exactly, but now that the video has surfaced?
What should happen?
Should he be punished for lying?
KD
Should Earl be ejected given the "evidence"
- Thread starter Kid Dynomite
- Start date
exactly, but now that the video has surfaced?
What should happen?
Should he be punished for lying?
KD
It's done and over with, nothing to be done. The ref made his ruling and people have to live with it. Earl vs Mika in the finals. Who does everyone like?
Yes Kid, the sport has to be cleaned up because of rule technicalities ??? The NFL makes billions, but u can violate rules all day long, and its not a violation unless u get caught, thus if ref dis not see a hold away from the play, no penalty, so pool is way ahead of many other sports. Sometimes plain old common sense has got to come into play for pool, and this was one of them.
I DON'T LIKE THE RULE!
But, let the situation have been reversed and Earl would be the first to jump up and call a foul.
Charlie Williams approved the rule and once it is put in place and announced then it has to stay in place for the entire event. To have a foul called early in the match and the rule not enforced near the end is a rule conflict. that is unacceptable in "any" sport.
You used the NFL and other sports as examples and they "Never" start with one set of rules and change them in the middle of a match or even in the middle of a season!
For dragon promotions to say the earlier call and ruling for calling the wrong ball is was a mistake is unprecedented
Kd
I don't like how any of this went down, but there should not be a penalty on anyone but the attending ref who got caught napping.
When he asked the attending ref what ball Earl had called, the ref told him "I don't know." The thing is, though, that he was inside the arena, so this just doesn't make any sense. By all rights, John should have scolded this referee for not paying attention to the match.
There wasn't a person in the room that didn't realize that Earl made the ball he attempted, although he had considered (and now it seems, called) other options.
To his credit, John fully understood that intent didn't matter here, for he'd have otherwise had no reason to listen to the audio at all. Without proof, John was not in a position to penalize Earl in any way and had no choice but to allow him to continue shooting.
It's a sad occasion that has compromised the integrity of our sport, which really doesn't help any.
Whoever you were cheering for, surely you're not cheering for the ref that wasn't paying enough attention to the match to make the call that would have made all the subsequent nonsense unnecessary.
When he asked the attending ref what ball Earl had called, the ref told him "I don't know." The thing is, though, that he was inside the arena, so this just doesn't make any sense. By all rights, John should have scolded this referee for not paying attention to the match.
There wasn't a person in the room that didn't realize that Earl made the ball he attempted, although he had considered (and now it seems, called) other options.
To his credit, John fully understood that intent didn't matter here, for he'd have otherwise had no reason to listen to the audio at all. Without proof, John was not in a position to penalize Earl in any way and had no choice but to allow him to continue shooting.
It's a sad occasion that has compromised the integrity of our sport, which really doesn't help any.
Whoever you were cheering for, surely you're not cheering for the ref that wasn't paying enough attention to the match to make the call that would have made all the subsequent nonsense unnecessary.
Really, other sports dont do that. Watch joe west umpire a MLB game, his strike zone is different in the first inning that is is in the 9th. Same with football on pass interference plays. So lets not pretend this is some new, and pool is setting precendent in some way, because its not, been going on for ages. And again, if the ref was actually doing his job none of this happens, so dont blame Earl.
Two points: Earl never considered the 2. It was buried in the pack and un-makeable. It was just a verbal slip on Earl's part, calling the (blue) 2-ball rather than the obvious (also blue) 10-ball.
Second, I don't think this was a great sin by the ref, nor some great blight on the integrity of pool. The ref should have caught it, but it was obvious which ball Earl was shooting, he pointed at the correct pocket, and he made the ball he shot at. It's just a tricky decision about whether to go with the letter of the rule or the intent of the rule.
Wow,
No comments or responses to the above questions regarding this situation.
Kd
This was an unfinished semifinal in a match that was sold via internet to the public. Sorry, but that's completely unacceptable, and yes, it compromises pool's integrity.
I thought it was addressed. Earl might not know what ball he called, he clearly meant to call the ten, and whatever he said didnt register, and he thought he called the 10, so he did not lie, and thus this is not the point of the matter.
