....because the rules of games are there to cover this kind of eventuality - that's why it's call shot. If his opponent is being a jerk and there is even a hint that he might be angling (or willing to angle) then Jayson is 100% right to question it and it should have been loss of turn. On the other hand, if his opponent hadn't been acting that way then he would have also been 100% right to question it but would also be in a position to be "nice" and give him the benefit of the doubt if he though it was a genuine mistake.. He called the wrong ball? Was it a mistake? We don't know, regardless of how "sure" we are. I see no reason why Jayson should give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Jayson Shaw victim or defeated foe
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
....because the rules of games are there to cover this kind of eventuality - that's why it's call shot. If his opponent is being a jerk and there is even a hint that he might be angling (or willing to angle) then Jayson is 100% right to question it and it should have been loss of turn. On the other hand, if his opponent hadn't been acting that way then he would have also been 100% right to question it but would also be in a position to be "nice" and give him the benefit of the doubt if he though it was a genuine mistake.. He called the wrong ball? Was it a mistake? We don't know, regardless of how "sure" we are. I see no reason why Jayson should give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Ive watched the video posted on FB like 8 times in a row now - and wow, its really hard to say 100% that he called the 2 instead of the ten with his accent
plus someone is talking right when he calls it
Not trying to be a contrarian, but man, you could honestly say he might have called ten ny listening to it. but it does sound a lot like 2 but its not 100% clear.
this is what refs are for but apparently not in this tourney lol
when it fell to leyman he had to go to whatever video/audio he had recorded - with that in mind he still made the right call
Second time I'm posting this. Here's the actual rule:
*********************
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.
In call shot games, the shooter may choose to call “safety” instead of a ball and pocket, and then play passes to the opponent at the end of the shot. Whether balls are being spotted after safeties depends on the rules of the particular game.
**********************
Unfortunately, rules like this assume reasonable people playing pool, not a bunch of lawyers trying to game the system. The intended shot was obvious, especially considering that there was absolutely no shot on the 2 at all, so the ref should have no problem confidently saying the intended shot was made.
For this talk about sportsmanship, in this case it's Shaw that showed bad sportsmanship, and the ref was asleep at the switch for not understanding his duty.
My understanding is that this applies to situations where the player doesn't actually call the shot - what we call "obvious shots". When the player actually calls a ball and pockets a different one instead then it's loss of turn.
It's the difference between:
Player A: 4 ball in that corner
player pots 8 ball in the corner
Player A: I meant 8 ball in the corner
Referee(or Player B who could be anything from Player A's practice partner to his or her World Championship Opponent): oh ok
and
Player A: 4 ball in that corner
player pots 8 ball in the corner
Player B (or referee): You called the 4
Player A: Oh no I did (in a World Championship) - or - oh sh"t what a f"""""" """""""" my bad it's your turn, no really it is - as player B says go ahead carry on (in practice)
Gentleman's game innit!
Last edited:
As hard as it is, even in my league 14.1 matches, if Im unsure as to what the player at the table calls (of course obvious shots I dont do this), I verify with them before they hit as per this line in the rule:
If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.
I think that should have happened before the shot had been played from Jayson had he not been 100% clear on Earl's call (since it wouldn't have made sense since he was obs going for the 10 due to his assessment of the table layout), but thats just me.
If the referee or opponent is unsure of the shot to be played, he may ask for a call.
I think that should have happened before the shot had been played from Jayson had he not been 100% clear on Earl's call (since it wouldn't have made sense since he was obs going for the 10 due to his assessment of the table layout), but thats just me.
Not necessary though as Jayson knew what shot Earl had called - he had called the 2
I watched the match and the FB vids. Two undeniable facts arose:
1. Earl looked at the 10 and intended to play the 10; and made it after all.
2. Earl had called the 2 ball, instead of the 10, very shortly before making the 10.
Now my question is, (and apparently noone had cared about that so far): If Jason and any Ref for that matter were expecting Earl to shoot the 2, why on god's earth had Jason not stopped Earl in order to clarify IN WHICH POCKET the 2 is intended to go??? Call shot does not only mean naming the ball BUT naming the pocket too... In case of the 2, there was definitely no "obvious" pocket available. I would even go as far and say the 2 was the most "unobvious" shot on the table! WHY didn't Jason or the Ref ask Earl in which pocket the 2 should go?
imho, that only leaves the assumption that Jason planned to enforce the technicality and let Earl run into the knife. Apparently he had already done that during the match... Unfortunately, I tuned in late...
Setting all the alleged sharking from Earl and his behaviour in the past aside, in this single instant - in my opinion - the call has to be in favor of Earl! period.
PS: why do people always say it was a foul? It is not a foul! no point would be deducted. It is just loss of the inning...
1. Earl looked at the 10 and intended to play the 10; and made it after all.
2. Earl had called the 2 ball, instead of the 10, very shortly before making the 10.
Now my question is, (and apparently noone had cared about that so far): If Jason and any Ref for that matter were expecting Earl to shoot the 2, why on god's earth had Jason not stopped Earl in order to clarify IN WHICH POCKET the 2 is intended to go??? Call shot does not only mean naming the ball BUT naming the pocket too... In case of the 2, there was definitely no "obvious" pocket available. I would even go as far and say the 2 was the most "unobvious" shot on the table! WHY didn't Jason or the Ref ask Earl in which pocket the 2 should go?
imho, that only leaves the assumption that Jason planned to enforce the technicality and let Earl run into the knife. Apparently he had already done that during the match... Unfortunately, I tuned in late...
Setting all the alleged sharking from Earl and his behaviour in the past aside, in this single instant - in my opinion - the call has to be in favor of Earl! period.
PS: why do people always say it was a foul? It is not a foul! no point would be deducted. It is just loss of the inning...
Last edited:
Indeed, except that in this case the referee is obviously not 100% clear on what happened from start, otherwise he would step in and clarify the whole matter before it goes beyond him.
He was sitting quite "far" for this kind of situation (even if the sitting player forgot to call him paying extra attention he could take initiative by himself and have a closer look), and was just able to confirm common estimation of ball intended to be pocketed.
But calling another ball and and shooting at the direction of that ball (the 2), is a mistake no matter if the intended ball was pocketed (the 10), simply because in order to verify in this game if there was a shot on the 2 or not needs close inspection, which never happened in this case.
In the old days (at least from the few videos available) pros of the that era never seemed to confuse calling shots, they were used to call correctly even the obvious ones. If today's pros wish to carry on Straight Pool legacy they are expected to follow those steps.
But the two ball clearly wasnt even close to being in play - they way I look at the screen grabs of the table layout - thats all I mean.
So if I was sitting and heard that call, I'd be asking for a clarification. Again that's just me though.
Nonsense, the call can't be in favor of Earl because Jayson "should have said something while Earl was going down on his shot" (a whole other can of worms). The onus of calling the shot is on the player who calls it.
I was going to say the same thing earlier. If Earl told me he was going to shoot the 2 ball, I would have asked him what pocket. The 10 was the obvious shot he was shooting and Shaw knew it.
Well it's hard to say what I would have done. I generally do the done thing and point out potential mistakes but there are times when I haven't know until it's too late - but sitting where Jayson was, Earl pointed, called and played. Regardless of what people think is the "right" decision we have to respect the rules - they clearly state that it is loss of turn. No referee called the shot/asked for clarification. Neither did Jayson Shaw and he is not a referee watching the table like a referee does.
Agreed, there is a clear difference between satisfying referee's view on an obvious non called shot and calling another ball, especially when playing towards it and previous careful inspection by the referee hasn't taken place.
Even the 10 ball was not a simple obvious shot, otherwise the shooter wouldn't take so much time deciding to play it. After stroking the ball it was obvious what he was playing, but not 100% before stroking...
The call went in favor of Earl cause the ref was sleeping and it had to go to the TD for a decision. And the TD wasn't present so decided to review the tape/audio.
What ppl in the crowd said they heard, in the TD's assessment of the situation, was hearsay and had really no bearing on the call, considering he needed to either get an assessment from the ref or if the ref couldnt provide that (DUH...why have him there in the first place).
So given the fact that the TD couldnt hear Earl's call, the call went to the shooter.
They played like we do today. The refs, who were usually decent players and knew what was going on, would call out the shot for the benefit of the crowd. Some of them were quite annoying!
So, if Earl had did a "RAM SHOT" and sent the entire rack scattering around the table and the 2-ball fell in somewhere, Shaw would have given him the shot?
There was no obvious shot on the 2-ball. If Shaw thought he was shooting the 2-ball, he should have asked what pocket. Earl looked at the 10-ball numerous times and the pocket he made the ball in. He lined up and shot it in that pocket.
Yes - I agree its the only situation the TD could make. He did take his time though - presumably to find evidence of Earl calling the 2 as he suspected that this was the case. No evidence there though so the decision (that took a long time to made) went in favor of Earl.
What gets me though is people who argue that the decision should go with the player who calls the wrong ball.
No
Yes he would have given him the shot. 100%. He would have no other choice.
It was all obvious the 2b had no pocket & earl shooting 10b as he looked at several times. It was shaw who played the shark card with out a doubt! How ever i agree there should of a ref at all matches especially in a world tournament! No reason shaw be mad. He applied the shawshark redemption! People are not stupid it was clear what was going on!!! 