hudos to ken shuman accustats ref who dq darren

[sjm]

Let's start with this - Ken Shuman is a highly capable referee and his decision was certainly reasonable, but let's compare it to another incident of unsportsmanlike conduct that occurred during the US Open 10-ball event at the Rio last July.

On that occasion, Dennis Orcullo was on the other end of the call. I wish I could remember all the details, but the gist of it was that Dennis was cited for unsportsmanlike conduct when he did some in-match practicing on the adjacent table outside the boundaries of what's allowed under the rules. John Leyman, another highly capable referee, made the call and Dennis was penalized a rack in a match that he went on to win.

I have seen unsportsmanlike conduct calls in 14.1 before and I know that one of the options that a referee has is to assess a sixteen point foul on the player.

Guess I don't understand the unsportsmanlike conduct rules very well.

 

[SmoothStroke]

What's the big deal? A ref should do his job in any game or sport regardless of feelings or the outcome.
If they don't do their job replace them with people who will.
Off with their heads

Im going with tazing and waterboarding

 

[AtLarge]

... It isn't a judgment call for the referee. ...

... Guess I don't understand the unsportsmanlike conduct rules very well.

The penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is determined by the referee (i.e, a judgment call). From the WPA rules:

"The normal penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is the same as for a serious foul, but the referee may impose a penalty depending on his judgment of the conduct. Among other penalties possible are a warning; a standard-foul penalty, which will count as part of a three-foul sequence if applicable; a serious-foul penalty; loss of a rack, set or match; ejection from the competition possibly with forfeiture of all prizes, trophies and standings points."

 

[SouthernDraw]

Kudos to Ken. This is yet another example of the changing face for Professional Pool. It is moving from a game to a respected sport. There has to be a Sheriff to keep order in the game.

And before this gets too critical, it is not only unruly poolplayers. Every sport (even politics)has this same problem. When you have the absolute best, they come with ego's attached. They would never make it to that position without it. They have learned to test the limits. Pool has just never had leaders with enough balls to enforce leadership.

I believe that times have changed. The players will learn their limits and adapt. And for those that don't, they sliver into the realm of obscurity and irrelevancy.

Respect, Courage, and Commitment!

 

[alstl]

The penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is determined by the referee (i.e, a judgment call). From the WPA rules:

"The normal penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is the same as for a serious foul, but the referee may impose a penalty depending on his judgment of the conduct. Among other penalties possible are a warning; a standard-foul penalty, which will count as part of a three-foul sequence if applicable; a serious-foul penalty; loss of a rack, set or match; ejection from the competition possibly with forfeiture of all prizes, trophies and standings points."

Unsportsmanlike conduct is any intentional behavior that brings disrepute to the sport or which disrupts or changes the game to the extent that it cannot be played fairly. It includes
(a) distracting the opponent;
(b) changing the position of the balls in play other than by a shot;
(c) playing a shot by intentionally miscuing;
(d) continuing to play after a foul has been called or play has been suspended;
(e) practicing during a match;
(f) marking the table;
(g) delay of the game; and
(h) using equipment inappropriately.


What Appleton did was disruptive to the extent the game could not continue. I can't imagine any referee making a different call. It is no different from raking the balls. Appleton conceded the game. The referee only made it official.

 

[takeitdown]

well, earl has been known to do the same..many times......gosh I like your avatar! :thumbup:

Jam doesn't! That is the infamous "skinsuit".

Daz plays on emotion and expects alot of himself. I understand how his frustration could get the best of him. Ken is legendary.

 

[Johnson]

the same flaws that some here think make darren a "hothead" are the same qualities in my view that make him a world champion

 

[AtLarge]

... I can't imagine any referee making a different call. ,,,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in what I posted. What Appleton did is unsportsmanlike conduct; his action is even one of the examples listed in the rules (as you quoted). So there is no referee judgment involved in that determination.

But the penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is a matter of the referee's judgment. If, for example, Appleton's action had moved only the CB rather than multiple balls, and the CB could be restored to its position accurately, it is possible that a referee might assess a less severe penalty than loss of the match.

 

[pooler]

I have seen unsportsmanlike conduct calls in 14.1 before and I know that one of the options that a referee has is to assess a sixteen point foul on the player.

Guess I don't understand the unsportsmanlike conduct rules very well.

I am sure it is just a typo but I want to correct it anyway for the sake of future generations of straight pool enthusiasts or those who might want to quote it...

There is never a sixteen (16) points penalty in straight pool !!!

Fifteen (15) points is more like it :wink:

 

[pt109]

I am sure it is just a typo but I want to correct it anyway for the sake of future generations of straight pool enthusiasts or those who might want to quote it...

There is never a sixteen (16) points penalty in straight pool !!!

Fifteen (15) points is more like it :wink:

The shot is a one ball foul, with the penalty, it comes to sixteen.
The math is right, even if the grammar could be argued with.

 

[pooler]

The shot is a one ball foul, with the penalty, it comes to sixteen.
The math is right, even if the grammar could be argued with.

That is precisely what I pointed out and it is a common misconception
You either penalize the shot (-1) or penalize the unsportsmanlike conduct.

 

[alstl]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in what I posted. What Appleton did is unsportsmanlike conduct; his action is even one of the examples listed in the rules (as you quoted). So there is no referee judgment involved in that determination.

But the penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct is a matter of the referee's judgment. If, for example, Appleton's action had moved only the CB rather than multiple balls, and the CB could be restored to its position accurately, it is possible that a referee might assess a less severe penalty than loss of the match.

First paragraph technically correct.

Second paragraph - that's not what happened. He raked the balls.

I would be interested in Bob Jewett's opinion of what would have happened if a player deliberately fouled the cue ball after missing a shot. I've never seen it in 14.1 but I saw it once in a ring game and it got interesting.

 

[AtLarge]

... Second paragraph - that's not what happened. He raked the balls. ...

Yes, I was aware of that. I was just trying to point out that the penalty is a matter of the ref's judgment, and that, as an example, if a player in such a situation had moved only the CB, then some refs might have imposed a penalty different from loss of match.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I know this was the old Ronnie, but it seemed relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVKuDv2DYbA

 

[vagabond]

Ken is No legend.
I was never been impressed by Ken.
I will respect ken`s decission (s) only when he is consistent with his decissions.
I will respect Ken`s decission(s) only when he implements all the the rules and till then NO kudos to ken.S.

 

[jay helfert]

Ken had no other choice here. If Darren had only moved the cue ball, then maybe a one ball foul would have been in order. By moving several balls he affected the entire game (and match). In 9-Ball, Ten Ball, Eight Ball or One Pocket, it would only be loss of game. But Straight Pool is one continuous game without interruption. Good call and the correct one imo.

 

[victorl]

I think match disqualification is too harsh in this case. Like you say, any other game is a one rack penalty, so a rack's worth of 15 points should be the call here (which would have also resulted in an immediate loss anyway).

What if they were still in the first rack and this happened? Or what if Darren had been up 119-0 and had a brain fart and did that? Would he be deserving of immediate disqualification?

 

[sfleinen]

Posted this in the other thread, but it's applicable here in this thread as well:

There's zero choice about handing Darren an automatic loss here.
By disturbing the balls, you change the outcome of the entire 14.1 game.
Any other solution produces a tainted result, like "what if they had played without the balls being moved,
he woulda had an easier shot here, and then this coulda happened, and then..."

Trying to reset them back to their original positions is no good, millimeters count,
especially in a game where most of the balls spend a lot of time being frozen to other balls.

Trying some homebrew solution like "he loses just his inning and 15 points"
is no good either, the layout toasty walks up to may not be the one that he'd have after
the missed combo, and it may not be something thorsten likes.

If it were 10b you're playing a race rather than single game, you can just dock him
that game and carry on. But in straight pool, one single game IS the race so unfortunately
for Darren, he loses that "set" with no chance to make up for his fit of anger.

That's right. And, it appears short-rack rotation lingo has polluted 14.1, in that I hear (and see, in writing here on AZB and in live-stream chat) people referring to a 14.1 game as "race to 150" or "race to 200" -- which is a complete misnomer. It's not a "race," folks; it's a single game to 150 or 200 points. When describing a straight pool match, the proper lingo is "150-point game" or "200-point game."

So, in Darren's case, by grossly disturbing the layout of the balls, he forfeited that "game" -- remember, straight pool is a continuous game to 150 or 200 points. It's not a "race" of individual racks delineated by a "money ball being pocketed" and a subsequent wildcard break shot, like in short-rack rotation.

So that should help explain Ken's decision to [make the correct] call to disqualify Darren for disturbing the layout of the balls.

-Sean

-Sean

 

[CreeDo]

Ken had no other choice here. If Darren had only moved the cue ball, then maybe a one ball foul would have been in order. By moving several balls he affected the entire game (and match). In 9-Ball, Ten Ball, Eight Ball or One Pocket, it would only be loss of game. But Straight Pool is one continuous game without interruption. Good call and the correct one imo.

What he said. It's not really about making an example out of someone for showing their temper
(though we should discourage that too).

It's just that the outcome of the game is affected by changing the balls all around.
That straight pool match is now tainted. If you tried to play it out,
the result will always have an asterisk next to it.

Can you imagine a rack of 10 ball where it's an easy layout, you're running out, and you disturb
3 balls... nobody can agree where they go, so you just line them all up on the foot spot,
and give up the table to the other guy? The whole game is ruined, and even replaying it
wouldn't be a fair solution.

 

[krupa]

I think match disqualification is too harsh in this case. Like you say, any other game is a one rack penalty, so a rack's worth of 15 points should be the call here (which would have also resulted in an immediate loss anyway).

As others have pointed out, 14.1 is not the same as every other game. It's 14 and 1 continuous pocket billiards. Not rack, run and re-rack. Disturbing the balls in 14.1 affects the game too much to assess a one-rack penalty and then continuing.

What if they were still in the first rack and this happened? Or what if Darren had been up 119-0 and had a brain fart and did that? Would he be deserving of immediate disqualification?

In these two hypothetical cases, I would DQ him from the entire event and not invite him back.