Ive called the wrong ball using the cyclops balls several times, im sure im not the only one
The worst thing i saw was the behavior of Shaw, as well as him conceding the match, and then basically approaching earl in an aggressive and threatening manner
Last edited:
The letter of the rule is a slam dunk in favor of Earl. In the second video, the TD says that the ref was clear in his head Earl was shooting for the 10. The rule was satisfied. Frankly, Shaw comes off looking very bad in all of this. Throwing a fit because you couldn't game the rules a 2nd time to steal the match is bad sportsmanship.
In 14.1 a player calling the "wrong" ball but deliberately shooting at a different ball is fairly common.
And it is common practice to allow the shooter to continue if he made the ball he was actually shooting at,
even if he called the wrong ball, and the shot was an obvious shot.
So, even if Earl did call the two ball but he was actually and clearly shooting at the ten ball he should continue the inning?
The actual question is this... in world championship play, should a players inning end if he calls one ball but is clearly shooting at another?
Is this type of mistake an inning ending one? Is it or would it be considered a "foul"?
And it is common practice to allow the shooter to continue if he made the ball he was actually shooting at,
even if he called the wrong ball, and the shot was an obvious shot.
So, even if Earl did call the two ball but he was actually and clearly shooting at the ten ball he should continue the inning?
The actual question is this... in world championship play, should a players inning end if he calls one ball but is clearly shooting at another?
Is this type of mistake an inning ending one? Is it or would it be considered a "foul"?
Oh come on, he called the wrong ball. There's definitely a conflict between a strict, technical reading of the rules and an (IMO more fair) attempt to make sure a verbal slip doesn't determine the outcome of the match.
According to Dragon Promotions this is an "inning-ending mistake"
for me it is up to the promoter and no one else. Either it is a rule or it is not? there is no in between. So, in my opinion which means nothing, Earl would be packing it in.
What I find more disturbing is the "Lying" to the referee. So what the referee missed the call? When confronted by the referee about what happened it was "untruthful" and that to me is enough for disciplining the player. But, the majority think otherwise. Patriotism over ethics is pretty sad!
KD
I do not think earl should have lied. I still haven't seen video where I hear him call the 2 but buddy of mine said he did call 2 he was at the event. But what is,worst sportsmanship. Earl lying about a accidental call that clearly everybody knew he wasn't shooting at. Or Jayson breaking down his stick before match is over and throwing balls off the table. To me I think Jayson showed more unsportsmanlike conduct than earl.
Also in all sports players lie to refs without being penalized. How many QB'S and WR etc. In football say they were being held right to refs face when they weren't. I seen a mlb game this year where ball supposedly got stuck under wall and outfielder said it was stuck but umpire comes out and it wasn't. They don't get ejected nor do they incur a penalty for that.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
I just don't see the conflict, though. It's not like this is a rare occurrence. It happens at all levels. I probably happens at least every other match I play. Someone say "14 in the corner". OK, I know he's playing a combo and he's not shooting at the 14, but seeing what he's doing and knowing he's aiming for the corner is enough that I know what he's trying to do. There's no reason to even say anything, never mind trying to gain an advantage from it. The intent and letter of the rule makes it clear that it's only necessary to understand the intent, not examine every detail like lawyers looking for a gotcha.
Occasionally someone calls something that I really just don't see happening, or that I don't understand, and I ask for clarification. "Did you say 3 in my corner?" And then they'll say, "Oh! I meant 5", and then I understand what they're doing and life it good.
It's really hard to imagine why even the first call on the combo went Jayson's way. Very cheap shot and petty, not in keeping with the spirit of the rule, and probably not even a strict reading of the rule.
but, but, but this is billiards, the most gracious and honest endeavor known to mankind... you can't compare that to sports with players making $30M a year, mega sponsors and 50K fans that show up every night, not to mention TV contracts out the wazzo
Haha that makes it worst if u ask me they lie for half the money others get hahabut, but, but this is billiards, the most gracious and honest endeavor known to mankind... you can't compare that to sports with players making $30M a year, mega sponsors and 50K fans that show up every night, not to mention TV contracts out the wazzo
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk