Jayson Shaw victim or defeated foe
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
That is interesting about what Darren said. Thanks for sharing.
As well, Earl pointed to the pocket where he was intending to pocket the ball with his cue stick right before he shot it.
Heck, when you age, you call people the wrong name all the time. I call Keith "Mickey" and call "Mickey" "Keith." I call my brother "Keith" and I call Keith "Ray," the name of my brother. It happens.
Earl suffered an old-man moment and said "2," when he meant "10," but he did point to the pocket where the 10 was going because that's the ball he meant to shoot and pocket. And that is why, I think, the referee ruled in Earl's favor.
At the end, after the ruling, Jayson did get out of line, but I understand why. He was upset. Jayson slammed the balls around that Earl was shooting to try to finish the match and started yelling at Earl. Earl didn't yell back and was restrained. This was shocking to me that Earl was able to contain himself.
I liked seeing Jayson show emotion, FWIW. I like players who show emotion. I do feel bad for Jayson, though, because the ruling went against him in a very close match. Sad situation all the way around.
The finals will be in Mika's favor. The railbirds will be heckling Earl from the moment he walks into the joint. Earl will be so wound up tight that it will be difficult for him to shoot his game, I think. Money goes on Mika for the win! Sorry, Earl. I hope I am wrong. :embarrassed2:
1. This "official rule" does not appear (up to now) anywhere on official rules links
2. There is no "obvious" shot taking minutes to be called
3. The playable or unplayable situation of the 2 was by fact not fully inspected by the referee, since he was sitting too far, the shot was towards the direction of the 2 as well, and he didn't hear (due to sitting too far) what a spectator was able to record from the other side of the room
4. Not talking about choosing sides here or specific players involved, "Gentleman's rule" includes not only allowing your opponent to continue but accepting your own mistakes and their consequences..
Watch the video again.
Earls calls the 2, and points his cue at the corner pocket.
Now if he had missed the 10, the CB went into the stack, and somehow the 2 ball made it to the corner pocket. He would get credit and be allowed to continue shooting. Because he nominated both ball (the 2) and pocket (the corner).
So why then, does he get credit for the 10, which is not the ball he called?
Good point.......
The TD made the final call. Not the ref.
The difference between this and other sports is that when a defensive back in the NFL gets called for pass interference, when there was no pass interference, he still collects a paycheck.
Jayson was shafted the difference between 3rd and 2nd.
Edit: I saw where you were notified about the TD/Ref difference. Wasn't trying to be a jerk fyi.
Last edited:
It's even more doubtful that I was being at all serious.
Sheesh! This is another example of semantics. If you read the thread I said over and over and over and over and over and over again that I was referring the short guy with the mullet haircut. Call him whatever the heck you want. THAT is who I was referring to.
Why assume he would have continued shooting? He may have taken his seat knowing his clearly obvious shot was missed.
No he wouldn't, if the referee was satisfied that the shot was not the ball and pocket intended.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Also, Shaw quit. If he had kept his head he may have ended up winning. Earl called the wrong number so he could have made any kind of other mistake.
Shaw knew Earl was shooting the 10. He watched him shoot it waiting for the technicality. So I have no sympathy for him.
I may have quit too after such a fiasco. But to those who say he does this for a living and was shafted, you should admit he should have kept his cool and made earl play it out.
Shaw knew Earl was shooting the 10. He watched him shoot it waiting for the technicality. So I have no sympathy for him.
I may have quit too after such a fiasco. But to those who say he does this for a living and was shafted, you should admit he should have kept his cool and made earl play it out.
Actually, I've seen referees 'correct' a player who misspoke about which ball he was shooting before he shot, and allow the player to continue shooting after he pocketed the ball (despite, technically, saying the wrong ball) because it was obvious which ball he intended to pocket.
Taking the time to figure out which ball to shoot is not the same thing as it not being obvious which ball you're shooting. Once Earl decided to shoot the 10 it was perfectly obvious which ball he was shooting.
That doesn't explain the mistaken call...
Because the commentators were talking on the stream (the "official" video) while Earl was at the table.
JS calling the two ball thing on Earl is a pure, bush, APA, bar league move. Total rubbish at that level of play.
Players change their minds, particularly when in a tough position with few options. So if Earl calls the two but turns around and gets down on the ten, you'd have to be a total nit to try what Shaw did.
Having played in a few 14.1 tournaments, about the only time you call a shot is if there could be some doubt which ball you're shooting at because of a combo, carom, or bank. No living human -- who has ever picked up a cue -- could be uncertain what ball Earl was shooting at.
Lou Figueroa
Players change their minds, particularly when in a tough position with few options. So if Earl calls the two but turns around and gets down on the ten, you'd have to be a total nit to try what Shaw did.
Having played in a few 14.1 tournaments, about the only time you call a shot is if there could be some doubt which ball you're shooting at because of a combo, carom, or bank. No living human -- who has ever picked up a cue -- could be uncertain what ball Earl was shooting at.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
You can't know that to be true. Frankly, I think it would have been much more obvious in the situation you describe above that the intended ball was not pocketed and therefore that the shooter should lose his turn.
In these cases one needs to listen carefully, and to exclude the video as evidence of calling or not calling a shot if it's not clear.
Then it goes back to the shooter for his opinion (since the referee didn't hear...) and the TD has the right to take audience opinion as well (which would possibly bring into his hands the spectator's clear record of 2 ball called)
Things are not simple in this case, and there is more to it. They organizers on fb refer to a non WPA rule (....) which they applied to the tournament, I asked and it would be very interesting to see their reply about announcing this different non WPA rule at the players meeting, if they did everything is fine, if they didn't...
Also, don't forget that the TD did not refer to this rule while announcing his decision but to lack of evidence about the shooter calling another ball...
There is clearly an issue here...
I wasn't explaining the mistaken call, I was explaining why his taking a long time to figure out which ball to shoot isn't the same thing as it not being clear which ball he was shooting.