just enough for the cut) you want to play the shot softly and with inside english to help the angle. That is also a shot that is likely to skid, so wanting a clean cue ball is understandable.
 
Hello Stu,

I was present when that situation arose and my buddy also made the remark that the cue ball didn't
appear 2 B dirty.
Perhaps Ken should revisit the rule book and even make an amendment to the ball cleaning scenarios !
It does appear that more players are making such requests and it could spiral out of control.

Noel
 
Bob Jewett said:
At one time the rules included a clause about cleaning to the effect that the referee would "clean any visibly soiled ball" or some such. The current rules (WPA and BCAPL) seem to have no such clause.

Referees should have a ball marker that allows replacement of the ball within a fraction of a millimeter of where it was.

In the particular case above, it might also have been useful for the referee to sight the tangent line between the cue ball and object ball and/or blocker to help make sure that the cue ball was replaced in a position no easier than the original.

Sometimes in those positions (maybe can see just enough for the cut) you want to play the shot softly and with inside english to help the angle. That is also a shot that is likely to skid, so wanting a clean cue ball is understandable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the skid issue may be the explanation here, as the number of skids in the event was substantial.
 
I dont know when this idiotic rule was born, but it needs to die! There has never been a rule in pool ( ever! ) when a player or ref can pick up ANY ball to "clean" it during a game. Its ridiculous and its a 'MOVE'. If you cant handle the cue ball for ONE rack, you should get a JOB! I think someone already called theses 'pro' players prima donna's. But its worse than that because they are now abusing the rule by using it as a 'move'. Who makes up this stuff?
 
Just like in golf, play it down. I would go dead off the air if someone tried to clean a cue ball in the middle of a game.
 
They should clean it in between racks if it gets dirty. How many times do you see to people clean the balls in the middle of a game when gambling? If there is a hair on the ball maybe... but I would still make him wait one shot.
 
sjm said:
Is this correct?
Click to expand...
No, it's not correct. I think a lot of members would benefit from reading the rules occasionally. Here is the rule as it was in the BCA rule book as of 1993 and it is more or less identical to the pro rule used by the PBA (men's pro tour back when there was one) starting about 1987.

(Instructions for the Referee)
2.12 Cleaning Balls
During a game a player may ask the referee to clean one or more balls. The referee will clean any visibly soiled ball.​
It is certainly the standard in snooker and carom matches that the referee will clean the cue ball when asked. At snooker the colors are often cleaned each time they are respotted.
 
jamesroberts said:
Just like in golf, play it down. I would go dead off the air if someone tried to clean a cue ball in the middle of a game.
Click to expand...

In most games or situations, it's fine. But when the ball in question is in a situation like this, it's clearly a move.
 
Bob Jewett said:
No, it's not correct. I think a lot of members would benefit from reading the rules occasionally. Here is the rule as it was in the BCA rule book as of 1993 and it is more or less identical to the pro rule used by the PBA (men's pro tour back when there was one) starting about 1987.

(Instructions for the Referee)
2.12 Cleaning Balls
During a game a player may ask the referee to clean one or more balls. The referee will clean any visibly soiled ball.​
It is certainly the standard in snooker and carom matches that the referee will clean the cue ball when asked. At snooker the colors are often cleaned each time they are respotted.
Click to expand...

Bob, I can't believe you honestly expect the fans to read a rule book, that's just totally unfair of you.
 
sjm said:
Some of you may have seen this as it occurred on the stream table, and I'd like to preface this thread with the fact that I'm not trying to suggest either player was out of line in the handling of a situation that arose in the US Open 1-pocket event.

In the US Open one pocket match last week between Corey Deuel and Justin Hall, a strange situation arose. Deuel left himself in a position in which it was very close whether he could see enough of an object ball to cut it into his pocket. He called a referee and requested that the cue ball be cleaned. Justin looked at the cue ball and found no evidence that the cue ball required cleaning, and took exception.

In Justin's estimation, and I am in no position to determine whether he was right or wrong, Corey, just barely, couldn't see the shot and was hoping that if the referee marked, cleaned and replaced the cue ball, even the slightest error in replacement of the cue ball might result in Corey being able to pocket the object ball in question. Justin suggested to referee Ken Shuman that Corey's request to clean the cue ball should be rejected.

Ken explained that it is not within the rights of a referee to reject a player's request to clean the cue ball and proceeded to clean it, after which Deuel pocketed the object ball.

I found this situation unusual and thought it raised some ethical questions. It also occurred to me that, perhaps, a referee ought to be permitted to reject a player's request to clean the cue ball if they see no evidence that the cue ball needs cleaning.

Would anyone care to comment on this?
Click to expand...

I'm just curious if Corey admitted that he couldn't see the shot and was hoping that the referee would clean and then misplace the cue ball so that he could then make the shot?

Otherwise, this is an awful lot of mind-reading and speculation.

JoeyA
 
The commentators also implied it's a move, "It's a free shot at possibly improving your leave" is how Billy I put it.

But I can see a legit reason for asking. Corey almost had to semi-masse with soft outside spin.
He knows if the ball is dirty the spin might "catch" in an unpredictable way and overcut the shot,
so he made sure there was no risk of that.

None of us can say for absolute certain what was in Corey's head, but I don't see any reason to assume
the worst when he's doing it in full view of the refs, opponent, and stream viewers.

The last thing we need is another situation where a ref is forced to make judgment calls and try
to guess what's inside a player's head. "Is this a move? Is this an honest player? What's his reputation like?
Do I know this player's history? What about this shot situation, is this a funny and delicate position,
or just a routine shot that happens to be near another ball?"

Refs shouldn't have to guess at stuff like that.

Just clean every ball when players request it, and don't worry about intent.
Be careful to put it back exactly where it was. If it seems like a player is trying to game
the system by always asking for cleanings in tight situations, warn 'em.
If they persist, hit 'em with a sportsmanship foul.
 
The cleaning of balls in the middle of a game is ridiculous and should be removed as an option for any player. The same players that I saw request to have a ball cleaned are the same players that don't remove the majic rack from the table and shoot over/across the majic rack time and time again. So some spot on the object ball or cue ball will greatly effect their game but shooting over a piece of plastic that on hard shots actually moves on the table does not?

You would have to think the player is hoping that after a ball is respotted that it changes the angle slightly to their benefit.

CSI should remove the option to have a ball cleaned mid game immediately.
 
JoeyA said:
I'm just curious if Corey admitted that he couldn't see the shot and was hoping that the referee would clean and then misplace the cue ball so that he could then make the shot?

Otherwise, this is an awful lot of mind-reading and speculation.

JoeyA
Click to expand...

Actually, Corey declared prior to the cleaning of the ball that he could see the shot. Obviously, Justin wasn't so sure.

Yes, there is much room for speculation here and the intent of this thread was never to impugn the character of either outstanding competitor. I just felt that the situation merited review and analysis and that's why I submitted it for consideration by the forum.
 
sjm said:
Actually, Corey declared prior to the cleaning of the ball that he could see the shot. Obviously, Justin wasn't so sure.

Yes, there is much room for speculation here and the intent of this thread was never to impugn the character of either outstanding competitor. I just felt that the situation merited review and analysis and that's why I submitted it for consideration by the forum.
Click to expand...

Now the whole thing makes sense. Thanks sjm.

JoeyA
 
John Schmitt and Johnny Archer are the two that come to mind as wanting perfect conditions as far as clean and lint free. But honestly, I don't think either of those guys pull that move "as a move".

Corey is a bright guy, this was a move. I know and have been shown tons of moves that you can do along these lines. Some are old school and some are newer ones.

Corey wasn't cheating, but he was pulling a move to get an advantage. He was utilizing the exsisting rules to an advantage. He has shown creativity with his "cut break" that drove Earl Strickland off the edge at Romines.

The obvious solution is to not allow cleaning except between racks. No exceptions.

Let just keep it simple.

Best of rolls,

Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top